House of Commons
Thursday 6 November 2008
The House met at half-past Ten o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Private Business
London Local Authorities (Shopping Bags) Bill (By Order)
Leeds City Council Bill (By Order)
Nottingham City Council Bill (By Order)
Reading Borough Council Bill (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 13 November.
Oral Answers to Questions
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The Secretary of State was asked—
Air Quality (Greater London)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to welcome to the DEFRA ministerial team my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in the other place?
Responsibility for meeting air quality limits in Greater London rests with the Government, but the Mayor is responsible for taking steps to meet DEFRA air quality objectives in London. Among the steps we have taken are cleaner vehicle standards for cars, lorries and buses and tighter standards for industrial emissions.
I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. I welcome the improvements that there have been in air quality in Greater London. However, does he share the concerns of my constituents that increased flights from Heathrow and City airports could harm the environment and air quality?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the significant improvements that there have been in air quality in London. The incidence of nitrogen dioxide has reduced from an annual average of 74 micrograms per cubic metre in 1987 to 39 micrograms per cubic metre in 2007. That shows the progress that we have made.
The Government have completed a consultation on Heathrow. We are considering the responses, but we have been very clear throughout about the environmental conditions that would have to be met if permission for development were to be given.
That is exactly the point that I wanted to raise. In December 2006, the Department for Transport White Paper said explicitly that we would put in place
“tough local environmental conditions for our most environmentally sensitive airport, London Heathrow.”
Can the Secretary of State assure me that that commitment will be sustained, whatever happens in the future development of Heathrow?
Indeed it will have to be sustained, because of the requirements of the air quality directive. As the House will be aware, in some parts of the country, including London, we are not meeting the limits relating to PM10—particulates—and nitrogen dioxide. That is why we are likely to have to apply for further time in order to meet them, as the latest directive that has been agreed provides. I should point out that we are not the only member state that is facing this difficulty.
I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that last year Conservative-controlled Croydon was awarded beacon status for its management of air quality controls, with pioneering developments in technology and the introduction of idling vehicle enforcement patrols and air quality text messages to people with respiratory problems. However, I am sure he will realise that that service does not come for nothing. It is labour-intensive, and unless local authorities are given the funding to provide it, it will be difficult to maintain the standards that he and the country expect.
I greatly welcome the steps that Croydon and several other local authorities have taken, particularly for those who suffer from asthma. The text messaging service is in addition to the information that we provide—it is available on a website and there is a telephone number that people can call. It is very important to give people the advice and information that they need. The Government fund local authorities generally for the range of responsibilities that they have. I hope that other local authorities will follow the lead that has been given, because that service really benefits the public.
I, too, welcome the two new Ministers to the DEFRA brief, which they will no doubt find challenging, just as all their predecessors did.
A memorandum from the Department for Transport obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerning the expansion of Heathrow states:
“New modelling suggests that EU limits for Nitrogen Oxide in 2010 will be exceeded around Heathrow, necessitating capacity constraint”.
It goes on to say that the Department for Transport has
“worked with DEFRA to ensure negotiations over”
the
“directive take account of Heathrow’s position”.
How does the Secretary of State square that with what he told the House in May—that his attempt to delay the implementation of new EU rules on nitrogen oxide had nothing to do with decisions about airport capacity?
The simple reason why we are likely to have to apply for derogation under the new directive that gives member states the ability to apply for additional time is the existing problem that we have with PM10 and nitrogen dioxide, which, by definition, is nothing to do with any decision that may yet be taken about the expansion of Heathrow. That is a problem we have now. Therefore, the answer that I gave in May was completely accurate.
But surely expanding Heathrow can only make the situation worse. The Environment Agency has warned that pollution from a third runway at Heathrow could “increase morbidity and mortality”—in other words, it will mean that more people will die earlier. Does the Secretary of State agree with its analysis, and why does he not spend more time protecting the environment and less time conniving with the Department for Transport on a massive increase in pollution around London? Is it because he lacks the will, or because he lacks the influence?
I think that that is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. First, the fact that different Departments talk to each other should not come as a great surprise to him. Secondly, as I said, the Government have made it clear that any decision about the expansion of Heathrow will have to be subject to the environmental conditions set down. That is a requirement of the directive. When we apply, the Commission has to decide whether to give us more time, and those extensions can only be until 2011 for PM10 and until 2015 for nitrogen dioxide. At that point, the UK, along with other member states, will have to meet the requirements.
Environmental Awareness
The Department is supporting a number of campaigns including Act on CO2, Love Food Hate Waste, and Recycle Now, which all aim to raise awareness and understanding of the link between what we do and the challenges of tackling climate change and using resources sustainably.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. He will be aware that just under 50 per cent. of emissions come from individuals. Campaigns are all very well, but does he agree that it is time that energy bills—and the point of source—give details on how to look after the environment, perhaps in the form of an environmental warning like the health warnings on cigarettes?
One thing that the Government have done, working with energy supply companies and following the Prime Minister’s announcement in September about action on insulation and help with bills, is provide more information with bills on ways in which people can save energy. Providing practical advice, places where people can go and assistance is exactly what is required to deal with the environmental challenges that we face.
Yesterday, Westminster was swarming with beekeepers worried about the decline in bee numbers and the huge environmental effects on everyday life. What will the Secretary of State do to address those concerns and to encourage scientific research in that area?
The beekeepers have raised a serious issue, and I have met Tim Lovett, the head of the British Beekeepers Association. We are spending about £200,000 a year on research already, and we have put an additional £120,000 into looking into the problem this year, along with the Welsh Assembly Government. The National Audit Office is looking at our expenditure on bee health research. We are working with the veterinary medicines directorate to get medicines on the market more quickly in order to help beekeepers. We give a lot of advice through the beekeeping inspectorate, and once we have the benefit of the NAO advice, I intend to respond on what else we might be able to do.
Does my right hon. Friend have any advice in the pipeline that would help to encourage parents to walk or to use public transport when taking their children to school? That would have an enormous impact on areas around schools.
That is a really worthwhile thing to do, and a number of local authorities are promoting schemes to encourage parents and children to walk to school. For example, the introduction of 20 mph zones in many residential areas changes the balance between the car and the pedestrian, and we ought to take as many steps as possible—[Interruption.] That was not an intended pun. We ought to take as many steps as possible to encourage more people to walk and to use their cars less.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the National Market Traders Federation on consistently showing commitment to contributing to a greener environment? Its latest initiative has been a campaign called “How green is your market?”, which involves looking for the greenest market in the UK and the greenest trader. Does he agree that markets uphold the values that DEFRA holds dear? They provide cheap local food, they cut down on food miles and they cut down on excess packaging.
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. I think that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), is coming to talk to the all-party group that my hon. Friend chairs. One has only to consider the figures that show the increase in markets to realise that there is growing public interest, and I hope that the trend will continue.
Broadband (Rural Areas)
I have not yet had the opportunity to meet the new Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to discuss rural broadband, though I will do so in addition to meeting other ministerial colleagues, because it is clearly important for rural areas. Department officials will also continue to work closely with DBERR on the matter.
As he represents a Welsh constituency, the Minister will know that the Welsh Assembly is trying to identify what it calls “not-spots”—areas that are not served by broadband. He also knows that farmers need to be able to get on to the DEFRA website, especially for epidemiological information about bluetongue, foot and mouth and other diseases. The availability of broadband is very important for the rural community. What steps will be taken in England to replicate what is happening in Wales to ensure that the large tranches of the United Kingdom that are not served by broadband will be?
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He and I served together in debates on the Communications Bill some time ago, when those issues were raised with the original roll-out of broadband. I assure him that not-spots, which are a problem in Wales and England, are being tackled, not least by the Department for Communities and Local Government and DEFRA research. What I tend to call the “ciao” review, but is the Caio review, is examining how we extend the service. The service is market driven, but the review considers ways to remedy market failures, and thus what the Government can do. We are also considering what regional development agencies and local authorities can do. The problem needs to be addressed and I am committed to doing that.
One of the difficulties is that many consumers in rural areas rely on BT’s word about whether they have appropriate broadband access. Regrettably, that advice is often neither objective nor accurate. Is there some basis on which we can get an independent picture of access? In large parts of Derbyshire, access rates are either extraordinarily slow or even non-existent.
That is another important point, which shows the concern in all parties to ensure that we have such access. One reassuring point is that, in the parts of the UK where take-up of broadband has been large, rural areas have outstripped other areas in the past 10 months: take-up there has increased to 59 per cent., compared with 57 per cent. as a whole. However, my hon. Friend makes a valid point—we need to keep an eye on the research and the statistics for the way in which broadband is rolling out, and ensure that we fill the gaps as time goes by. It is vital to his constituents and others.
Will the Under-Secretary abandon the term “not-spots”? It is bandied about by, for example, BT as if it were an explanation or even an excuse for not providing a proper service to places such as Rhiwlas in my constituency, where people want to use broadband for domestic purposes but also for rural businesses and professions.
I am happy to abandon phrases such as “not-spots” if the hon. Gentleman wants me to, but the way we tackle the possibly 1 per cent. of areas that cannot get access under current technology is crucial. We look to technological innovations, such as the Avanti satellite, as well as other methods, to ensure that we deliver. As has been said, that is important for farmers and for rural businesses. We need to ensure some parity of access throughout the UK—Wales and England.
On a more upbeat note, will my hon. Friend congratulate BT and Advantage West Midlands on achieving the complete broadband enablement of the west midlands region? What is the Government’s role in helping people to take up commercial opportunities to use broadband? Is there a role for DEFRA in marketing?
I join in my hon. Friend’s congratulations on the work that has gone on, which is a success story. It reflects the fact that the UK, with 99 per cent. uptake of broadband, is leading in this field. Certainly DEFRA has a role in working with others to encourage, promote and advocate take-up. There is also a place for localisation in RDAs, local authorities and others. There has to be a partnership approach. That is not to abrogate responsibility; we simply recognise that some local issues are best tackled with genuine local input.
The Minister will be aware of the European Commission’s policy on such matters, in pushing for a universal service obligation by 2010. When he meets the Business Secretary, will he make the case strongly that we should be pushing for that universal service obligation? A particularly strong case needs to be put to BT and other companies in rolling the service out to rural areas where, as he has highlighted, the frustrations are real.
As I said to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), such issues were addressed way back when we considered the Communications Act 2003. It has always been the Government’s approach that universal provision should be led by where the market can drive it forward—we have seen success in that—and that the Government should then follow through with other partners to ensure that we fill in those areas where the market cannot provide. We will get there—the evidence shows that we are doing so—but as has been pointed out in other questions this morning, we need to fill those gaps. Our approach in the UK proves that we are doing that above and beyond what some European partners are doing.
I welcome the Minister to his new post. What the hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said demonstrated, perhaps inadvertently, the reason why so many people in rural communities feel that they are seen as second class in the eyes of the Government. Never has that been more graphically demonstrated than in the way they have borne the brunt of the closure of 2,500 rural post offices this year. Will the Minister acknowledge that rural sub-postmasters are facing a 15 per cent. cut this year in their core tier payment—their basic salary—and, perhaps even this week, the loss of the Post Office card account? Will he acknowledge that these developments will further undermine the rural—
Order. The hon. Gentleman has the privilege of coming in on a question of his choice, but he must keep his question within the parameters of broadband.
Order. That was far too long. The Minister will attempt to answer the question with the information that he has been given.
I in no way share the analysis that rural areas are second class, and I say that as somebody with a family background of living in rural areas. The hon. Gentleman perhaps misses the point that the Government have invested £1.7 billion in sustaining the post office network. Also, there are good examples of projects that have worked in rural communities, such as Switch on Shropshire, Project Access, Cybermoor and Community Broadband Network. There have been good innovations in ensuring that we get into rural communities and other difficult areas, and we intend to continue driving that forward.
Supermarkets (Pricing)
We do not discuss prices offered by supermarkets, as we believe that they are for the market to determine within the constraints of competition law. I have, however, had a number of discussions with farmers and farmers’ representatives about a range of issues concerning them, including the importance of long-term sustainable relationships between suppliers and retailers.
Does the Minister not agree that the practices currently employed by some supermarkets, including Tesco, which are deliberately delaying payments to suppliers, are having a detrimental effect on UK food prices and availability? Furthermore, does she agree that there should be a full investigation so that we can ensure that we continue to have a sustainable UK-based supply chain?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the supermarkets about three weeks ago, when he invited them to follow the Government’s lead and ensure that they review and improve payments to small suppliers in order to address directly the point that the hon. Gentleman made. I can also confirm from discussions I have been having that exemplary practices are being developed in some areas, such as the dairy food supply chain, whereby organisations such as Tesco and Asda have regular and good communications with their suppliers, and farmers can come to local forums. That is the way forward to sustain the food supply chain right across the piece.
Over recent years, there has been an unaccountable reduction in the share of the retail price at the check-out that goes to farmers and growers. Notwithstanding farmers’ markets, which have been quite successful, would it not be a good idea for the farmers’ organisations to work much more closely with the super-retailers, in the French style? For example, Carrefour, Géante and Leclerc have permanent major retail promotions of local produce from a particular area at their larger superstores. Would that not be a way of giving farmers and growers a higher proportion of the money that we pay for their high quality food at the check-out?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion. Indeed, I should like to offer to accompany him on a fact-finding visit, if he would find that useful, to see what procedures are in place in France and to find out whether we could learn any lessons from them.
One of the main conclusions of the report produced by the Competition Commission on the grocery trade was that, in order to protect consumers and producers, an ombudsman needed to be established for the trade to protect against uncompetitive practices. What progress have the Government made in establishing such an office?
I acknowledge the concerns about the concentration of the buying power of supermarkets. I am awaiting the outcome of the discussions between the Competition Commission and the grocery retailers before seeing whether any further action needs to be taken.
Although my right hon. Friend is right not to want to intervene in regard to every single price in a supermarket, is there not a case for farmers joining together in co-operatives—as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) suggested—to give them a much greater ability to deal with the supermarkets? Also, is there not a case for a bit more joined-up government thinking in relation to healthy, local produce being made available in superstores, in the way in which my hon. Friend suggested, as a way of tackling issues such as obesity? Most supermarkets push high value-added foods, which are high in salt, fats and sugars. There is an opportunity here to make enormous progress, and the suggestion for appointing an ombudsman could be a way forward.
My hon. Friend has made a number of valuable points. I will be looking carefully at the recommendations that the Competition Commission has made, and I shall also want to look in detail at the suggestions that he has made this morning.
I personally welcome the Minister across the Dispatch Box, although I have already met her in her new role in Committee. On Monday, she and I were shown numerous examples of misleading and deceitful labelling, particularly of meat in our supermarkets. One example was Cumberland sausage that had been made with imported meat. On four occasions, however, the Government have blocked Bills to require country of origin labelling. On Tuesday, the Irish Minister said that he wanted an
“unequivocal position requiring country of origin to be indicated on food”.
Will the Minister now join him and the Opposition in demanding compulsory, honest country of origin labelling on all our food, to stop the deceit and to give consumers the real power to choose what they buy?
I am very interested in the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. On his statement about our blocking certain Bills, I understand that we have been constrained on the position that we have been able to take independently, particularly given the detail that was being requested in those particular Bills. However, I hope that the House will be reassured to know that we are working very hard in Europe on a new directive that will give countries much more freedom to introduce the kind of labelling that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, including specifying on packaging not only the country of birth of the animal involved but where it has been reared and possibly even slaughtered. That will give consumers much more information about welfare standards, in particular, as I acknowledge that that is a real bone of contention for British farmers.
Water Metering Charges
Final determinations for water price limits for 2010-2015 will be made by Ofwat in November 2009. I acknowledge that my hon. Friend has raised her concerns on behalf of customers in the South West Water area, and in the Plymouth, Sutton constituency in particular, many times. There is a very tight and difficult time scale involved in Ofwat being able to take the Walker review into account, but I am keeping in mind the need for Ofwat to be able to take some of its recommendations into account.
I thank the Minister for her response and hope that among her early briefings some will have outlined the fact that our region has by far the highest water bills in the country. We also have more than our fair share of people on low incomes, so this is a matter of very considerable concern to Members with constituencies in Devon and Cornwall and across the political parties. Will she agree to meet a group of Members across the parties at an early and appropriate moment to discuss this important issue?
I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and her constituents if she were to bring that opportunity forward. South West Water, the company that supplies water in my hon. Friend’s area, has adopted the findings of a pilot and recent review in that area. The fact that we understood the difficulties that water consumers faced in the south-west was precisely the reason why we chose that area for the pilot scheme. Much more work clearly needs to be done, but the Walker review will be significant in informing us how to take forward our policies on metering and charging, so we await Anna Walker’s findings with interest.
Given that inflation is taken into account when setting price limits, is it right that United Utilities, which provides water in the north-west and to my constituency of Macclesfield, should be seeking to impose rises 2.7 per cent. above inflation for the 2010-2015 period? Is that fair to consumers?
The hon. Gentleman knows that the water companies have submitted outline business plans to the Department. They are being studied in detail not just by Ofwat but by the Consumer Council for Water, which I met a couple of weeks ago. I know that those organisations are very concerned indeed about price rises, particularly in the current economic environment, so they will scrutinise such proposals very carefully. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some reassurance from that.
My right hon. Friend will be very aware that the Ofwat chief executive has taken the view that, because of the impact on customers, Sutton and East Surrey Water should not increase its prices. That is very reassuring. Year after year, however, the south-west has experienced very high rises, yet the area has extremely low wages and high levels of deprivation—unlike, I suspect, in Sutton and east Surrey, although I stand to be corrected. The areas are different. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the chief executive to encourage Ofwat, as it looks into the price rises, to take into consideration demography and the impact of increases on people with low wage levels?
I hope to meet the chief executive of Ofwat very soon. Ofwat has a role to play in determining companies’ price regimes. Those companies have to take into account the responsibilities we place on them to improve supply and the security of supply and, in many cases, to improve the environmental impact of water services. There is thus a wide range of responsibilities, which Ofwat has to balance with costs to customers. I hear what my hon. Friend says about the impact of high price rises on consumers, which is at the forefront of the Government’s concerns in the current economic circumstances when families’ incomes are being squeezed from every quarter.
I endorse the comments of the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) about what is a key issue in the south-west. I urge the Minister to review the whole structure of paying for major works such as the Clean Sweep programme, which has left 3 per cent. of the population—those living in the south-west—paying for cleaning up 30 per cent. of the nation’s beaches. Will the Minister correct the Conservative party’s error under privatisation and allow the cost of those major works to be borne across the country, not just by people living in the south-west?
The hon. Gentleman raises an issue of which I am well aware. As I have said before, the burdens borne by water customers in the south-west relate, to some degree, to South West Water’s responsibilities for exactly the improvements to which he refers. I shall not commit myself this morning to rewriting completely the arrangements for managing water supplies, but the forthcoming period of scrutiny of all water companies’ prices and business plans will be extremely important. That is why I should be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and her constituents to discuss the issue fully with them.
Recycling
We have recently taken a number of steps to increase the proportion of waste recycled, including an increase in the landfill tax escalator to £8 per tonne and the provision of funds for a range of support for businesses.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer, but will she say, in general terms, what action she is taking to help businesses to improve their recycling rates, apart from the proposed landfill measure?
We are simplifying the regulatory system, as a result of which businesses will be increasingly able to recycle materials that would previously have been sent to landfill. We estimate that that will encourage the recovery and reuse of 17 million tonnes of materials, potentially adding approximately £700 million to the economy.
I know that my hon. Friend asked about business waste, but I can tell him that recycling and composting of household waste has nearly quadrupled since 1996. We are making extremely good progress.
The Minister will be aware that successful recycling depends on good markets for recyclable materials. She will also be aware that there has been a catastrophic fall in the prices of plastic bottles, paper and cans. What steps will the Government take to avoid the accumulation of mountains of those important materials in the coming weeks and months, and to ensure that they are properly stored and looked after until the markets recover?
That is indeed a growing problem, and we shall want to take stock of the situation. We have established a waste strategy that sets out the direction of travel for the Government and the local authorities with which responsibility for general waste policy lies, but I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue.
Flooding (Pitt Report)
We have already taken a number of steps in response to Sir Michael Pitt’s findings, which I reported to the House on 25 June. We will publish a detailed response shortly, together with a prioritised action plan.
My constituents continue to fear the implications of the Pitt report for the Severn plain in the context of deliberate flooding and the management of standing water. Villages such as Llandrinio, Crew Green, Meifod and Ardleen, along with many others, want to work in partnership on alternatives such as upstream flood mitigation and contained flood pools. Will the Secretary of State ask the authorities to ensure that residents and officials adopt a partnership approach, so that we can find solutions that work for everyone?
I can tell the hon. Gentleman—who I know has taken a close interest in this matter on behalf of his constituents—that the Environment Agency will develop the Severn catchment flood management plan in consultation with local communities, partner organisations and landowners. I know that there was some concern about the original wording of P6, but it has now been revised to make it clear that it is about taking action with others to store water or manage run-off in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits, locally or elsewhere in the catchment area. I hope that that provides some reassurance.
I do not think it does provide reassurance. What concerns people is that embankments and other flood defences that have existed for a number of years will be allowed to crumble as a result of the programmes—currently up for consultation—relating to catchment flood management plans. Will the Secretary of State assure us that rural areas will not be allowed to be lost to vast tracts of water, resulting in the loss of productive farm land at a time of increasing concern about food security and the Government’s failure to spend as much in rural areas as they are spending in urban areas?
The hon. Lady will know that 95 per cent. of defences are in fair condition or better, which is very important. The Government are putting in considerable additional funding—an extra £200 million over the next few years—to enable the Environment Agency to look at the priorities and provide more protection for more communities in all parts of the country.
Topical Questions
The Department’s responsibility is to enable us all to live within our environmental means. I wish to inform the House that I have appointed Dame Suzi Leather as chair of the new council of food policy advisers. I am greatly looking forward to working with her to tackle the important food security challenges we face, and we will announce other members of the council shortly.
The Environment Agency now has its own geomatics division, acting commercially by undertaking work it would otherwise have outsourced and competing against commercial players in the market. Is the Secretary of State happy that a Government agency is competing against companies in the private sector, or is this not another example of a Government agency sticking the boot into small and medium-sized businesses when they are suffering from a recession?
I do not share that characterisation of the EA’s work. As the previous question highlighted, it does a very good and important job in providing service to the public, including in improving flood defence.
The Government have to be able to answer two questions in relation to GM crops: first, is the product safe to eat? The evidence is clearly that it is. The second is, what is the impact on biodiversity? In order to get the information my hon. Friend refers to, we have to have carefully conducted trials, and it is a matter for regret when trials that are approved are trashed within about a month and a bit—a recent example was a trial to demonstrate potatoes’ resistance to nematode—because how can we answer such questions if we do not have the information? However, it is for those developing GM crops to demonstrate whether they bring the benefits that some have claimed. The Government then need to answer the two questions and, ultimately, it will be for consumers to decide whether they want to buy, supermarkets whether they want to stock and farmers whether they want to grow.
As I said in answer to an earlier question, we will respond in full to Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations in the not too distant future, and we will address that question along with others. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I continue to talk very regularly with all my ministerial colleagues who have a shared responsibility for dealing with this serious problem.
Following on from the response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), will my right hon. Friend look again at recycling? It is clear that the different recycling schemes that we have throughout this country are not working properly, because different local authorities are recycling different products. The problem is that the quality of the materials that are then presented to industry for recycling is simply not good enough—and in some cases is non-existent. My local authority, for example, has a kerbside collection of cardboard and paper, which it then composts and wastes, but in another part of the country that same cardboard and paper is worth £60 per tonne to the corrugated cardboard packaging manufacturers. Therefore, can we have some joined-up thinking on the different schemes that we have for recycling?
I shall look at the example that my hon. Friend gives with some interest, but figures out today from the Office for National Statistics demonstrate that householders in England are now re-using, recycling or composting almost 35 per cent. of their household waste, which is tremendous progress. I acknowledge that there are difficulties in some areas and that because the system is local authority-led there are differences in the way in which recycling is carried out locally. That is right and proper and as it should be, but it is obviously of interest to local authorities such as my hon. Friend’s that they get the maximum and best value they can from the waste they collect, particularly when householders have gone to the trouble of separating the waste to be recycled.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are fully committed to this, and preparation of the marine Bill, on which there has been extensive and lengthy consultation, is well in hand. As he knows, it is well supported, as was shown by the lobbying that took place this week. We remain committed to introducing it at the earliest possible opportunity, and when we do so we hope that there will be genuine cross-party support for all aspects of it.
I have been making very strong representations to Commissioner Vassiliou and to my fellow Agriculture and Environment Ministers, because the problem with the proposal is that we do not know what impact it will have. In particular, will we be able to continue to use triazoles, which safeguard against septoria, a disease that affects wheat? The pesticides safety directorate has performed a full impact assessment, which appears not to have been done elsewhere, which is why we have that information and knowledge. There is growing realisation that there is a bit of a problem with this proposal, which has not been fully thought through. The House can rest assured that I will continue to argue the case with the evidence that we have.
Given the high regard in which the Secretary of State is held throughout the House, will he assure us that, at the appropriate moment, he will give his Department’s assessment to Cabinet of whether the third runway at Heathrow will breach quality and pollution standards, so that Cabinet does not have to rely on the assessments of Departments with less environmental expertise?
As I have already said, it is DEFRA’s responsibility, and mine, to ensure that the air quality requirements—our obligations under the directive—are met. The Government made it very clear when the original consultation proposals were published that any decision to proceed would have to be subject to ensuring that the limits were met.
The hon. Gentleman rightly refers to the vote in the European Parliament committee that has been scrutinising this legislation. I have been concerned, publicly, that the proposals that the European Parliament was trying to make in amending the directive would take us even further in the wrong direction. That is the problem, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to lobby all those who are part of the decision-making process—the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers—to try to get the best possible outcome. However, as he will be only too well aware, we require other member states to support us in that process.
What the hon. Gentleman describes is not what I understood the position to be. I will check the information, and, if what he says is true, I will examine the situation. I have acknowledged that the Government have more to do to give a lead; as a consumer and a significant purchaser, we must ensure that Departments and the public sector use their powers to discriminate in favour of food that is raised to the same high standards of welfare and hygiene used by British farmers.
Solicitor-General
The Solicitor-General was asked—
Sentencing
In 2007, the most recent year for which full statistics are available, the Attorney-General and I brought 106 offenders to the Court of Appeal for a review of their sentences. Permission to refer the sentence was given in 96 cases, the sentence was found to be unduly lenient in 86 cases and was increased in 75 cases.
A constituent of mine, 17-year-old Simon Englefield, was viciously attacked and, as a result, spent several nights in hospital and had three plates put in his jaw. The attacker was given a 36-month supervision order and was ordered to pay £100 compensation, to be taken from his benefits at £5 a week. The family wanted to appeal against that unduly lenient sentence, but they could not do so because he was sentenced in a youth court. Will the Solicitor-General consider extending the rules to the youth courts?
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and we should reflect on it. That sentence sounds not to have been appropriate for what transpired, although it is, of course, difficult to comment on individual cases without knowing the ins and outs of what was before the judge at the time and why he exercised the discretion that he did. I shall carefully reflect on what the hon. Gentleman said.
At last night’s Livia awards, we heard moving stories about the responses of police officers, members of the public and victims in cases of driving offences that had caused death. Given that we have recently created some new offences relating to drivers who cause death, will the Attorney-General’s office be particularly alert over the coming months to cases where it thinks that low sentences have been imposed on drivers who have caused death?
I regret not having been able to attend the awards last night, but I understand that, as ever on such occasions, some touching accounts were given. We refer quite a few cases of causing death by dangerous driving; indeed, I recall having done one within the past week. We can send such cases to have the sentence reviewed; we cannot do so for cases of causing death by careless driving, so a distinction has to be made. Although this depends on cases being drawn to our attention, I assure my hon. Friend that when that happens we have proper regard to the guidelines and we refer whenever it is appropriate to do so.
Human Trafficking
The prosecutions produced by Operation Pentameter are still at different stages in the criminal justice system. An overall assessment is being undertaken by the UK Human Trafficking Centre and the Association of Chief Police Officers, and that will address the impact on the number of prosecutions that have come from Operation Pentameter 2.
My hon. Friend may have seen that earlier this week, on 3 November, six traffickers were successfully prosecuted for their treatment of a young Slovakian woman who was raped and made to work in brothels all over the east midlands. Of the six convicted, one was given a 14-year sentence, three received 11-year sentences, one got a three-year sentence and the other a two-and-a-half year sentence. The judge referred to their offences as “despicable”, and we agree.
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on those successful prosecutions. We must consider the victims of trafficking, and Citylight is an organisation that has been set up in Hove and Portslade, in my constituency, to offer welfare support to female victims. It has been set up in conjunction with Sussex police as part of Operation Pentameter 2. Will she tell me what plans she has to support such organisations in their fight against sex trafficking?
I am pleased to hear about Citylight and its close work with Sussex police and the prosecuting authorities on Pentameter 2. We engage with such organisations in two ways: first, by providing welfare support and accommodation for victims. We decided recently that the reflection period to which victims are entitled, which is required to be only 30 days, will be 45 days. The POPPY project is the main source of that welfare support, but it has now contracted out some of that work to other third sector organisations. Secondly, a stakeholder group of third sector and voluntary groups has direct input into the inter-ministerial group on human trafficking, which means that organisations such as Citylight can have a say on policy development and our trafficking strategy.
Five hundred and twenty-eight criminals were arrested under Pentameter 2. Why were there so few prosecutions?
I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman thinks that there have been so few prosecutions. Many prosecutions are ongoing, so it is too soon to reckon the final figure for Pentameter 2, but up to September 2008 we had prosecuted 125 people for sexual exploitation trafficking and five for non-sexual exploitation trafficking-related offences. Of course, we prosecute people for inciting prostitution for gain, money laundering, rape, kidnapping and false imprisonment, as well as for specific trafficking offences. As he knows—he takes a great interest in this matter—those prosecutions and convictions do not show on the trafficking statistics.
Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that only this week the Fawcett Society hosted a meeting in this House at which it was alleged that 40,000 enslaved and trafficked women are currently residing in the United Kingdom? I was astonished by that figure. Does she have a way of checking its accuracy? Will she talk to the Fawcett Society about the evidence given at that meeting?
I cannot comment on that specific point. Figures have been bandied about by various campaigns—by “bandied”, I do not mean that they are calculated irresponsibly, but that some uncertain ways of counting are used. I was at that meeting and I talk to the Fawcett Society all the time.
The scale of the problem of human trafficking is alarming: in the past year alone, some 4,000 women have been the miserable victims of trafficking in the UK. Do we not need to go further than one-off police investigations and operations by adopting an integrated approach, including ratifying the European convention on human trafficking and introducing a proper unified border police force?
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these are not one-off policing events but opportunities to galvanise what we have learned. Pentameter 2 is significantly better than Pentameter 1, but the process is ongoing. We are improving not only our intelligence on trafficking, but our mechanisms for, among other things, the early identification and treatment of victims. Through Pentameter and other such programmes, we are making those improvements. Again, as he knows, we will ratify the convention in December and implement it three months later.
Domestic Violence
In December 2006, the Sentencing Guidelines Council issued definitive guidelines for sentencing offences of domestic violence. It set out the principles that by law every court must have regard to when sentencing such an offence and, perhaps most importantly, it set out the principle that domestic violence must be treated as seriously as other forms of violence.
Under the existing legal and judicial framework, the police and courts often have difficulty dealing swiftly and effectively with domestic offences. Many victims despair of finding remedies or relief from the day-to-day experiences that they continually endure. I urge my hon. and learned Friend to instigate a major review and reform of society’s approach to domestic abuse, which includes psychological, financial and sexual maltreatment, as well as physical violence.
I really do wonder sometimes where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past couple of years—
He must have been nodding off occasionally. Certainly, outside the House he has not had his eye on the ball in the way that some Opposition Members and most of my colleagues on the Back Benches have. We have done the most enormous amount of work on domestic violence. We have set up a system of independent domestic violence advisers, who support and befriend complainants as soon as they make a complaint and who help them right through the process. We have a system of specialist domestic violence courts, and specialist programmes to deal with perpetrators. Between 2005-06 and 2007-08, the number of convictions for domestic violence increased from just over 29,000 to almost 44,000. We are making sterling efforts and they are starting to make an impact. It must be becoming clear, even to the densest of family bullies, that they have no excuse for domestic violence and that the courts will deal with it extremely seriously.
Is there not a problem with domestic violence programmes organised by the probation service? It is under such financial pressure that it is finding it very difficult to deliver them in a timely fashion. The programmes are immensely important for reforming offenders and for victims, many of whom would not come forward if they thought that their partner would be imprisoned immediately. What effect will the proposed cut of £1 billion in the Ministry of Justice budget have on those programmes?
I do not recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman has tried to generate. As I have said already, the number of complaints to the police about domestic violence has gone up exponentially, largely because the police and the courts have made it very clear that they will adopt a helpful approach to complaints and deal with them strongly. It seems that people are not hesitating about making complaints to the police, even though they cannot predict what the sentence will be and their partner may end up in custody as a consequence.
The specific programmes in respect of the perpetrators of domestic violence have been in place only since 2006. The Liberal Democrats may occupy a fantasy world, but we cannot click our fingers and generate courses for perpetrators just like that. Our target was to set up 1,200 courses in 2007, and we succeeded in setting up 1,800. For 2008, the target was 1,800 and we put in place 2,000. The target for 2009 is 2,000, and we will put in place 2,500. The queues to get on the courses are growing smaller—
Order. I am keen to allow one more question.
Prostitution
I have discussed with the Home Secretary a number of measures to address the problems of prostitution arising from the demand review. They were mainly announced by the Home Secretary in September, and included improvements to the legislation on kerb crawling, new powers to close brothels, greater restrictions on lap dancing clubs and a new offence of paying for sex with someone who is controlled for another’s gain. The full results of the review will be announced this month.
I thank the Solicitor-General for that reply. The last of those offences announced by the Home Secretary—the offence of having sex with someone who is controlled for gain—mirrors an offence in Finland. Is the Solicitor-General aware that there have been no prosecutions since the Finnish offence was introduced?
No, I did not know that. However, I do not think that that is an inherent defect of the offence, and I am not sure that the two offences are identical. We prosecute those who control prostitutes for gain, so prosecuting people who pay for sex with a person who has been prostituted for gain goes with the grain of what we do already. We all know that a very high percentage of prostitutes are controlled for another’s gain, so one might think that there is a 90 per cent. chance that any man who buys sex will fall foul of this law. We will have to design its finer points later, but we have every hope that it will make a significant difference and be a significant deterrent.
Business of the House
May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 10 November—Opposition day [20th allotted day]. There will be a debate on a Liberal Democrat motion on the economy and the future of the Post Office card account.
Tuesday 11 November—If necessary, consideration of Lords Amendments followed by a general debate on adding capacity to Heathrow.
Wednesday 12 November—The House will be asked to approve motions relating to regional committees, European scrutiny, modernisation of the House of Commons and the Speaker’s Conference. The House will also be asked to approve a motion relating to the House of Commons Members’ Fund.
Thursday 13 November—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a general debate on international aid—transparency.
The provisional business for the week commencing 17 November will include:
Monday 17 November—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution on the Education and Skills Bill followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Education and Skills Bill.
Tuesday 18 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Energy Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
Wednesday 19 November—Consideration of Lords amendments.
Thursday 20 November—General debate on fisheries.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 20 November will be:
Thursday 20 November—A debate on organ donation.
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. Today the Home Secretary is making a written statement, understood to be about the cost of the identity card scheme. She is also making a speech today announcing that the Government have backtracked on plans to issue identity cards to workers at all UK airports; it has been heavily trailed in the press. Why has the Home Secretary not come to the House to make an oral statement on the status of the ID card scheme?
Will the Leader of the House give us a date for the pre-Budget report, or at least a date when she will give us a date for that report? Given the current economic climate, and the state of public finances, it will be a very important statement. Given that we have not had a debate on the economy in Government time, will she take up the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) that we should have one or two days’ debate on the pre-Budget report?
On Monday the House of Lords had a debate on the economy. During that debate, my noble Friend Lord Forsyth called for an inquiry on the leaking of information about the banks’ bail-out package. The noble Lord Lea of Crondall suggested a wider public inquiry, including the banks. The City Minister, Lord Myners, said—I quote from Lords Hansard, column 16—“My Lords, I agree”. But yesterday, the Prime Minister said, in Hansard, column 247, that the City Minister “said no such thing”. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Prime Minister’s statement in the official record is corrected, and when will we have that public inquiry?
Shortly, the Bank of England is expected to cut interest rates, but today it is reported that Northern Rock, the nationalised bank owned by the taxpayer, will instead raise some of its mortgage rates. Businesses and home owners are already struggling, as banks are not passing on interest rate cuts, so may we have a statement from the Chancellor on why a state-run bank is blatantly defying the Government?
Yesterday Labour MEPs voted to abolish the UK’s opt-out on the European working time directive. At a time when businesses across the country are struggling to keep going and families will probably be looking for more work, not less, that just goes to show how out of touch Labour MEPs are. It is time that the Prime Minister got a grip on his party. May we have a statement setting out the official Government position on the working time directive?
In the House of Lords this week, Lord Darzi said that patients have a right to three cycle treatments of IVF. However, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence only recommends that patients have three full cycles of treatment; it is not mandatory. May we have a statement from the Health Secretary to clarify official Government policy on IVF treatment?
Finally, there has been widespread condemnation of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), for his remarks blaming a commander in the Special Air Service for his choice of vehicle prior to the deaths of three troops in Afghanistan. The fact is that there was no choice. The Minister, when in the House on Monday, refused to apologise to that commander, so will the right hon. and learned Lady assure the House that she will press the Minister to give an unreserved apology to Major Morley and to UK commanders in Afghanistan?
The right hon. Lady raised the question of ID cards and argued that there should be an oral statement, but she is aware, as she said, that there has been a written ministerial statement, which simply updates the House about our progress. As we have previously announced to the House, ID cards with biometrics are being introduced for foreign nationals and piloted at airports, so that people who are airside have biometric ID cards. The written ministerial statement simply announced the progress that we are making with the pilot scheme as we roll it out.
On the date for the pre-Budget report, we have chosen a number of opportunities for the House to debate the important issue of the economy. We have had debates about energy and employment and a statement about small business, in addition to numerous statements from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As for the date of the pre-Budget report, we will announce it, as I said last week, in the normal way. I suspect that Donald Rumsfeld would have called it a “known unknown” as far as this week is concerned, and I am not announcing the date this week.
The right hon. Lady asked for a public inquiry into the global financial crisis, but may I take this opportunity to commend the work of the Select Committee on the Treasury? I should have thought that she would take that opportunity too. The Treasury Committee has asked the public to suggest questions for its evidence-gathering sessions, and the Committee is bringing before it not only the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, no doubt, those various people who used to be described as the masters of the universe. I pay tribute to the Committee’s work and look forward to receiving its report.
On Northern Rock, the right hon. Lady rightly said that there will be an interest rate announcement from the Bank of England shortly, and, subsequent to that, other banks and building societies will make it clear how they intend to respond to it. She will know that Northern Rock is managed at arm’s length, as we would rightfully expect it to be, but the business Minister will make it clear to chief executives of building societies and banks in a meeting this afternoon that the Government have put in a considerable amount of public money directly, with £37 billion of capitalisation for banks, and made available through guarantees a further £250 billion, and that we expect from them some response to ensure that the interest rate cut is passed on not only to mortgage holders but to small businesses. I am sure that that is the view of the whole House, and the Minister will make it very clear.
The right hon. Lady asked about the European working time directive, and we have always been clear that it is right to give employees legal protections at work. The Opposition have not been in favour of such protections, whether the minimum wage or the working time directive, but we are in favour of people not being forced to work long hours that they do not want to work, or that can impede health and safety. That is why, when we came into government after many years of Tory rule, we introduced a legal prohibition on requiring people to work very long hours. Following a European Court judgment there have been some changes, to which other Governments across the piece are now agreeing, about how on-call time is calculated for the purposes of the working time directive. [Interruption.] I must say that I would be interested to hear whether the Opposition, who are chuntering away about working time, are now in favour of guaranteeing minimum standards and the protection of working hours. Our position is clear, and we are getting on with things.
I will look into the right hon. Lady’s point about Lord Darzi’s comments in the House of Lords about IVF provision and write to her.
As for our troops in Afghanistan, I should say that Remembrance day offers us all the opportunity to remember not only those who lost their lives in the great wars, but those who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will continue to increase investment in equipment for our troops and to work with the other countries around the world who share the important work that our troops are carrying out in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s announcement that next week the Government intend to bring forward proposals to amend temporarily Standing Orders to enable the establishment of regional Select Committees and regional Grand Committees. Does she agree that in responding to the Modernisation Committee, the Government are recognising the overwhelming weight of evidence that that Committee received, which showed the accountability gap at the regional level? In bringing forward the recommendations for regional Select Committees and regional Grand Committees, are the Government not also reflecting the difference of opinion on the Modernisation Committee on how best to meet that accountability gap?
I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contribution to our debate next week. In case hon. Members have not yet seen them, I should say that the motions for that debate which set out the framework for the regional Committees have already been tabled and are available for Members to scrutinise. We have also tabled a business motion that will show how they will be debated. My hon. Friend makes an important point, not least that we need proper scrutiny of the important work of the regional development agencies, particularly at a time when we are concerned to support the economy in every region of the country.
I have regularly raised with the Leader of the House the question of time for the consideration of Back-Bench and Opposition new clauses and amendments. She has announced three items of business for the next couple of weeks that will certainly have amendments from both sides of the House.
In the Employment Bill debate two days ago there was, yet again, no opportunity to complete consideration of the Opposition and Back-Bench new clauses and amendments—indeed, more than half of them were not debated. Yesterday was our 20th sitting day since the House came back following the summer. On nine of those days, there have been no votes at all, and the House has risen early on nearly a third of them. Will the Leader of the House honour her undertaking to me and others that she will review the business of the House to make sure that there is time for Back-Bench and Opposition new clauses and amendments when the Government come forward with their business? Otherwise Parliament will not be doing its job properly, and she will not be honouring the obligation to make sure that we hold the Executive to account.
In the light of the very welcome election result in the United States yesterday, may we have the opportunity of a debate on relations between this country and the USA, before the end of this term and before the Prime Minister meets the President-elect, as we hope he will before long? There have been tense issues between our two countries and many hope that the new regime will mean a much better relationship; I am sure that that view is widely felt in the House and the country. It would be helpful and much appreciated if the House had the opportunity to discuss matters that could lead to a huge improvement in relations between us and the United States.
Yesterday, the OECD produced a report on energy prices across the European Union. It said that gas and electricity bills had increased more than twice as quickly in our country as they had in France and Germany and that in Europe only Norway had suffered higher energy price inflation. It said that prices here had increased by nearly 30 per cent. in the past year. The Leader of the House knows that energy prices are the major driver of fuel poverty. May we have a statement from the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change about what he will do to ensure that our energy price rises are kept roughly in line with those of the rest of the continent and why our energy price increases are hugely higher than those in our competitor countries across the channel?
We are about to have a debate on the Congo, which is very welcome. However, figures revealed in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) show that since 2003 more than 5,000 Congolese asylum applications and more than 7,000 Zimbabwean asylum applications have been turned down. May we have a debate on whether we are honouring our international obligations to ensure that people who cannot go home because of the dreadful political climate in their country are given the right to stay here for the period for which they need safety? I understood that we had all signed up to that arrangement.
There are increasingly common rumours around the House that the Government have made a decision that the Post Office card account will be given to PayPoint, not to the Post Office. I am choosing my words very carefully: can the Leader of the House give us an absolute, unqualified assurance that the statement on this matter will be made first in this House by the Secretary of State, and that no announcement will be made outside the House tomorrow or over the weekend, so that if the decision has been made, we can have the chance to deal with it here? If it has not been made by Monday, my party has chosen the subject for an Opposition Supply day debate on that day. If the rumours are right, we look forward to testing a very dangerous Government decision.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the consideration of amendments on Report. Our concern is that there should be as few as possible Government amendments on Report unless they relate to issues that have been raised by hon. Members and it is the wish of the House to deal with them. As Members representing our constituents, we must strike a balance between the amount of time that we spend working in this Chamber and in Committees scrutinising legislation and the time that we spend working in our constituencies. All the reviews of parliamentary work have shown that our constituents increasingly expect us both to do our work of scrutinising legislation in this House and to be in our constituencies mingling with them and listening to their concerns. Report stage is important, but important opportunities for pre-legislative scrutiny are being introduced, as well as the opportunity for post-legislative scrutiny, which we are introducing for the first time.
The hon. Gentleman sent his congratulations to President-elect Obama. I take this opportunity to celebrate, as so many other people in this country are celebrating, that historic election. It was historic not only because of the victory of President-elect Obama but because it marked a rejection of conservatism. In that respect, it is a very big change that Labour Members warmly welcome.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of gas and electricity prices. We are very concerned about the global impact that increases in commodity prices, particularly for oil, have had on domestic and business energy bills. He mentioned other countries, but it is only fair for him to recognise also that although there have been increases, which we do not want, historically, we have had lower energy prices than other countries in Europe. It is important that we press forward with increasing the supply of energy through renewables and other means to ensure that we have energy independence, and that we continue to provide the winter fuel payments, which have been increased, and to run the insulation programme, which will not only help people with their fuel costs but help to deal with the pressing problem of climate change.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we are honouring our international commitments to those who seek asylum in this country. Of course, we regard those commitments as very important and, as he will know, there are no forced deportations to Zimbabwe. All applications are considered on a case-by-case basis. As he has acknowledged, we have chosen the Congo as the subject of this afternoon’s topical debate.
The hon. Gentleman said that he will choose the Post Office card account as the subject of his Opposition day debate. All that I can say in response to his questions is that we are all very aware of the House’s interest in that contract.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider an early debate on Lloyds TSB’s proposed takeover of Halifax Bank of Scotland? That bank employs many thousands of people in Yorkshire, most of them in west Yorkshire in the area that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Riordan) and I represent. We know that good things are happening, and we do not want HBOS to fail, but there is a feeling among parliamentarians in Yorkshire that we are not being kept in the loop. We need assurances that the many thousands of jobs in Yorkshire will be maintained under the new structure when it emerges.
I understand only too well my hon. Friend’s commitment to his constituents and his concern for his constituency and the region in terms of the effect on jobs at Halifax Bank of Scotland. I understand that the regional Minister for that area is liaising with its MPs. The regional development agency also has a strong focus on the matter, and the regional council met for the first time yesterday. However, I will raise his point with the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.
May I ask the right hon. and learned Lady a question that I asked the Deputy Leader of the House a couple of weeks ago? Will she make the strongest representations to the Prime Minister that he should come to this House himself to make a statement on the progress of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is she aware that he has not made a statement to this House on the Afghan war since 12 December 2007? Is she further aware that during the second world war the Prime Minister came to this House on 13 occasions in the Parliament of 1939-1940 and on 25 occasions in the Parliament of 1940-1941 to keep it properly informed of the progress of the war? Many young men and women have died in our name and for us in Afghanistan, and it is a disgrace—a real disgrace—that ahead of Remembrance Sunday the Prime Minister has not been to this House to update us on the progress of this terrible war.
I think that we would all agree that the House is right to expect to be kept informed of the situation in Afghanistan. We have had a number of statements from the Defence Secretary on Afghanistan, and the Prime Minister has on several occasions responded to questions about it at Prime Minister’s Question Time. In addition, we have had a number of defence debates that have allowed the House the opportunity to hear from Ministers, make speeches and debate the issue of Afghanistan. However, I will bear in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Has my right hon. and learned Friend had the opportunity to look at early-day motion 2416?
[That this House condemns the creation of the online computer game Kaboom which asks the player to replicate the actions of suicide bombers; believes that this game is offensive to the families of those killed by suicide bombers and devalues all human life; further believes that this game depicts an unnecessary level of violence; is deeply concerned that vulnerable people under the age of 18 are able to access and play this game; calls upon the game's creator to show sensitivity and responsibility by removing it from the internet; welcomes the findings of a new study from Iowa State University which recognises the link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour; and calls on the Government to revise its regulation of violent video games.]
It refers to an online computer game called “Kaboom”, which asks players to replicate the actions of a suicide bomber. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is offensive to the families of the victims of suicide bombings and that it devalues human life? I have raised this matter on several occasions at business questions and in other debates. What action are the Government taking to remove such material from the internet or, at the very least, to approach service providers to ensure that they take appropriate action? Children and young people will be able to have access to those games. Could we have a debate on this important matter?
The Government are concerned about the effect on children of violent internet and video games, which is why we commissioned the Byron review. That set out how we need action from parents, from the industry itself and from the Government to ensure that there is proper control of content and clear labelling to protect young children. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in these issues, which he had even before he became Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Under his leadership, the Committee has taken a strong interest in such matters. I bring to his attention the fact that on Thursday 13 November, in Westminster Hall, there will be a debate on the question of harmful content on the internet and in video games.
Can the House find time to debate the increasingly topical issue of pub closures, particularly the supply tie and the power and conduct of huge pub companies. Last year alone, bankruptcies among pub landlords increased sevenfold—and that was before the current economic difficulties. The treatment of some licensees is quite disgraceful, as was visibly demonstrated by the excellent front-page story in the Wharfedale and Airedale Observer today about Enterprise Inns quite scandalous and shameful treatment of my constituent Wendy Prangell. Can this important matter, which is of relevance to every Member, be debated so that hon. Members can contribute and give their own experiences?
It is Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions on Monday, so I suggest that the hon. Gentleman brings the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State on that occasion.
Postwatch merged with the National Consumer Council and Energywatch on 1 October to create Consumer Focus. However, may we have a debate on whether it was an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money for Postwatch to spend £2,910 on the production of, and a further £2,483 on the distribution of, 2,000 copies of something commemorating its seven years of existence?
My hon. Friend raises a question about whether public money was properly spent in this case. A number of hon. Members have mentioned that, so I will raise it with the relevant Minister.
Further to the announcement by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, that a future Conservative Government will reform the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence to allow it to consider the wider social costs of denying treatment to patients when assessing its value or benefit, may we have a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House on the criteria used by NICE when making its recommendations?
There has been a lot of concern about the work of NICE, and the Secretary of State for Health announced that there will a review to ensure that it speeds up its consideration of whether it will recommend new treatments developed by the pharmaceutical industry to make them available on the national health service. The availability of new medicines that can help to save lives as well as alleviate suffering is a question not only of NICE getting on with its business quickly and efficiently, but of extra investment in the NHS. It is important that the Government sustain investment in the NHS in the way that we are committed to.
I shall just take this opportunity, because I know the House is concerned about this matter, to say that an interest rate cut of 1.5 per cent. has been announced by the Bank of England. I am sure that that will be widely welcomed, and there will be an equally strong expectation that that interest rate cut should be passed on to those who have mortgages, and those who are running small businesses.
I have received, as have other right hon. and hon. Members, correspondence from constituents regarding the Free Our Bills campaign. They are asking for changes to be made to the way in which Bills are published on the parliamentary internet, and they are making some valid points. For example, when Bills have been amended in their progress through both Houses, it is sometimes difficult to understand their content when they reach their final stages. Would my right hon. and learned Friend look into that matter to see what improvements can be made to ensure better public scrutiny of our proceedings?
My hon. Friend, as a long-standing member of the Modernisation Committee, makes an important point. It is important that Members, let alone the public, can decipher the situation. The House authorities are looking at how we can make the business of the House more readily understandable in the House, and on the House website—so information is available to the public. The Deputy Leader of the House is working closely with them to take those matters forward.
In the St. Andrews agreement, the Government indicated that they would take action if any party defaulted on its commitments to ensure that the rest were not disadvantaged. As Sinn Fein is refusing to allow Executive meetings to take place in the Northern Ireland Assembly, can the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to come to this House and tell us how he intends to make good on this commitment?
I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s important point with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on inequality? She will be aware of the OECD report that says that inequality in Britain is reducing, but we remain one of the most unequal societies. In the present economic situation, those who will be hardest hit are those who are already finding things hard. I would like a debate on that subject so that we can hear what Members believe the Government can do for their constituents.
I, too, very much welcome the report that shows finally, after many years of a growing gap between rich and poor and decreasing social mobility, that that situation is beginning to turn around, following the actions that the Government have taken since 1997. Provision for children has been particularly important, such as Sure Start centres. My hon. Friend will know that the House will shortly receive a Green Paper on social mobility, and the Queen’s Speech will include an important equality Bill.
May I reinforce the message of the shadow Leader of the House to the effect that we should have an early and full debate on the economy? I suggest that we entitle it, “Boom and bust: the Prime Minister’s competence and credibility.” That will enable us to ask whether, when he said that he had abolished boom and bust, he believed what he was saying, in which case he was economically illiterate, or whether he did not believe it, in which case we can ask whether his moral compass is a reliable instrument.
This is a serious issue. The economy faces a big challenge, and we are concerned to protect homeowners, small businesses and jobs, and to ensure that we keep energy costs as low as possible. Those are the issues we remain concerned about. The Prime Minister made it clear only yesterday that it is fortunate that we face this economic challenge against a background of relatively high levels of employment and relatively low levels of unemployment. Having paid off debt over the past 10 years, as well as investing in the NHS and education, we are in as good a position as we could be to face those difficult economic circumstances. [Interruption.] Hon. Members have questioned the point about debt, and let me remind them—[Interruption.] They challenged my point about us paying off debt. When we came to government in 1997, debt was 43 per cent. as a percentage of GDP, and while still investing in hospitals and schools, we brought that down to 37 per cent.
Could we please have a debate on the Government’s role in regional spatial strategy? In Solihull, after the strategy had been agreed, the Government commissioned an outside consultant—Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners—to produce a report that suggests that we should triple the number of homes that we had agreed to build. I am sure that this matter concerns all hon. Members, so could we have a debate on the role that the Government should be playing in regional spatial strategy?
I hope that, next Wednesday, when we establish—if the House so wishes—the regional Committees, there will be an opportunity for much better accountability to the House on matters such as regional spatial strategies.
Further to that answer—and we are, indeed, to debate regional accountability next Wednesday—I see from the Order Paper that the right hon. and learned Lady proposes to restrict to 90 minutes the debate on that highly controversial and divisive motion, which was carried on her casting vote in a Select Committee. Between now and then, will she reflect on whether we should have more time to debate the matter? When she introduces the motion, will she make it clear that anybody who votes for a regional Committee should be prepared to serve on it and attend all its meetings?
The Modernisation Committee has conducted extensive scrutiny, including several important evidence sessions. Its report and the minutes of the evidence sessions are available for hon. Members to read. The issues are clear. Some of us believe that there should be stronger, proper accountability to the House for the billions of pounds that make an enormous difference at regional level, and some believe that the current structures should not be changed. Others believe that there is a democratic deficit, but have different ideas from us about how we should change that. The issues are clear, and an hour and a half should be enough to discuss them. It will then be up to the House to make up its mind and vote.
May we have a debate on the rate of value added tax levied on housing repairs? It is currently 17.5 per cent., compared with 5 per cent. for new build. Housing repairs are much more important than new build in Wales because we have a large stock of old, unfit and substandard housing, and the differential tax rate is a significant burden.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, tax rates are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who considers those issues and makes announcements to the House in the pre-Budget report and the Budget.
May I emphasise the request from Conservative Members for a major debate in Government time on the economic situation? I personally believe that it should be a two-day debate because the matter is so important and so many people will want to speak. I would want to represent the position of savers and those who invest because, currently, all who invest make a loss on every pound that they invest because of the marginal rate of tax and the rate of inflation. Should not the Government take account of those who are responsible, provide for their pension, invest and save?
Protecting the economy and people in this country in these difficult economic times and seeing the economy through is the Government’s No. 1 priority. We have no intention of restricting the opportunity for the House to call Ministers to account and debate the effect in their constituencies and regions. I will therefore look again to ascertain whether there are further opportunities for a more general debate as well as the specific debates about energy, small businesses, jobs and training. I hear the point that people want a general economic debate.
May I associate myself with the point that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made about the need regularly to update the House about the two conflicts that are being waged in our name and about which we have had little information recently?
May I make a more general point, as we approach Remembrance day? We should have a debate on the legal status of, and the responsibility for, war memorials, first, to establish that they will be maintained appropriately, and, secondly, to ensure that there is no doubt that communities that wish to commemorate those who have lost their lives in conflicts since the first and second world wars, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, are entitled to do that.
Obviously, we want to ensure that war memorials are properly maintained in all the cities, towns and villages where they provide such an important reminder.
The hon. Gentleman adds his voice to concerns that the Secretary of State for Defence should make a statement about Afghanistan, and I will raise the issue with my right hon. Friend.
May I reinforce the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for an early debate in Government time on ID cards? The Home Secretary is announcing today that, despite the constant stream of private, personal data that companies working for the Government have lost, she proposes to hand over the job of taking and storing the fingerprints of every adult in this country to outside contractors. It is bad enough if someone loses one’s bank account details, but at least one can set up a new bank account. If somebody loses one’s fingerprint details, one’s identity is compromised for ever. The House needs to debate that potentially disastrous idea.
The Home Secretary has regularly updated the House on ID cards. She has ensured that they are rolled out by piloting them and made it clear that they will not be extended into a national scheme compulsorily without a further vote in the House.
May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 2008 about the Post Office card account?
[That this House notes with concern the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions has written to Post Office card account holders informing them that the Post Office card account contract ends in 2010; further notes that Post Office card account holders, many of whom have made a conscious decision to support the Post Office by retaining their card account, are being instructed to take out bank accounts in order to receive benefits beyond 2010; expresses its dismay at the fact that the letter does not mention the fact that a replacement for the current card account is currently out to tender, or make any mention of other Post Office products or services; believes that this is a deliberate attempt to encourage people to switch payment to direct debit and remove the role of the Post Office; notes the additional damage inflicted on the Post Office by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, who are currently sending out licence renewal reminders as part of a communications campaign which makes no mention of the Post Office; calls on Ministers in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to encourage Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions to consider the impact on communities across the country if the Post Office card account is not renewed; and encourages all Government departments to make their services available through post offices in order to ensure that they have a viable future.]
The early-day motion has been signed by 80 hon. Members from all parties, and expresses concern about the impact of the loss of the card account business to the Post Office’s bottom line and the consequential impact on local communities. Will the Leader of the House answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who asked for a clear assurance that there will be no pre-announcement of the matter, and that the decision will be announced in a statement to the House so that hon. Members can ask questions of the Secretary of State?
I reassure the hon. Gentleman, as I reassured the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), that I understand the importance of the Post Office card account contract to hon. Members of all parties. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman can make any further points in the Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate on Monday.
Following the bovine remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), and his woefully incomplete apology in Defence questions on Monday, will the Leader of the House let us know on which day next week he will return to the House to apologise from the Dispatch Box for the slur that he cast on commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially Major Morley?
All our Defence Ministers are strongly committed to supporting our armed services—I am sure that that applies to all hon. Members—and ensuring that they have the right equipment as they do their important and dangerous work. There has been record investment in equipment for the armed services.
A simple yes/no answer from the Leader of the House, please. Will the statement on the Post Office card account be an oral statement to the House before the announcement is made anywhere else—yes or no?
All I can say is that, when the decision has been made, the House will be made aware of the arrangements for communicating it. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a yes or no answer now—the subject is not part of the business that I announced today.
You, Mr. Speaker, will have noticed that the Leader of the House failed to respond to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about the Prime Minister’s comments about Lord Myners. It is an important matter, about which the Prime Minister should make a statement, because either Lords Hansard is wrong or the excellent, highly paid and professional civil servants failed to brief the Prime Minister correctly—none of us can believe that the Prime Minister, with his moral compass, could possibly have misled the House.
All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman should support the inquiry that the Treasury Committee is conducting.
May we have a statement on the position of the Tibetan community in Nepal? Following anti-Chinese demonstrations, many in the community face extradition to China because India has said that they cannot move there. Given our relations with India, our past history with Nepal and the fact that we occupied Tibet for nearly 40 years, may we have a statement about what the Government will do to help that community?
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raises the matter with the Foreign Secretary next Tuesday, when he will answer oral questions.
The right hon. and learned Lady will be only too aware of the enormous sacrifices that loyal British citizens of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories made during conflicts. Will she explain why, yet again, on Remembrance Sunday, they will not be allowed to lay a wreath in their own right at the Cenotaph in Whitehall? Will she arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement about the overseas territories and for the Lord Chancellor to explain why the Crown dependencies are not represented?
I am afraid that I will have to look into that issue. I will call the hon. Gentleman this afternoon and let him know what the situation is.
The Leader of the House will recognise the widespread eagerness to see the Government’s national dementia strategy for England, so may we have a ministerial statement on when it will be published? The original Government indication was for it to be ready in the autumn, although I accept that that is becoming a relatively flexible concept. Can she also ask that that ministerial statement include confirmation that an immediate review into the prescribing and use of anti-psychotic drugs to treat sufferers of dementia will be completed before the publication of the strategy?
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the national dementia strategy, which I shall bring to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health.
Rural areas, including my constituency of Beverley and Holderness, have large numbers of elderly people and infrequent buses. Can the Leader of the House tell the hundreds of constituents who have written to me about the pharmacy White Paper when the House will be informed of whether the Government are going to press ahead with proposals that could lead to the closure of dispensaries and GP practices serving elderly people in rural areas, who will then have to leave their GP’s surgery in the rain and snow and go across to a local chemist, before perhaps missing a bus back to their village?
I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s point with the Secretary of State for Health. An important point is not only the availability of pharmacies, but public transport in rural areas, the commitment to free travel for elderly people and the increasing availability of rural transport.
Is the right hon. and learned Lady aware that the Land Registry has stated that later this month it will destroy up to 17 million original documents and deeds? Is she aware that those manuscript documents do not belong to the Land Registry? They belong to our constituents and are held on trust. Can we have an urgent statement on the matter? Have the public been properly consulted on the proposed move?
I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s point with the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for the Land Registry. Let me also take this opportunity to congratulate the Land Registry on how massively it has improved over the past decade or so.
I just want to press the right hon. and learned Lady on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and others have raised. It seems clear that the Prime Minister was not well briefed at questions yesterday in his answer about the City Minister, Lord Myners. A facility has been introduced in Hansard whereby ministerial corrections can be made. If the record is not correct—and I believe that it is not—the Prime Minister should take steps immediately to put matters right.
I think that the Prime Minister and all the Ministers in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and across the Government are rightly focused on protecting jobs and small businesses and ensuring that we have a proper financial services industry and proper accountability to this House.
Last Thursday, the excellent Conservative candidate Ben Lewis was elected as a councillor in my constituency. At the same time, however, a Minister visited the constituency without letting me know in advance. I have not received a personal apology yet, but I understand that one might be in the post. My point to the Leader of the House, however, is this. It seems to be a trend that Ministers do not let Members know that they are coming or they let them know just before. Will she provide a written statement next week on the advice that she gives to Ministers on this matter?
It is imperative that Ministers on ministerial visits give information to the local Member of Parliament well in advance of their visit and not just at the last minute. As far as party visits are concerned, my visit to meet friends and colleagues in the Labour party in St. Austell was a party visit. It had nothing to do with my ministerial responsibilities, but I very much enjoyed it.
May we have a debate in Government time about the impact of cheap alcohol sales in supermarkets on the local licensed pub trade? There are 25 pubs and clubs in Kettering that are members of Kettering Pubwatch and they have contacted me to say that they are suffering financially from those deeply discounted sales. There are also law and order problems, because people are arriving in Kettering town centre for a night out already tanked up and ready to cause trouble.
Perhaps the issue is one that hon. Gentleman, too, can raise with Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on Monday in oral questions.
This House, as part of the Palace of Westminster, acts as a welcoming host to 1.2 million visitors a year. As part of the newer version of security, many people are given their ID cards with cords. I was very grateful to an Officer of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House for taking an interest in what happens to those cords after they are disposed of. Can the Leader of the House’s office do something to ensure that they are fully recycled?
The issue has been raised by a number of hon. Members and the House authorities are aware of it. There is a concern about whether straightforward re-use, which would mean people wearing a lanyard that had been worn by a number of other people, would be right. There is also the question of how they could be recycled. However, they are not being thrown away while the issues are being considered, but kept until the big decision about what to do with them is made.
Points of Order
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you this question in your capacity as the guardian of the rights of Members of Parliament. I imagine that you feel as ashamed as I do that this House has not had a full debate on the economy during a time of serious difficulties in this country, both nationally and for all of us locally, with many of our constituents having a hard time. I know that you cannot insist on this, but could you do your very best to remind Ministers that it is the job of this House to hold them to account and to be informed on the great issues of the day? Such matters are debated in every forum in the country, but not in the House of Commons. That is a great shame.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that what he has done today, through his point of order, is to put the matter on the record. It will be noted by Ministers that they are accountable to this House and that they must come here on a regular basis.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek some clarification. I was keen to raise with my neighbour, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the dismaying news that the Tetley brewery in Leeds is to close. The issue is about beer, our great national drink, but I have received conflicting advice on whether beer comes under the remit of his Department. Can you clarify, Mr. Speaker, whether it is appropriate to raise an issue of huge importance to British beer—in terms of the product, rather than the industry—in that way, just as it would be to raise an issue of such importance for Scotch whisky or British wine, which are clearly important products, too? Indeed, should the Department not really be called the Department for Environment, Food, Rural Affairs and Drink or DEFRAD?
I share the hon. Gentleman’s fears, because although I am a teetotaller, I have a brewery and the whisky industry in my constituency, and I used to have the tobacco industry. What I can tell him is this. The industry that he talks about is a very good employer of labour and he as a local Member of Parliament must concern himself with the redundancies. I suggest that he applies for an Adjournment debate, puts down questions for other Departments and ensures that he lets the workers in that industry know that he is trying to be their voice here in Parliament.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) raised with the Leader of the House the propriety of Ministers’ notifying local MPs of visits. The Leader of the House quite correctly made it plain that, when a Minister goes to a constituency on ministerial business, he or she should notify the local Member. I understood her to suggest that Members of Parliament attending party functions were not under a duty to notify local Members. However, reaching back to when I first entered the House, my understanding is that whenever a Member goes to another Member’s constituency on anything other than private business, they ought to notify the local Member. Can you assist us on this?
A Minister going to another constituency on ministerial business has an obligation to notify the Member of Parliament concerned, and I do not expect the Member to receive that notification through an e-mail appearing in their system. That has been cropping up recently, but this should be done properly. However, I would say that a party activity is, in a sense, a private matter for a Minister. If a Minister is taking part in a party activity as a member of a political party, it is not necessary to inform the local Member of Parliament. We should not be over-sensitive when someone visits a constituency, but when they do so in their ministerial capacity, or when a Back Bencher goes to a constituency to carry out an official function such as an opening, they should notify the local Member of Parliament. I would not expect them to notify the Member about party activities.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are very good at wanting to protect the interests of Back Benchers, and I want to ask you to help us on a specific matter. My hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) and I expressly asked the Leader of the House for an undertaking that no statement on the future of the Post Office card account would be made outside the House by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions unless or until such a statement had been made here. There are strong rumours that a statement might be made tomorrow, which, according to normal convention, would be completely unacceptable. Will you make it as clear as you can that you expect the statement on the Post Office card account—a matter that colleagues in all parties have raised regularly and that affects all four countries in the United Kingdom—to be made here, and only here, first? In that way, the Secretary of State will be in no doubt that no statement, press release or leak can be made until he comes to the Dispatch Box to make the statement.
I cannot go into such a specific matter or give an instruction to a Minister. The House is not sitting tomorrow, but the rule is that the Minister concerned should come to the House as soon as possible. I cannot prevent a Minister from saying something to the press, just as I could not prevent the hon. Gentleman from doing so. All I can do is give a broad hint that this is a very serious matter that I have heard being raised at every opportunity on the Floor of the House, and Ministers must take note of the deep concern being expressed in every part of the House. However, I cannot issue an instruction along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you provide some clarity on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) about visits to constituencies? Is it the case that, if a Member from another party visits a constituency for a party event, but then uses it for press or publicity purposes, notice should be given to the Member of Parliament for the constituency concerned? A whole string of Conservative Members of Parliament have been visiting part of my constituency that I am about to lose—it is going into Central Devon—but they have not had the courtesy to tell me of their visits. Perhaps people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I think I made myself clear, and I shall not go any further than that.
Topical debate
Democratic Republic of the Congo
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the political and humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
This is a very timely debate. The stark images from recent days of the suffering in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are a reminder of the human consequences of conflict in Africa. The numbers, too, are sobering. In a country with a population close to 60 million, around 1.5 million people have been internally displaced by conflict, many of them uprooted repeatedly. The last week alone has seen an estimated 55,000 people forced to leave their homes as troops under the command of the rebel leader Laurent Nkunda have advanced on the key regional city of Goma. They contribute to a total of 250,000 displaced people in North Kivu province since the resumption of fighting there in late August. Many of them are beyond the reach of agencies that can help them, caught in territory held by rebels where access is impossible.
All of this is taking place against a background of militias killing and torturing the civilian population, pillaging their belongings, and recruiting and deploying children as soldiers. The international community faces a substantial challenge in addressing the factors that have contributed to the unrest in the DRC and its appalling consequences.
Does the Minister agree that the problems of the DRC and the ongoing conflict between the Hutus and the Tutsis are not simply limited to that country? Is it not about time that the international community examined the wider conflict in that sub-region—in Burundi and Rwanda—and tried to initiate a genuine peace conference to try to bring about peace between the Hutus and the Tutsis?
I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a wider issue. Certainly, the role of the African Union is key to addressing that concern. There are also specific issues relating to the DRC, however, and I shall talk about those in a moment.
It is clear that the events played out in recent weeks stem from regional political tensions. The terrible events of the 1994 Rwandan genocide resonate in the ethnic strife seen today in eastern DRC. The ethnic Hutu FDLR traces its origins to the Genocidaire Interahamwe militia, and poses a real threat to the security of the Tutsi population. The abuses that it continues to commit mark the group as a destabilising factor, and I endorse the condemnation that it received in United Nations Security Council resolution 1804.
However, no party involved in the violence is free from responsibility for the region’s very real suffering. Nkunda portrays himself as the defender of Tutsis, yet his militia, the CNDP, has committed atrocities of its own. The warlord Bosco Ntaganda, an International Criminal Court indictee, is among its most senior leaders, and it has been responsible for many of the excesses reported in the region. It is the march of the CNDP towards Goma, in defiance of the authority of a legitimately elected Government, that has triggered the latest displacements in North Kivu.
The Nairobi agreement, concluded between the Governments of the DRC and Rwanda with the support of the international community in November 2007, offers a framework for addressing the threat of the FDLR. Though implementation has been slow, the agreement contains the right elements to begin to defuse the ethnic tensions between communities in eastern DRC.
Is the Minister prepared to search for any information on the links between the mining industry, the sales of minerals and the funding of various militia groups as a consequence of the theft of the wealth from the Congo?
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. That is one of the reasons why we have pushed strongly internationally for an extractive industries directive to tackle those causes. I think that there is an economic driver, but there are other factors as well. I shall talk about them in a moment.
The Government of the DRC must make sustained and comprehensive efforts to persuade the FDLR to disarm and leave, backed by military force where necessary. The needs to deliver on its commitment to bring war criminals to justice, too. For its part, Rwanda must create the conditions for demobilised FDLR members unconnected with the genocide to return to its territory.
I am slightly alarmed that the Minister has mentioned military force. Will he itemise which elements of the British armed forces have already been warned off for a possible deployment to the DRC? Will he also confirm that that would not involve any of the scarce elements of our strategic airlift capacity, which are fully involved in Afghanistan? Will he also tell us what he is doing with our European allies to ensure that any possible European deployment to the DRC will not cut into their commitments in Afghanistan?
With respect, the hon. Gentleman is getting way ahead of himself. I have been keen in the statement that I made earlier this week and again this afternoon to make it clear that although no contingency is ever ruled out, we strongly believe that MONUC—the United Nations organisation mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the largest peacekeeping force anywhere in the world—needs to be deployed effectively. That is our overriding priority at the moment.
I give way briefly, but then I want to make progress.
Some International Development Committee members recently visited Goma, and I would like to put a point to the Minister. It seems to me that every time we hit a crisis, we respond in a box. It is now a human conflict crisis, but it has also been a development crisis and, in the past, a political crisis. Can we join those together? I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), in his place on the Front Bench. When we talk about action from the international community, however, can we integrate efforts to tackle conflict, the politics and development at the same time, because if we do not, we will simply return to these situations time and again?
My right hon. Friend, who has huge experience in this area, is absolutely right that we must have a concerted and co-ordinated effort; ultimately, however, the circumstances call for a political solution. I know that several Members wish to speak in the debate, so I shall now make some progress.
I certainly applaud the decision of the UN Secretary-General to appoint the former President Obasanjo of Nigeria as his special envoy to eastern DRC. His task will be to find effective ways of mediating between the two Governments, encouraging them to make progress and fulfilling their commitments. The diplomatic initiatives being launched elsewhere are also welcome. The engagement of President Kikwete of Tanzania, the current chair of the African Union, is a hopeful sign of the readiness of regional leaders to help end the conflict in their neighbourhood and cement stability in its place.
Can my hon. Friend confirm that President Kagame will definitely attend the Heads of State meeting in Nairobi this weekend? I understand that he has been somewhat equivocal in some of his public statements, although he claims that he is going.
My understanding is that he will attend that critically important meeting tomorrow. My noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown is leaving this evening in order to attend it. The need for it is even more urgent, because in the past 24 hours the fragile ceasefire announced last week seems to have been broken with clashes around Kiwanja, just north of Rutshuru, 80 km north of Goma, between the CNDP and the PARECO Mai-Mai elements. MONUC engaged during the day and succeeded in pushing them further north outside Kiwanja. The fighting stopped at around 4 pm local time and both sides have retreated a little way from Kiwanja—the CNDP to the south and PARECO to the north. Things have been quiet so far this morning, but those events underline the urgency of the situation.
Given that Britain is a substantial donor to the nine countries that border the Democratic Republic of the Congo, does the Minister agree that we, too, should play a significant role in arriving at some settlement, rather than leave it to others?
I believe that we have a role to play, which is why the Foreign Secretary attended the meeting, along with the French Foreign Minister, and why my noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown is leaving for the Heads of State meeting this evening. We are playing a constructive role and it is important for us to do so.
It is only through constructive co-operation that the DRC and Rwanda will deal effectively with the threat to regional security that the FDLR represents. With the international community’s support, they must resume their efforts and end the recriminations they have exchanged as the situation in the region has deteriorated. We have heard reports of cross-border interference as the violence has intensified in recent weeks. The two Governments need to agree and consistently apply a robust and reliable method of investigating the allegations, and they must deal effectively with cases where illegal activity is proven. Together with increased border security, that will isolate the destabilising forces in the region and promote collaboration towards the lasting political solution that the region needs. The international community will do whatever it can in support.
The DRC faces a further internal challenge to resolve the questions underlying the tensions between its indigenous communities on its eastern borders. The UK was closely involved in the peace and security conference held at Goma in January this year. After a long and constructive series of debates, that initiative saw a ceasefire and, crucially, agreement was reached between the Congolese Government and more than 20 indigenous Congolese groups on a range of important questions. It brought representatives of rival organisations under one roof to consider the issues affecting the east of the country and it set the Amani process in motion.
The UK has been among the most closely involved of all international players in the effort to implement the accords signed at Goma, which I know has been widely welcomed. There is also no doubt that resolving such urgent questions as access to land, the return of refugees from outside the DRC and greater respect for human rights will encourage better inter-communal relations.
Nkunda’s declaration in October that he was withdrawing from the Amani process was very damaging. The international community should reject Nkunda’s call for bilateral talks with the DRC Government, as the issues behind regional instability run wider than his concerns. The Amani process still offers the best opportunity for all communities, including the Tutsis whom Nkunda claims to represent, to settle issues jointly. The way is open for Nkunda to rejoin the Amani process; I strongly believe that he should take that opportunity.
The DRC Government bear the responsibility for their citizens’ security. Their armed forces need to be better equipped and trained to confront the illegal militias that prey on the civilian population.
With the best will in the world—not always present in the Congo—there is no way that the Congolese armed forces will be in a position to enforce the rule of law in the east. What is needed in the short term at least, and probably in the medium term, is to reinforce MONUC, which Alan Doss has requested since early October. Failing that, mounting the sort of operation suggested by the French, involving an EU force, could be suggested. What is our position on both those matters?
As I said earlier this week—I think in direct response to questioning by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—we believe that MONUC forces on the ground are best placed to deal with the situation. It is the biggest single peacekeeping operation anywhere in the world. We certainly support its efforts and commend it for its work. I have to say that it is unlikely that a rapid deployment of forces from the EU or elsewhere could significantly increase the capability that already exists in the region. Discussions with our EU partners have revealed a broad consensus in line with that assessment. MONUC is our most productive way forward. We need to ensure that troops are deployed appropriately. There are issues about the caveats of a number of the national forces that are part of MONUC; we are certainly seeking to address them and have them removed—
And numbers.
And numbers, but I believe that we need to put all our efforts behind ensuring that MONUC succeeds.
I will give way briefly, but then I really must make some progress.
Further to the Minister’s reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), Alan Doss, the head of MONUC, asked for 2,700 extra troops for nine months in October—before the recent crisis erupted—so it is a question of the size and capacity of MONUC forces. What are the Government doing to ensure that Alan Doss, a British commander leading MONUC, gets the forces that are needed, whether from the African Union, the European Union or other countries?
We are certainly keeping the situation under review, listening to advice on the ground and seeking to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that the numbers are appropriate and are deployed in the most effective way. Given that it is the biggest peacekeeping force anywhere in the world, I think that the numbers are in place, but they need to be in the right places. That is what we need to push to address.
There have been calls from some quarters for the EU to provide troops to help guarantee supply and support, and I have addressed that issue in answer to questions. The International Criminal Court opened its investigation into events in the country in June 2004. With the exception of Nkunda’s partner, Bosco Ntaganda, all the Congolese individuals subject to arrest warrants issued by the ICC are in the court’s custody. The DRC has co-operated in the process to bring them to justice and we expect it to continue to fulfil its obligations to the court. The broader task ahead is to develop a culture of accountability and tackle the impunity that has had such a detrimental effect on life in the country. That extends to economic issues, which echoes the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (John Battle). The UK is working to promote transparency in the mineral sector, and to create conditions in which the DRC’s natural wealth can be better managed and used for the benefit of the population.
This country will welcome the Government’s response, but there are many refugees from the Congo here. I have Congolese constituents, and I am sure that many other Members have as well. Can the Minister assure us that he is in touch with the Home Office to ensure that we are not sending people back who are at risk for the reasons that he has set out so clearly? Will he and the Home Office hold a joint briefing of Congolese people who are properly resident in the United Kingdom, so that they can be reassured that their interests and their families’ needs are being looked after properly?
We certainly do not make a practice of sending people back if they will be at risk as a result, but I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about communication, and I will talk to my colleagues in the Home Office.
Given the scale of the suffering and the brutality of the DRC’s militias, which I outlined earlier, there is a clear humanitarian case for the UK and its allies to do all that we can to end the violence, and to work in the interests of stability and good governance in eastern DRC. However, there are also hard-headed pragmatic reasons for the UK to be involved. I believe that the potential of the African Great Lakes region is enormous, but for too long the story in eastern DRC has been one of suffering, instability and poverty, and the conflict there has exacted a heavier toll than any other since the second world war. Greater stability could improve the prospects of the entire region. We, as a country, have committed £300 million in development aid to the DRC for the period ending in April 2011, which places us among its foremost donors, and the additional funding for humanitarian aid announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is beginning to make itself felt through additional relief flights.
We will continue to monitor events in the DRC and the wider region, and to seek opportunities to stimulate development and prevent the slide back towards the tragic circumstances that we have witnessed. That is and will remain an absolute priority for us, as was demonstrated by the Foreign Secretary’s visit at the weekend.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this topic, following our short exchange earlier in the week under the urgent question procedure. Much more has happened in the past 72 hours, and in relation to the humanitarian effort, we have probably not yet seen the worst, so the debate provides a good opportunity for an update.
As the Minister said, the humanitarian crisis is on a vast scale. I think many Members fear that the efforts being made by the United Nations and, indeed, the relief organisations are mixed, to say the least. We fully support the Government’s decision to send an aid shipment to the DRC, but I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate he will respond to some of the questions that I shall pose on that and other issues.
I understand that food aid has been slow to arrive in the region as charities have struggled to organise effective distribution. Is the Minister confident that those difficulties have been overcome? What is his estimate of the number of people who now have access to aid, and of the number of people who have not so far been reached?
Bad as the situation is, it would be far worse without the presence of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the DRC. The presence of military contingents of MONUC in major cities and rural areas in eastern Congo is the single most important factor preventing the total collapse of state authority. MONUC’s present mandate is to protect civilians, maintain stability, assist the disarmament and demobilisation of armed groups, and promote security sector reform. That mandate is up for renewal at the end of the year. Although the Security Council will almost certainly agree to continue to support it into 2009, there have been some rumblings, particularly in the United States Congress, suggesting that MONUC should be closed because of its cost.
Does the Minister agree that MONUC’s continued presence in the DRC will remain essential for some time, and can he assure us that its mandate will swiftly be extended? Can he confirm reports today that the UN forces have said they will use military force to defend Goma if the militia attempt to attack the city? Can he assure us that urgent discussions are taking place on what changes are needed to the mandate, composition and strength of MONUC, so that it can discharge its mandate and protect innocent civilians?
The Congolese armed forces have not been able to hold off the rebel forces or maintain security. It is even reported that, in some cases, the rebels are better armed, largely because many of the region’s natural resources have been looted and sold on. Does that not suggest that MONUC needs to do more to train a reformed Congolese army and police force? Has any consideration been given to what technical assistance or advice Britain could offer in that regard?
I am following my hon. Friend’s remarks with great interest. The MONUC force is made up of 17,000 soldiers, mainly from India and Guatemala. Is it not time for some of the western European nations that are not pulling their weight in Iraq and Afghanistan to respond to an urgent call to reinforce it?
I think my hon. Friend will recognise that two issues are involved. One is the composition of the United Nations forces. I am not certain that there is a requirement for sending in more United Nations troops. The other, separate issue is the possibility that, at some stage, the EU may send one of its brigades.
My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. The UN mission is not a large, coherent force in military terms. It has been sent not as a division, but to undertake pretty limited duties. There are, however, major concerns about the effectiveness of its leadership, military cohesion and, indeed, firepower. Sadly, there have been instances of UN forces’ withdrawing in the face of initial militia activity.
I was interested by what the hon. Gentleman said about the EU’s contingency plans for the deployment of a brigade, if that proved necessary. I ask this question simply to elicit information. There has been scepticism in the Conservative party about whether the EU ought to have the military role that it has. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that, on this occasion, an EU force would be the most appropriate bolster for MONUC if we—the western alliance—decided to send in forces?
I shall come to that shortly.
There have been reports of MONUC soldiers’ being implicated in the trafficking of persons and sexual abuse. Can the Minister assure us that any such allegations have been fully investigated and necessary action taken?
Let me now deal with the EU and British role. It is my understanding that if efforts by MONUC to stabilise the eastern Congo and protect the civilian population should fail in the short term, the EU may act to try to accomplish that. There continues to be some confusion about what role Britain would have in any such effort.
The legal and military position is that a British battalion is on standby to form part of one of the EU brigades. Both in response to the urgent question and today, the Minister gave us the impression that we were talking about a hypothetical situation, but can he confirm that First Battalion The Rifles is already undergoing training and preparation for action in the event of deployment of that EU brigade? Those are of course contingency measures, but I have reliable reports that preparation is taking place. Can the Minister also confirm that the battalion’s role as the UK commitment to the EU brigade will cease at the end of December, and that if that happens there will be no British battalion on standby to participate in either EU brigade in the event of deployment? Those are important factual questions that need to be clarified.
Is the Minister aware that the United States has more than a passing interest in the crisis? He may know that an Act was introduced in the Senate by one Senator Barack Obama. It was passed by Congress and signed off by President Bush in December 2006. It refers to the DRC, relief, security and democracy and clearly spells out the kind of actions the United States of America expected from the DRC and what actions it would take if the DRC failed to perform them. I do not know whether the Foreign Office has begun to participate in any discussions with President-elect Barack Obama’s advisers on this subject, but that Act is already on the US statute book and it shows that the President-elect takes a considerable interest in the matter.
The international community’s response has at times lagged behind events. As the Minister has pointed out, the DRC’s size and location make it vital to the stability of the whole of central Africa. We welcome the forthcoming visit of the UN Secretary-General and hope that the meeting this weekend will produce the sort of political solution we all want.
The rebels have accused Congo’s allies, Angola and Zimbabwe, of mobilising to back Government forces, while the Government, backed by reports from UN peacekeepers, say that Rwanda is helping the insurgents. Can the Minister clarify these reports? Does he agree that the possibility of a wider conflict is adding urgency to the UN Secretary-General’s attempts to bring Congo’s President Kabila and Rwanda’s President Kagame together for talks? What help have the Government given to ensuring that the talks are productive? We assume that Lord Malloch-Brown’s attendance at the talks is more than just a diplomatic nicety.
As has been mentioned, Britain gives a significant amount of aid to the region. Does the Minister agree that Britain must make it clear that we expect the Governments that receive British support to behave in a responsible manner, and not in any way to fuel the crisis? Does he agree that there is an urgent need for a comprehensive strategy to tackle the fundamental problem of insecurity in the eastern provinces, and that such a strategy should address the establishment of an effective Congolese army and police force, without which there are no serious incentives for the militias to co-operate with the central Government?
The feeling in all parts of the House is that we have been here before in the past several years, yet nothing has actually been done about the situation. Most Members feel that the various protagonists involved in the crisis must now be forced to fulfil the undertakings they have given.
Does the Minister agree that there is a need to establish close co-ordination with other interested states and institutions? Besides the UN, they include the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Southern African Development Community, many African states, and, perhaps increasingly, China.
The crisis is occurring on a scale that beggars belief. While we are debating it here, literally tens of thousands of people have fled their homes. As Members have said, they have not fled to established refugee camps where they can be protected and fed. There is real urgency to this situation, and I trust that Ministers will continue regularly to update the House, so that Members may debate it.
Order. I remind Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
I hope not to speak for as long as 10 minutes. I have listened carefully to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), and I want to talk about the situation in Goma, to follow on from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (John Battle), and to make a couple of points about what might happen. The Opposition spokesman has, of course, also put a number of questions to the Minister; I am sure that my hon. Friend will respond to them, and we all want to hear his answers. The general direction of travel in terms of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is fairly bipartisan, although the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) talked about commitments of troops in other places, about which there are valid points to be made.
I listened to what my hon. Friend the Minister had to say about the situation in Goma, and I am three quarters in agreement, but not entirely. The problem is difficult, because the situation is moving. The Foreign Secretary is elsewhere, and he has already been out there. The Government have shown as much commitment as they possibly can—the DRC is high on their agenda. It probably should have been higher up the world agenda before, but it is up there now because of the terrible things that are happening—that is a perverse upside of recent events. I also understand that Lord Malloch-Brown is off there tonight. The situation is fluid, therefore. I acknowledge that it is not my hon. Friend the Minister’s immediate area of responsibility, and some greater in-depth knowledge might be expected from the Ministers for whom it is an immediate area of responsibility, particularly Lord Malloch-Brown. That is no one’s fault; it is merely a consequence of Lord Malloch-Brown being in the Lords.
The Congo is very large and there are 17,000 United Nations troops there. The Kivus, however, are not particularly large, so a force of 17,000 troops might be more significant than it sounds. People mention the size of the Congo, but we are talking about a relatively small area of the country. None of us wants to be an armchair general or an armchair diplomat. My remarks are just common-sense comments that come from looking at what is happening on the ground. The Lord’s Resistance Army and many other organisations, including some that do not have names, as well as groups of bandits, are operating across the Congo. There are problems in Ituri and other issues, so Alan Doss, the UN special representative in the Congo, faces constraints on what he can do with those 17,000 troops. We must take care to ensure that he does not displace troops from areas that might then become problematic. The history of the Congo tells us that when one problem is solved, another one crops up because there are underlying issues, which I hope to have a couple of minutes to discuss.
I am not yet convinced that there is not a requirement for additional troops. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), has said, there has been a request for an additional 2,750 UN troops. The Rifles have been mentioned, but my instinct is that UK troops are fairly hard-pressed. I do not know the details of any information at the higher political level, but I would not rule out the possibility of, let us say, the Belgians sending some troops there, and I understand that they are perfectly confident of being able to deploy there. I have had two messages from the Foreign Office: at ministerial level, I am hearing that all possibilities are kept open, but at an official level it is not quite as clear that we have not ruled this out. I would not like to hear that the UK was against the idea of Belgian troops, for example, being deployed. There may be a higher level political reason for that; I cannot imagine what it might be, but perhaps I could be persuaded. At present, however, it seems to me that there is a strong case for increasing the number of troops there, not simply to deal with the Goma situation, but for what comes after that in the next three, six and nine months. We simply do not know what will come next.
I hope that we are now seeing a reapplication of the Nairobi principles, but we must bear in mind that they say that the FARDC—the DRC army—will secure the border between Congo and Rwanda. That is a small border, but the FARDC has disintegrated; it is no longer integrated. It was in theory an integrated force that included Nkunda’s CNDP—National Congress for People’s Defence—but the FARDC is currently coming apart. Essentially, there is no capacity. The DRC cannot simply say, “We sign up to the Nairobi principles,” and then do that, because it does not have the capacity.
Several Members of various parties have frequently visited the eastern Congo in the past few years. It is striking that the general narrative is that capacity will be developed in the FARDC, which will enable the Congo to look after its own security. There is a democratically elected Government. Many of us went there to see the elections taking place. The fact that we are now going backwards is to a large degree a political matter, but to some degree it is down to lack of FARDC capacity.
This crisis will not be solved by the FARDC but, in the short term, by the international community. Once the crisis has passed, we must take advantage of the current window, so that we ensure that we follow through on the high profile that the Congo currently has. My interest is in the FARDC having the capacity to look after itself. At the moment, I am nervous about seeing troops in white vehicles and soft blue hats, although it may well be that they have hard hats now. For the benefit of colleagues who do not think about such things all the time, UN vehicles are white so that they can be seen, and generally speaking people do not want to be seen if they are in a war-like situation; they want to be in a different colour, such as green.
People might say that General Nkunda’s troops are a raggedy bunch, but it is fairly well known that African troops are extremely resilient in the face of being shot at, because it happens a lot. Looking at Goma at the moment, it is perfectly realistic to imagine troops on the ground organising themselves properly in a defensive sense, but it is also perfectly possible to imagine Nkunda’s troops infiltrating, walking around those defences and establishing a significant presence in Goma. The worst case scenario—Nkunda’s taking Goma—would be disastrous for the UN and the DRC. It is particularly significant that the international community invested $250 million in the elections; it would be pretty reluctant to do so again. It looks like we are back where we started, and if the public believe that that is the case, it will be very difficult for us ever to commit ourselves to such a diplomatic and political effort in future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West mentioned the historical sweep, which I will deal with as briefly as possible. Demographics tell us that more than 5 million people have died in the region in the past 10 years as a consequence of constant war and conflict. This is a crisis on an enormous scale, and dealing with the current upsurge will make no difference in the long term; we must address the underlying details and issues that we know exist—politically and militarily—and start dealing with the situation for the long term. Otherwise, there will be another crisis in three or four months, and a bunch will come along together like London buses. As sure as eggs is eggs, that will happen.
Having listened to what has been said, I am not yet convinced that Alan Doss will be able to secure Goma and deal with the situation on the ground with the resources that he has, while the politics is dealt with elsewhere. I still think it really important to keep an open mind on that. On the politics, clearly, we need to convince the Rwandans and President Kagame—an extremely good man who has been a profoundly powerful force for good in the region, although he has natural reservations about what is going on the eastern Congo—to deal with the FDLR and Interahamwe issue more stringently. We also need to convince the Congolese Government to take up their responsibilities for the FARDC and to build it up with the assistance of the international community.
I hope that my final point does not sound too negative. My hon. Friend the Minister referred to an International Criminal Court sanction on one individual in the CNDP. Ultimately, in the medium term we have to consider applying that lever to General Nkunda himself, if he does not play ball.
The whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce), not just for sharing his knowledge with us today but for the work that he does on the all-party parliamentary group. I share many of his concerns, and I hope that the Minister will take particular note of his comments. He, like the Minister, is right to say that ultimately, we need a political solution. It is a shared position on both sides of the House that, frankly, we do not believe that the British armed forces have the capacity—at least in the immediate future—to contribute in large number to any extra troops that go to eastern Congo.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that MONUC needs some reinforcement. In our view, it was impossible for it to do the job asked of it prior to the current crisis—let alone in the light of the current crisis around Goma—without reinforcements. I think that he and I agree that the Government need to go a little further on this. It is not credible to argue that the objectives of defending Goma, maintaining the immediate ceasefire—such as it is—and disarming the Hutu militia in the medium term can be met without MONUC’s being reinforced. I do not accept that we can deal with this just by redeploying the existing MONUC forces.
The Minister keeps saying that this is the largest UN deployment across the world, but Congo is the size of western Europe. He may say that most of the problem is in the Kivu region, but as the hon. Member for Falkirk reminded us, MONUC is having to deploy in a whole range of different areas in Congo—in the Ituru and in north DRC. So MONUC is really stretched, and I do not accept the Government’s position that this can be dealt with simply by redeployment; there needs to be extra capacity. That is what Alan Doss believes and what the UN’s own peacekeeper office has argued for.
The possibility of an EU force has been discussed in this House and elsewhere, and like the hon. Member for Falkirk, I am concerned that it is the British Government who have been talking that possibility down. It has been suggested that President Sarkozy and others in the EU have been keen to see this force, but it is the Brits who have been talking it off the table. I hope that that is not so, and that the Minister who replies will answer that point. What have the British Government been doing about the EU proposal, and why are they not championing that idea to ensure that our European partners provide some troops in this crisis when they are needed?
Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he is suggesting that an EU force replace the UN force, or that it be part of and supportive of a UN command in Congo?
I think that it would have to work with the UN force. Ideally, I would like MONUC to be reinforced and to have an EU force. An EU force of 1,500 troops has been mentioned; however, in 2003, under Operation Artemis, an EU force was very successful, having been deployed for only two months, in bringing to an end a vicious conflict. The quality and standard of EU forces is therefore significantly higher than that of the MONUC forces, and a short intervention could be very useful in backing up what MONUC has been trying to do.
However, it is a question not simply of the number of troops, but of their mandate, as the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) discussed. There is some concern that MONUC’s mandate is a little too restrictive, in the sense that it has to work with the Congolese army. One can understand the politics of why that is so, but as has been said, the Congolese army has proved ineffective and in some cases has actually undermined some of the work taking place. Its troops have been committing human rights abuses. The need for the mandate to be clarified, so that MONUC can operate independently of the Congolese army, is increasingly important.
The peace process is obviously critical, and I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary for the work that he has done there. My concern regarding President Kabila is whether the international community is giving sufficient support to the necessary rebuilding of the Congolese army, and whether we are trying to persuade him to talk to General Nkunda. That might seem counter-intuitive to many in this House and elsewhere, but unless Nkunda is brought into the process, peace will not come as quickly as it needs to. The Minister talked in his opening remarks about involving Nkunda, but not in terms of direct talks with the Congolese Government, which are what Nkunda is seeking. Perhaps the Minister who responds to the debate can say whether we are trying to bring that about.
Finally, I want to revert to the points that I made during the urgent question asked earlier this week about the importance of the economic dimension. When I challenged the Minister about this last Tuesday, he talked about the importance of the extractive industry’s transparency initiative, which is of course very important. But the truth is that very few British or western companies have been brought to book for the way in which they are, directly or indirectly, fuelling this conflict. It is good that DAS Air and Afrimex were found to be in breach of OECD guidelines this summer, but what actually happened to them? Very little happened to them. Companies from the US, Canada, Germany and Austria are not being brought to book. It is time that the illegal mineral trade, which is fuelling this conflict, was clamped down on and that some of these electronic consumer goods firms, which benefit from the minerals sourced from this region, were held to account. They need to be asked to explain their sourcing policies and procedures. I am sure that our constituents would think it wrong if their buying electronic consumer goods—mobile phones, computers and so on—helped to fuel the death and destruction of people in eastern Congo. They would not expect to be doing that, and I want the Minister to tell us what this Government are doing to prevent such a situation from occurring.
I wish to put on record my thanks to the Leader of the House for choosing this subject for a topical debate—it is very important that we have this debate. Obviously, I have to keep within the 10-minute time limit, so I shall be as quick as I can.
The history of the Congo is one of the mad grab of its mineral-rich resources by generations of, mainly European, traders and mining companies, stretching right back to the 19th century, when it was King Leopold’s personal fiefdom, through to the period when it was the Belgian Congo. Independence subsequently came, and with it the assassination of the then Prime Minister, Patrice Lumumba. After that came a series of dictatorships, and the rape of the Congo continued, with the theft of resources and the destruction of so many people’s lives.
Many such people have made their homes in this country having sought exile from those conflicts. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about the need to have some regard, understanding and respect for the position that Congolese asylum seekers face in this country. We should not be sending back to the Congo people who will, unfortunately, face enormous danger when they return. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that.
A couple of days ago, a meeting of the Congolese diaspora was held upstairs in one of the Committee Rooms, and yesterday, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom held an interesting meeting in Committee Room 10 on the “Voices of African Women”. The women involved had suffered because of what is going on in the Congo at the present time. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) and for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), I was in Goma earlier this year and I was an election observer two years ago. During that election, there was a sense of hope and a feeling that the huge international investment that had been put into the electoral process would bring about some degree of political stability, the building of state institutions and some degree of long-term peace. Unfortunately, that has simply not happened in the case of the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The combination of the poverty of people in a mineral-rich area, the rape of women as a weapon of war by the various militia groups and, I am sorry to say, by the Congolese army, and the fear with which many people live is desperate to see. Indeed, the refugee camp that the three of us visited in April was overrun and burnt down only last week. The people we met there, 90 per cent. of whom were women trying to eke out an existence, have now fled to goodness knows where. They lack any food, clean water and medical supplies, and everything else, and are in a desperate situation.
I want to draw two factors to the House’s attention, the first of which is the role played by minerals and the second of which is the politics of the region. The DRC is a very mineral-rich place: it has massive forestry reserves, and one hopes that the majority of those will be permanently protected; and it has almost every mineral that the world needs. At the moment, the world needs coltan, tin, copper, gold, diamonds and all kinds of minerals, and the DRC is rich in those. It is cursed with the riches of its minerals; the benefits of all those riches have not gone to the poorest people in that country—indeed, there should not be any poor people in the DRC. I do not blame people for buying mobile phones—everybody in this House has a mobile phone; the whole world is buying mobile phones. Coltan is an essential part of their manufacture, but we need to deal with some issues: the methods that are used to extract the coltan; the system that is used to export it; and the money made by mining companies, metal dealers and others, none of which reaches the poorest people in the region. I have received many witness statements of what is going on in the DRC at the present time.
The issues of mineral extraction and the extractive industries transparency agreement are very important—that agreement has simply not been followed by the Congolese Government. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that elements of the Congolese army are controlling individual mines, as are other militia forces. The funding of the arms purchases—the funding of what goes on—comes directly from the extraction of minerals. Thus, in addition to the political work being done to try to bring about a settlement, tough questions need to be asked of every one of the big mining companies that end up processing some of the minerals that are extracted from the DRC, because, wittingly or unwittingly, those companies are fuelling the killing of millions of people. I use my words advisedly, because 5 million people have died in the DRC in the past 10 years as a result of this conflict, hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced and the capital city, Kinshasa, is overrun by refugees from the war in the east of the country.
My second point concerns the relationship with Rwanda. That country went through the horrors of genocide, and nobody can ever understate or underestimate its effects and horrors. Those of us who have been to Rwanda, seen the museum of the genocide and talked to people who went through it can only throw our hands up in horror at the things that happened to the people there. That is not to say that the Rwandan Government should not behave in a responsible way within the region.
I am holding a copy of the 2004 memorandum of understanding on the development partnership between the Government of the UK and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda. Article 11, to which the Rwandan Government signed up, states that they will
“remain committed to playing a full part in international and regional initiatives to prevent and reduce intra and inter-country conflicts and establish peace in central Africa”.
The Rwandan Government are receiving a huge amount of British aid; probably 40 to 50 per cent. of all Rwandan public expenditure comes from British taxpayers in one form or another. Therefore, the Rwandan Government need to be very open about the relationship between Rwanda and Nkunda and his forces within the region, and about the porous border that exists between both countries, which results not only in arms going through, but in large amounts of illicitly mined minerals getting out of the DRC.
In addition, a joint communiqué was agreed between the DRC and the Republic of Rwanda, clause 10 of which states:
“The Government of the Republic of Rwanda commits to:
(a) Take all necessary measures to seal its border to prevent the entry into or exit from its territory of members of any armed group, renegade militia leaders, Nkunda’s group in particular, and prevent any form of support—military, material or human—being provided to any armed group in the DRC.”
It goes on to say that information should be shared with the DRC and United Nations mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Hon. Members have rightly raised the question of what happens to the MONUC forces at the present time. I have met many of the people, from different parts, who work within them. One such group came from Uruguay, but people from India and many other countries are working within those forces. We witnessed them working extremely well during a humanitarian crisis when a plane crashed at Goma airport. I am not in favour of sending another military force in under a separate command or separate relationship, because that is a recipe for chaos, rivalry and, probably, disaster. If MONUC requires more logistical support or more people on the ground to enforce peace, it should clearly get that support and the necessary aid that it requires. Rather than playing at being armchair generals, I ask the House to think of two things. People are now starving in the eastern DRC. Children are dying for lack of medicines. It is a humanitarian crisis; and we have a responsibility to provide all the aid, support and help that we can.
A military solution in DRC is not possible; the solution must be political. I am pleased that Lord Malloch-Brown is attending the conference taking place in Nairobi this weekend to try to promote a political dialogue between DRC and Rwanda and to encourage political developments in eastern Congo. So far, politics have failed and business has made a great deal of money while ordinary people have been dying. We must provide support, bring about a ceasefire and peace and, above all, promote a political settlement so that independence for Congo can become a reality, and people can live in a safe and secure environment and benefit from the natural riches of their own land.
No hon. Member would dissent from the assertion of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), the Minister and others that Congo needs a political solution. Neither would anyone dissent from the assertion that it is difficult for us to describe the scale of the individual tragedy—of families, women and children, many of whom have been forced to move many times, each time losing more of their possessions and becoming more destitute, thereby making their lives much more difficult. We all hope that a political solution can be found.
I shall focus the House’s attention on the issue that I raised during the urgent question earlier this week. During the 1990s and the early part of the new millennium, the international community became increasingly enthusiastic about promulgating the concept of the responsibility to protect. We had seen the horrors of the Rwandan genocide and we had seen Kosovo, where the United Nations had failed to act—Kosovo was dealt with by a coalition of the willing. As we entered the new millennium, there was a desire that we should never find ourselves in such a position again. That was described well by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, at the 2001 Labour party conference, when he said that if Rwanda happened again we would not walk away as the outside world had done many times before. He insisted that the international community had a “moral duty” to provide military and humanitarian assistance to Africa whenever it was needed.
In the same year, Kofi Annan, then Secretary-General of the UN, said in his Nobel lecture:
“The sovereignty of states must no longer be used as a shield for gross violations of human rights.”
That led, in 2005, to the UN adopting a long resolution containing provisions on the “Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”. It makes it clear that:
“The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”
In January, the current Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, made himself clear:
“I am fully committed to keeping the momentum that you the leaders have made at the 2005 World Summit and will spare no effort to operationalise the responsibility to protect.”
In reality, however, the international community no longer appears able to deliver on the responsibility to protect.
I shall focus on four countries: Sierra Leone, Sudan, Congo and Zimbabwe. In Sierra Leone, the international community intervened very effectively. Led by UK troops, it took on the west side boys and restored peace to Freetown, and thus to Sierra Leone. That was followed by a very successful UN international war crimes tribunal, which for the first time established that enlisting child soldiers is a war crime and that a Head of State has no sovereign immunity from charges of war crimes. Charles Taylor is now in The Hague being tried for war crimes in Sierra Leone. That intervention was fantastically successful. However, that was partly because Sierra Leone is comparatively small and because the UK had the lift capacity and ability to enforce its military will.
By the time we got to Darfur, however, countries with a sizeable lift capacity—in particular, the United Kingdom and the United States—were engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there just were not the countries with the kind of military lift capacity needed to enter Darfur. So we had a kind of dance where, first, the African Union said that it would take a lead. It was clear to those of us on the International Development Committee who went to Darfur that the AU was doing the best it could with scant resources, but that it was totally incapable of doing anything other than monitor the situation. Then it was decided to have a hybrid institution of AU and UN troops, but that has not managed to do much more because, again, there are no players with the kind of lift capacity and military co-ordination able to enforce their will in Darfur.
That has come through in this debate. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) rationally said that if rebel forces really wanted to penetrate Goma, we would require a large number of troops on the ground to prevent it from happening. Anyone with any military experience realises that. However, we must also acknowledge that the Secretary-General is not able to call upon the necessary forces. To those of us who took part in the Westminster Hall debate on Afghanistan the other day, it was quite clear that much of NATO’s commitment for the foreseeable future will be tied up in Afghanistan. Indeed, if anything, before enjoining the European Union to get more involved in other areas, we should enjoin EU and NATO colleagues to participate more in the UN peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan.
The UN and the international community need to give serious consideration to how the Secretary-General can access the sort of military capacity needed on such occasions to ensure that the words “responsibility to protect” are not empty or meaningless again. That will require countries outside the EU to make a much greater contribution. After all, a number of members, even in the Security Council, make no significant contribution to peacekeeping or peace-enforcing anywhere in the world. The responsibility to protect cannot be supported only by a coalition of the willing—it is far too important. If we say that there is a responsibility to protect, and if we give the impression that the international community will come to the rescue of those suffering terribly from humanitarian and war crimes, but we do not deliver, we will be betraying those people.
In Congo and elsewhere, we must ensure that the international community and the Secretary-General have the capacity to deliver on the responsibility to protect. We all hope and pray that a political solution will be found to Congo’s immediate problems. However, with the major military world players, such as the UK and the US—with all their lift capacity—occupied in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the resources available to the Secretary-General are pretty thin. We have to face up to that, and to the reality that we will need competent and co-ordinated military feet on the ground to protect civilian populations. At the moment, we are not delivering even in Darfur, so we may well be misleading ourselves if we pretend that we can deliver in other areas.
I hope that Ministers will reflect, with colleagues in the UN Security Council and General Assembly, on how we can deliver on the promise that is the responsibility to protect.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made a very interesting and important speech. I think that hon. Members of all parties feel despair about our inability to protect the people of the Congo, and elsewhere. That is especially true of the many of us who have visited the area and seen at first hand the outcome of previous conflicts, which are now flaring up again.
As has been noted, I visited one of the camps near Goma earlier this year. We heard from many women about what had happened to them, and about the mass rape and violence that had taken place. I was particularly struck by the two teenage girls who told me that they were in despair at their inability to get an education because they could not leave the camp for fear of being raped or attacked. Now I am in despair myself, wondering what on earth has happened to those two girls and all the others in the camp. That brings home the fact that we seem to be incapable of making progress in the crisis and of protecting those people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said that yesterday he chaired a meeting of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. It involved women from a number of African countries, and I specifically asked the women who had come over from the Congo what points they would like to be made in today’s debate. I wanted to know what help could be given to try and help end the conflict in eastern Congo, and what could be done to stop the horrendous sexual and other violence against women.
On the second issue, I was told very clearly that securing peace was the necessary prerequisite for stopping the sexual violence, which began when the conflict began and which was very closely associated with it. It was said earlier that rape was being used as a weapon of war, and that was brought home to me very clearly, but the women also talked about impunity. They said that people were simply not being brought to justice, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the different Government Departments look seriously at the report prepared by the all-party group on the great lakes with the Swedish Foundation For Human Rights. It deals with the question of how to address impunity for sexual crimes in the DRC, and contains recommendations for the Congolese Government and the international community. Lord Mance from the other place, who is very well respected and knowledgeable about these matters, went to the area on our behalf, and I hope that the Government will take up the report’s recommendations.
In response to my question about how we can end the conflict, the Congolese women not surprisingly spoke about the importance of getting a proper inter-communal dialogue between Tutsis and Hutus. When pressed, they placed the blame on the Rwandan Government, and claimed that the UK Government had links with Rwanda. There is always the feeling that we have favoured Rwanda and that we should put pressure on that Government to meet their responsibilities.
However, I want to emphasise the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce), as well as by certain Opposition Members, about the need for a political solution that requires action by both Rwanda and the Congolese Government. Both sides need to meet the commitments that they have made and play their part in bringing the conflict to an end.
Although the Congolese women who spoke yesterday about the position in Rwanda and the responsibility of the Rwandan Government did not make any comment about any particular group in the Congo, I was reminded of the strong anti-Tutsi rhetoric that we heard from some Congolese parliamentarians during our visit in April. The Congolese Government have a responsibility to make a statement against such rhetoric, as it clearly does not help matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North has spelt out the need for Rwanda to do all that it can to meet its obligations under the agreements. He also mentioned the allegations that have been made about the direct support that that Government have given to Nkunda. The evidence is not entirely clear, but we know that he has been able to recruit in Rwanda. The memorandum that was referred to previously shows how the aid that we give to Rwanda is dependent on that Government meeting their responsibility to seek to limit conflict. If nothing else, they have influence over Nkunda, as it appears that they managed to limit his advance on Goma.
The Rwandan Government also have a responsibility to use political means to get the FDLR forces to end their insurgency. Obviously, they cannot be expected to give political space to those who were directly involved in the genocide, but earlier this year we heard about a supposed list of 7,000 people who could not be received back into Rwanda. That needs to be looked at again, as it has been claimed that many of the people on the list were far too young to be involved. Some of the Congolese women at the meeting yesterday said that not all the Hutus were “genocidaires”, and that point needs to be made clear. I hope that the Government use their influence to ensure that all those points are raised in the discussions with Rwanda.
Of course, the Congolese Government also have a huge responsibility to stop using rhetoric against groups in the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk has spoken about the incapacity of the Congolese army, but it has also been suggested that it is connected with various forces.
The Crisis States Research Centre of the London School of Economics has just issued a press release stating that the FDLR remains at the heart of the problem. The release also accuses the international community of failing to take the “bull by the horns”, and discusses how the Kabila Government have an on-off tactical alliance with FDLR elements. It is clear that the Congolese have a huge responsibility to play their part and meet their commitment to go ahead with the agreements and to avoid giving support to any particular faction.
These are horrendously difficult problems, and we have not made a lot of progress with them. When talking about these political issues, it is easy to say that they are about power and how certain forces want to protect what is theirs, but as has been noted it is also very much connected to money—where it comes from and who retains control of resources in the DRC.
As the hon. Member for Banbury said, it is our responsibility to seek to protect and do what we can. It is not for the international community to act as neo-colonisers, and the responsibility for resolving these problems is not ours alone, as the Governments and people in the area also have a huge responsibility in that respect. However, I hope that the Minister winding up the debate will be able to deal with some of the questions that have been raised about what part we can play. We need to help and pressure the Governments in the area to seek an end to the conflict, and also use our influence to get them to act to halt the appalling things that are going on at the moment. People can see them on their TV screens, but those of us who have visited the area have seen them for ourselves. I therefore ask the Minister to deal with some of the questions that have been raised about the political situation, and about the use of sexual violence against women.
It is clear to me that there will be no end to the violence in the eastern Congo until the root causes are addressed. I strongly welcome the high-profile diplomatic stand that the Foreign Secretary has taken, and the humanitarian response made by the Department for International Development, but we will have many more debates like today’s in this House unless the root causes of the problem are addressed. There are many root causes, but I want to talk about just two of them—first, the legacy of the Rwandan genocide and, secondly, the exploitation of mineral wealth by belligerents in the conflict and the markets that they find for the minerals with multinational companies.
It is useful to think of the Rwanda genocide as an unfinished war. It is not a separate conflict that is taking place across the border; the conflict is an echo of the genocide. The Hutus across the border include some of the leaders responsible for the genocide. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) said, not all Hutus were involved with the genocide, but they have been there a long time now, under the leadership of the FDLR, and they need to be disarmed, immobilised and reintegrated into society. The leaders need to face trial, but others should be resettled back in Rwanda. One understands Rwanda’s reluctance to have them back, but the conflict will not end if the list of 7,000 people not allowed to return to that country remains in existence; if it does, those people will stay across the border as part of insurgent and guerrilla gangs. There will be no long-term solution and peace for Hutus or Tutsis, and no long-term peace in the region.
Laurent Nkunda’s CNDP is, in a way, a response to the failure of the Congolese and Rwandan Governments, and indeed the UN, to disarm, demobilise and resettle the belligerents in the eastern Congo. The situation is a bit like that relating to vigilante bands. Anywhere in the world, if the state with responsibility does not provide security, people take the law into their own hands, and vigilante bands come into being. In a sense, that is what has happened. That is not an excuse or a justification for Laurent Nkunda’s actions, which are illegal. His CNDP also needs to be disarmed and demobilised, and its members resettled.
President Kagame clearly has influence with Laurent Nkunda, and he should use that influence in the most forceful way possible. Our aid agreement with Rwanda is based on a 10-year memorandum of understanding, which commits high volumes of British aid to Rwanda in return for a commitment that Rwanda will support regional peace and stability. We ought to look to President Kagame to honour that as part of our bilateral relationship.
I should like to add a word about what my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley said about violence against women. Rape is a horrendous crime, but it is not just rape that we are talking about. When I was with the International Development Committee in the eastern Congo a couple of years ago, we visited the Panzi hospital. The sort of genital violence that soldiers did to women just defies description, certainly in such a debate. That violence, inflicted on innocent civilians, will continue year after year unless the root causes of the conflict are addressed.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to send a European Union force if necessary. I particularly welcome the official Opposition’s support for that. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), I made that point. It is extremely welcome that the Conservative party has signalled support for an EU force, if it is necessary. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) that it would be far preferable to provide the security that is needed through the force of the United Nations mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) told us, Alan Doss requested additional troops in October. I do not think that the UK is in a position to provide those troops, but we are in a position to fund the provision of those troops.
The UK should also look at what technical assistance we could provide. When I met MONUC commanders and soldiers during my visit to the eastern Congo, it was clear to me that it is a basic, boots-on-the-ground army; it does not have the sophisticated command and control and intelligence systems that a western army has. Help could be provided by the UK and other European countries in that regard. I should also like more UK support for civilian posts in MONUC. It has many vacant posts, and there is more that we could do to provide the civilian support that it needs.
Finally, as others have said, the Congo’s natural resources have been plundered by despots over decades. That is a principal cause of this resource-rich country’s poverty and instability. The trade in conflict diamonds has been curbed significantly by the Kimberley process, but less has been done on the exploitation of other minerals. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responds to the debate, I ask him to tell us more about what the Government can do, by using the extractive industries transparency initiative, and by toughening up the OECD guidelines mechanism, to stop the purchase of minerals from the Congo continuing to fuel the conflict.
I think that all Members would agree that today’s debate is welcome and timely. Sadly, the circumstances that have led to this debate are not. The fighting in the past few weeks has once again brought the world’s attention to one of the most intractable conflicts in Africa, and highlighted the human cost. What happens in the Democratic Republic of the Congo matters not only because its 60 million people deserve peace and a better future, but because that vast country with nine neighbours is vital to the stability of the whole of central Africa. The DRC is one of the frontiers of development, where the battle to achieve the millennium development goals will be won or lost. At least 75 per cent. of the DRC’s population lives in extreme poverty by the $1-a-day standard. Fewer than half of the DRC’s children finish primary school. As many as 1.6 million people are displaced from their homes, more than 900,000 of them in north Kivu alone.
That is not what the people of the country want. The successful elections in 2006 were a clear demonstration of the people’s desire for peace, and of their expectations for change. That pressure is, in itself, important. The situation in the past few weeks and months in the Kivus are a betrayal of what the people of that country truly desire. We have played a leading role in the international political and humanitarian response. Even before the crisis, the UK provided £30 million to the humanitarian pooled fund for priority responses by non-governmental organisations and UN agencies, plus £7 million to the Red Cross and other NGOs.
We have moved quickly to increase our response. We have provided an additional £5 million, which the Secretary of State for International Development announced only last week. Some of these funds have already been used to support UNICEF, whose stocks are low. Two aid flights from the UK have arrived in Entebbe today, carrying plastic sheeting, 18,000 blankets, 24,000 buckets and 1 million water purification tablets. We are arranging for those essential items to be transported as quickly as possible to Goma. I would like to put it on record that we need to look at the situation at Goma airport, which is a long-standing concern. It is also important to say that today we approved £2 million for the World Food Programme to meet immediate food needs.
I do not have very much time to respond to the sensible points that have been made, but let me quickly say, on MONUC, that there is to be an urgent review by the UN, and there will be a report to the Security Council very soon on the request for additional forces. At this stage, no EU country has made any request for an EU force to be sent—there was a discussion about that on Monday—so perhaps there has been some misunderstanding in this debate.
I echo the points made by hon. Members about a political solution: in the end, there has to be such a solution. At the conference tomorrow, it is extremely important that there be appropriate, responsible and urgent engagement by both the Congolese and Rwandan Governments on fulfilling their responsibilities in that respect. My noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown will be there, and will play an active role in the discussions. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will welcome the proactive contribution that our Foreign Secretary has made. He went with the French Foreign Minister to the affected area as a matter of urgency, to see what we could do.
I share hon. Members’ concerns about the exploitation of mineral resources. We need to do more on that issue, and I shall certainly look at what more we can do.
On the question of violence against women, it is important to note that this year the American Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, led a debate about UN Security Council resolution 1820 on women, peace and security, in which she focused on the responsibility to protect—a point made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry).
The message from this House is that there is complete unity. We want the Governments in the region to fulfil their responsibilities and we want an immediate cessation of violence so that we can get the humanitarian aid to where it needs to go and begin a longer-term process of peace and stability in the area.
The humanitarian aid that the Minister has announced and consolidated today is highly welcome, but does he agree that it has to be backed up by a political process? If the political process does not move forward, will he and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office work very closely with the new American Administration, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said, by passing the Act in 2006, President-elect Obama has already shown his commitment to progress towards a solution in the DRC?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) made a similar point. With the election of President Obama this week, there is a major opportunity not only for serious and proactive engagement on this issue, but in terms of our responsibilities to the developing world more generally. A new American Administration give us new opportunities in the US’s potential leadership role with regard to the developing world, so it is important that, at the earliest stage, we begin discussions with the incoming Administration. We obviously want to form relationships with the people who will play key leadership roles in President-elect Obama’s Government, and we intend to begin those discussions as quickly as possible.
Hon. Members will agree that, first, however, we must make it clear to all parties that there can be no excuses—no obstacles to humanitarian aid reaching the people who need it. We want an immediate cessation of violence, and we want Governments who have the capacity to influence that cessation to use every means available to do so. Having achieved that, we must get to work on a long-term political settlement. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said, we could then come to this House to debate not the flaring-up of violence, but a long-term settlement that is in the interests of that country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the political and humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Fighting Crime (Public Engagement)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of public engagement in fighting crime.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this debate on such an important subject. Over the past 10 years we have seen real progress in tackling crime—the British crime survey shows that overall crime is down 48 per cent. since 1995, and our streets are safer as a result—but crime is still a major concern for the public. The public are essential to tackling crime, as is confidence in the police and other criminal justice agencies. Louise Casey was commissioned by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and others to carry out a review of the public’s experience of crime and how we can support them in the fight against it. The review findings show that 67 per cent. of people would not know whom to complain to if they were not happy with the way their local area was being policed. They also show that the public want more say on policing their neighbourhoods, and that 68 per cent. of people agree that someone in their local community should hold the police to account.
We listened to the public, who told us that they want a criminal justice system that meets the needs of victims. They also want to know about what happens to those who have committed a crime—in the review, 90 per cent. of people we asked said that they thought that they were not told enough about what happens to the perpetrators of crime when they are convicted. Notwithstanding the excellent progress that the police and other partners have made, we cannot ignore what the public tell us: bold leadership and action are needed. We are on the side of the public, but the findings show that the public want us to go even further.
In July, we published the policing Green Paper, “From the Neighbourhood to the National: Policing Our Communities Together”, which will put in place radical reforms to transform the relationship between the Government, the police and the public to provide a more consistent, visible and accessible service that is responsive, meets public needs and expectations, deals with local priorities and keeps people informed. A key commitment in the Green Paper was the policing pledge, which for the first time will give the public a clear minimum standard of service to which they are entitled. The pledge will deliver what the public want from the police, and, for the first time, the public will know the minimum standard of service that they will receive. The public will be told how they can contact the police, what response to expect, and how they will be kept informed if they become victims of crime. It commits to high-visibility neighbourhood policing teams and monthly public meetings, so that neighbourhoods can hold the police to account.
One of the best ways in which police forces can become more visible is by recruiting and attracting special constables, but since this Government came to office the number of specials has, according to the Home Office’s own figures, fallen from 19,874 to 14,547. In my policing area in Northamptonshire, their numbers are down from 316 to 180. What is the Home Office doing to reverse that trend?
I shall come on to that subject later in my remarks, but I should say that I went out with the specials in Nottingham last Friday as part of national specials week, which was not only about trying to encourage more people to become specials, but about highlighting the excellent work that they do. I am sure that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), who is sat next to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), will know even better than many of us the excellent work that specials do.
I have talked to my local police, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has in Northamptonshire, and they say to me that, although they may not have on the books as many specials as they used to, they are far more active now. He should talk to the chief constable of Northamptonshire, as I speak to chief constables throughout the country. They tell me that the work that the specials do is greater now than it ever has been, and that more specials are involved in neighbourhood policing teams and in the various tasks that we would expect them to do. Of course it is important that we have more and more specials, but I want to see them not just as a number on a piece of paper, but as active police officers in the best sense of the word. Just to reinforce the point, if the hon. Gentleman looks into the issue, he will find that the number of specials who are active and out and about is greater now than it has been. However, we will always try to recruit more specials and get more involved.
Does the Minister agree that another way of supporting the police locally is through effective neighbourhood watch schemes? May I draw to his attention the excellent work of Heather Shaw, the London borough of Sutton’s neighbourhood watch co-ordinator, and the concerns that she has raised with me about the level of support, in terms of information and literature, that is provided from the centre to neighbourhood watches throughout the country? Will he look into that matter?
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to draw attention to the excellent work that neighbourhood watches do in his constituency and throughout the country, acting as the eyes and ears of the police. It involves active citizenship in the best sense of the word. There is always an issue about information and support, and we will always consider representations from local neighbourhood watches about how we can improve the websites that we operate and the information that we put out. If there is a problem in respect of a neighbourhood watch in his constituency, he can write to me and I shall look into it for him.
The Minister is generous in giving way three times in rapid succession. I, too, went out with the specials—in Chesterfield last Friday night as part of national specials week. I spent seven hours on the beat with Section Officer Mick Bagshaw and a number of other specials. That night, 11 specials were on duty, and that doubled the police presence in Chesterfield—it was Halloween, and a lot more low-level mischief calls and so on were expected. The specials were very effective.
However, because Derbyshire is the fourth worst funded police authority in the country, it cannot afford enough vehicles to ensure that the specials have the mobility that vehicles provide. The specials do a lot of beat work as well, of course, but the shortage of vehicles is a big problem. The Government themselves say that Derbyshire needs £5 million more a year, but will not give it the money. Can that problem not be resolved, so that more specials, more police community support officers, which whom I shall be going out on the beat shortly, and more regular officers—I have already been out on the beat with some of them—get back on patrol?
If I could find the figures in my folder quickly enough, I would be able to demonstrate to the hon. Gentleman the significant increase in funding to Derbyshire police and the historic policing levels in Derbyshire and across the country in terms of police officers, PCSOs—which did not exist a few years ago—and police staff.
The hon. Gentleman claims that a lack of vehicles has affected the operational capacity of specials; no doubt, he will take the matter up with the chief constable. Let me just say that I agree very much with him about the important role played by specials. Having 11 specials in Chesterfield is an excellent tribute to the specials in his area. The fact that many Members of Parliament have been out with specials as part of national specials week shows the importance that MPs on both sides of the House attach to specials’ work in communities up and down the country.
At local level, the pledge declares that the police will be with the public within an hour in response to calls about agreed neighbourhood priorities for which police attendance is required. The pledge gives people the right to meet their local team and others in the community at least once a month to agree priorities and action to tackle them. It also says that neighbourhood policing teams will spend at least 80 per cent. of their time visibly working on behalf of the public in their neighbourhood. Essex police force is the first in the country to meet fully the national standards and commitments in the policing pledge, but by the end of the year all 43 police forces will be delivering the policing pledge for their communities.
I welcome the Minister to his new position at the Home Office. On the policing pledge, there is concern about how the police inform victims about the progress of cases. That is a real worry for people. Ian Johnston recently said that 40 per cent. of the public felt that, following dealings with the police, they were less likely to have confidence in them. Will the Minister assure the House that the pledge will include communication with the public about their cases, which is a matter of real concern?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his warm welcome, for which I am particularly grateful as he is Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. He makes an important point. Communication will be a hugely important part of the pledge. As I have said, one of the things that undermines the confidence of local communities is their not knowing what has happened in relation to a crime that they have been the victim of. It is also important to remember that the pledge is not only national; there will also be a local aspect to it, negotiated at local level.
I have always felt that that one issue can undermine policing in an area. Sometimes there is a problem with a young person or a serial offender and their victims complain to the police. A few weeks later, people meet the victims and ask them how things are and they say, “Oh, it’s a lot better. By the way, what’s happened to so and so?” They do not know that the offender has been arrested, been charged and is in custody. Although they end up being informed of that, knowing that something has been done about somebody who has caused problems is reassuring for the victim and the community. My right hon. Friend has raised a real issue, and we will make sure that it plays an important part in the work that we are doing.
To help to ensure that the police are accountable for their pledge, we propose that crime and policing representatives be elected by each community to chair the district’s crime and disorder reduction partnership and sit on the police authority. They will be one of the main voices of the community and provide a much needed point of contact for those around them. More on that will be announced in due course.
The Home Secretary recently announced an investment of £5 million to establish a community crime fighter programme to help local people to tackle crime in their neighbourhood. By the end of next year, more than 3,600 local people will be trained as community crime fighters—that represents one person for each of the neighbourhood policing teams. The Home Secretary also announced this week the 60 pioneer areas, covering almost 15 million people—more than one in four of the population of England and Wales—that have committed to work with the Government and push their local services further and faster, to get more effectively on their local public’s side in the fight against crime, thus taking forward some of the key recommendations in Louise Casey’s review.
The public want the police to be visible in their local streets. There are 13,500 police sergeants and constables supported by 16,000 police community support officers, the specials and police staff. We now have a network of teams and officers dedicated to their local communities. To answer specifically the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering, I should say that we will have 6,000 new special constables over the next three years, and that we are also investing £2.25 million that will see 20,000 special constables working alongside police community support officers.
As I said, last Friday—Halloween evening—I was out with special constables in my area. It was particularly reassuring to see how they were integrated with the neighbourhood policing team, rather than being a bolt-on or add-on service that just turned up. They were an integral part of what was happening to tackle crime in the area. I am sure that the Members who have mentioned specials and been out with them will have seen that for themselves in their own areas. It would be remiss of me not to thank the specials for the sometimes dangerous work that they do, and I also thank all our police officers, PCSOs and police staff very publicly for what they do on our behalf.
This year, more than 400 local agencies took part in “Not in my neighbourhood” week, which provides local partners—including crime and disorder reduction partnerships, local police, neighbourhood watch schemes and community organisations—with a national banner under which they can publicise the work being done to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour. However, successful neighbourhood policing is not about telling the police what needs to be done and then sitting back on our laurels. We need to establish dialogue. The neighbourhood policing approach needs people to get involved and to work with the police and other local agencies in taking back some of the ground lost to antisocial behaviour and, where necessary, reclaiming the streets, parks, buses and other public spaces for the law-abiding majority. I am pleased that that is happening in communities throughout England and Wales.
Does the Minister understand that if we are to encourage greater public engagement in helping to fight crime, the public must have confidence that when criminals are caught they will be appropriately dealt with? There is growing disillusionment with the Government’s early release scheme, which, since it was introduced last year, has allowed some 800 crimes to be committed by people who should have been in prison. What are the Government going to do to put that right?
We are trying to build confidence in the criminal justice system. People will often debate, often without the full facts, what sentences should be given for crimes committed in a particular area. I am told—although this is where neighbourhood policing partnerships provide reassurance—that one of the things that most undermines the public’s confidence in the police, in the criminal justice system and in Governments is their feeling that there is not a proper chance of people being apprehended for a crime. Of course we want people who commit crimes to be properly dealt with by the courts, and by and large they are. When people feel that police are working in their area and dealing with problems that are brought to their attention, their confidence will rise. No doubt that is what is happening in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in constituencies around the country.
Let me give one or two good examples of the things that are happening in communities. A local co-ordinator for the neighbourhood watch group on an estate in the Wirral assisted the neighbourhood policing team to gather intelligence on a family in her road who were the main cause of antisocial behaviour in the area. The road was highlighted at a tasking and co-ordinating meeting as the source of more than 50 per cent. of the police’s antisocial behaviour calls. The community problem-solving, multi-agency approach has reduced these calls to zero, reducing the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour. That is a powerful example of what can be achieved. I know that Members on both sides of the House will have their own examples of what has happened in their constituencies when people have worked together to overcome problems.
There is a lot of debate about us as a society doing the “right thing”, and what that is. There are many ways for people to do this—not necessarily putting themselves in harm’s way, but taking steps such as engaging with the neighbourhood policing team, reporting a crime, or even just dialling 999 and not turning a blind eye. Public engagement is not just about seeking people’s views on what we are doing, or even their support, although of course both those things are important. We want to involve the public directly in what we are trying to achieve, delivering community-led solutions to matters of concern.
That can be seen clearly in many aspects of our work, including on preventing violent extremism—one of the most important challenges that the Government are facing. A key element of our counter-terrorism strategy aims to stop people becoming or supporting terrorists or violent extremists in the first place and to draw back those who are already involved. We will support local leaders who want to stand up to violent extremism and racism, and increase their capacity to shape the future of their communities.
I am sure that many Members are concerned about violent crime in their constituencies. We are determined to tackle that problem. We know that there are areas that have greater problems with knives, and that is why we are targeting 10 police force areas, just as we did four areas last year, to bring down gun and gang crime, which has since decreased by more than 50 per cent. In those areas, we did what the public asked us to do. They wanted to see tough enforcement of the law and to ensure that perpetrators or those who sought to use violence in their communities were dealt with robustly by the police. However, they also told us that as well as the robust action that had to lead the work that we were doing, it was important to try to prevent violence happening in the first place by diverting young people in particular away from a life of crime. By listening to the public, we identified how we would tackle those problems.
We spent a long time talking not only to the police and to local authorities but to faith organisations, voluntary organisations and residents’ associations about what we should be doing as a Government to try to tackle these issues. Part of the problem in these debates is that one can sometimes be seen as somebody who talks about the need for tough enforcement or, on the other hand, as somebody who believes only in prevention and diversion, whereas in reality, as we all know, we have to bring all those things together. The public told us not to engage in sterile debates about who is tougher than whom, because although tough enforcement is necessary we must also ensure that we do all the other things that are necessary.
The Minister is describing the crime profile in various areas, but there are enormous variations. Does he agree that borough commanders and chief constables know the crime profile of their own area better than anyone because they have local knowledge, and that they should have control over their personnel budgets in deciding on, for example, the proportion of police community support officers and fully trained constables who have more policing power?
We want chief constables to be operationally independent. Just over a year ago, we removed the ring-fencing fom some of the money that was going to the police so that chief constables would have more discretion in how they spend it and how they allocate their budgets. That is important.
If we are talking about operational independence, the Home Office will have a single confidence target, under which people will be asked whether they think the police and their partners are effective in reducing crime in their area. That is the target we need and the way in which we can see whether chief constables and others are doing an effective job in their area. It will allow chief constables to have the operational independence that they need to identify the crime profile in their area and to task their officers, police staff and PCSOs accordingly. They will then be judged on the single target of whether people in their area believe that the police have been effective in reducing crime and have confidence in what they are doing about it. I agree with the hon. Lady and I hope that some of the things we are doing will deal with her point.
I agree with the Minister that one of the best ways of dealing with crime is to intervene early, before any unlawful behaviour has even been thought about. In the responses that the public have given, has he found that people raised the subject of the Criminal Records Bureau and the complications that face those who wish to work in a voluntary capacity to assist in preventing unlawful behaviour before it is even thought about? If they have said that, can he update us on the progress that is being made to ensure that the process is simpler and not repetitive?
We are trying to ensure that all of our systems are effective and simple. We keep the matter of the Criminal Records Bureau under review, and we will act as necessary when it is appropriate to do so.
Investment in the youth of the UK is an investment in our future—something with which I know we all agree. We are allocating money to help to prevent young people from becoming involved in crime and antisocial behaviour. We will tackle youth crime through early intervention—a point just made by the hon. Gentleman—non-negotiable support and tough enforcement. This summer, that commitment was proved by the publication of the youth crime action plan and the youth alcohol action plan. We are trying to reach young people by using new technologies. The youth knife crime campaign recently allowed us to include an “It Doesn’t Have To Happen” page on Bebo, the social networking site which is the hub of the campaign. To date, it has 6,143 friends, and has received more than 66,000 visits and 1,320 wall posts. It also uses two viral adverts showing the physical and emotional consequences of carrying a knife. We developed those campaigns in co-operation with young people.
We talk about the involvement of the public in tackling crime, and the involvement of young people is an important part of that. The Government need to reflect—as all of us do, sometimes—on the fact that young people have asked us not to communicate with them in the way that we have always communicated with the public. We need to think about the new ways of communicating, such as the internet, and the use of radio stations, TV advertising and digital communication. Those methods will get to young people in a way that more traditional ways of communicating do not. That is what we tried to do through the campaign that I mentioned.
The Minister rightly identified the need to have greater co-ordination and communication with young people, which I entirely endorse, but does he accept that very graphic TV and radio adverts might heighten the risk for young people? They may have a detrimental effect if they are wrongly timed and are not backed up with the reassurance that comes from the backing of a strong police response. By advertising in such a way, we could encourage fear, leading to more people carrying weapons on the street.
Of course we need a tough enforcement approach—I made that point earlier. Whatever else we do, we need tough police activity to deal with violent and dangerous crime. It is not often that I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but if I have understood him correctly, I do in this instance. We used graphic images in the advertising because young people themselves told us that if we wanted to have an impact, we needed to show people the consequences of crime involving knives, guns or whatever. We need to demonstrate to young people the consequences of their actions. The evaluations that we conducted and the responses that we have received so far have been positive. Those positive reactions are not only from young people, but from parents and others who believe that, far from frightening young people or heightening awareness, thus almost encouraging such crime, the advertising does the opposite and has a good impact in discouraging people from violent crimes, especially the use of knives.
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Inspector Andy Woodhead, who polices the Withernsea area of my constituency? I did a survey of the town and the No. 1 concern that emerged was antisocial behaviour, especially the impact of drug dealing. I met Inspector Woodhead, who agreed to review the procedures that the police were following. We made a joint call to local people to provide information, and he and his team have made several arrests and removed at least two drug dealers from the streets of Withernsea. That is an excellent effort between the police and local people, who provided the information on which they rely.
As I said earlier, I could give some excellent examples from my constituency, as could all hon. Members from theirs. I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Inspector Woodhead on the work he did in conjunction with the hon. Gentleman and local residents to tackle drug dealing and other forms of antisocial behaviour. We want that sort of effort to be replicated throughout the country.
The Government have put more than £100 million into our efforts to tackle youth crime and build on the work already under way in many areas of the country. Measures will include: street-based teams of youth workers and ex-offenders to tackle groups of young people who are involved in crime and disorder; increased, visible patrols during and after school hours; expanding family intervention projects to respond more effectively to families at risk; and providing positive activities for young people. In our efforts to tackle knife and other violent crime, we have allocated £3.8 million to local community projects, including positive activities for young people, and £3 million to after school patrols, safer schools partnerships, “Stay Safe” operations, and the advertising campaign to which I referred. Again, all those projects involve the public and young people.
I am slightly worried about advertising because evidence from the United States is mixed. For example, the “Scared Straight” programme, which showed young people the consequences of their actions, appeared to lead to an increase in crime. It appears to make a genuine difference when the person at risk is emotionally engaged with the consequences of a potential action. Such consequences do not necessarily emerge from advertising. What evidence can the Minister give the House to show that generalised advertising programmes, which do not necessarily have the emotional impact of a restorative justice programme, will lead to a reduction in crime?
The evidence of young people, who tell us that the campaign will work. Some of the early feedback from the campaign also provides such evidence. Obviously, evaluation is important. The hon. Gentleman has raised such concerns previously, and he points to the evidence from the US. We will keep the matter under review, but we believe that the campaign will, as part of an overall strategy, have an impact. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need to ensure that someone who may be involved in crime understands the emotional consequences—that is also part of the advertising campaign. Some of the adverts try to convey the emotional consequences that people may experience. I agree about the importance of restorative justice—of trying to build public confidence in community payback schemes and using more of them. We have proposals to enable people to witness positive community payback programmes working visibly in their communities. Part of our task is restoring confidence.
I could give more examples, but I have spoken for half an hour and other hon. Members wish to speak. We have said a great deal about what we as a Government are doing to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour, but our initiatives will not work if the public are not informed about what is going on in their area and the consequences for the offenders. The public will gain confidence that their problems are being taken seriously and priorities are being tackled effectively only if we make action and justice visible. The Government are committed to working with the police and the public to continue to cut crime. People—rightly, in my view—expect that, and we will do it.
I welcome this debate and the acknowledgement contained within it that, despite all the Government’s initiatives, all their legislative hyperactivity and all their rhetoric, the very people who are an essential part in the fight against crime—the public—have been left out of the loop.
In his nine points of policing, Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the modern police service, said:
“Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”
Those words are as relevant now as they were then. We all have a responsibility to reduce crime, by seeking to abide by the law, reporting crime, supporting the police and taking action where appropriate.
The relationship that Peel outlined—the relationship between the public and the arms of the state intended to protect them—is based on mutual trust and confidence. Yet those bonds are being increasingly tested and strained by a Government intent on intervening when that is not needed, getting in the way of the relationship between the public and the police. The perverse reality now is that people are actively discouraged from intervening to stop crime taking place. People fear that getting involved might result in getting a record. The policy approach of increasing encroachment by the state, through ID cards, increased surveillance and DNA, mobile and e-mail databases, trusts us all so much that it treats us all as potential suspects.
That breakdown in the relationship has been highlighted by the Government’s own advisers. Louise Casey was right when she said that the majority of people do not think that crime has fallen, that people
“do not believe the official statistics on crime”
and that
“the public see the Criminal Justice System as a distant, sealed-off entity, unaccountable and unanswerable to them or to Government.”
That is a pretty devastating critique of 11 years of this Government’s failed attempts to engage the public in the fight against crime.
It is telling that confidence in the police is down from 72 per cent. in 2003 to 57 per cent. in 2008, but should we be surprised when the Government have reduced the discretion of the police and their ability simply to get on with the job? The police cannot be on the public’s side if the Government are not on their side. The micro-management of police officers by the long arm of central Government is the biggest drain on police time, officer morale and public confidence.
Police officers do not sign up to spend more of their time on paperwork than out on patrol. They do not sign up to spend half a day processing a single arrest and they certainly do not sign up to be
“a slave to doctrine and straitjacketed by process,”
in Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s words. That is leaving aside the Government’s culture of centrally driven targets, in which performance indicators on bringing crimes to justice have skewed police priorities on volume crime, antagonising the public and preventing officers from using their discretion to deal with local needs and priorities. We are talking about a regime that proved so successful that chief constables started abandoning it because it was meaningless.
On top of that, we have a performance regime of mind-boggling complexity and dubious effectiveness, in the Home Office’s police performance assessment framework, which requires the police to carry out 23 baseline assessments and to record and report on 32 statutory performance indicators. That regime led one police force to undergo 15 different inspections in one year. As Louise Casey rightly notes,
“the public do not want their local police service to be chasing centrally driven targets, preparing for and responding to assessments and worrying about monitoring at the expense of time and resources that could better be devoted to local issues and to the quality of service.”
Against that backdrop, one can begin to understand why the former head of the Police Federation and the Government’s new police bureaucracy tsar, Jan Berry, has commented:
“We have lost the morality of successful policing.”
To be fair to the Minister, I welcome the Government’s acknowledgements of those fundamental mistakes, as embodied in the policing Green Paper. The problem is that their proposals for change simply do not go far enough. If they are really serious about giving greater control back to the police, why will they not scrap statutory charging and give the police the ability to charge suspects for all summary and most triable either-way offences? If they really want to reduce the stifling burden of paperwork, why will they not add to the list the paperwork relating to stop and search? That would allow officers to radio in the details and free up more than 1 million police hours each year. And if the Government really believe that their new public service agreement targets are not about central direction, as the Minister has claimed, why do they make it explicit that police services should not bother with shoplifting, despite the direct relationship between acquisitive crime and drug-taking?
The Government are now seeking to dress up the much vaunted police pledge as a new way to support community working. Putting aside the fact that the pledge is full of re-announcements and existing police practice, it is interesting to note that neighbourhood police teams will
“spend at least 80 per cent. of their time visibly working in your neighbourhood, tackling your priorities.”
However, the point of neighbourhood teams was that their scope was supposed to be ring-fenced—they were supposed to be retained within their designated areas, and to be protected from abstraction to other areas, in order to strengthen engagement with the public. Yet this supposed pledge of better local service seems to be delivering the reverse. Will the Minister tell us whether giving a green light to community police officers to spend one fifth of their time outside the communities that they are supposed to be ring-fenced within, and which they are supposed to be protecting, represents a watering down of the commitment to neighbourhood policing?
To promote greater public trust, confidence and engagement, the public need to be assured that the information being given to them is reliable. Despite all the Government’s continued assertions that the crime rate has gone down, the problem is that no one believes them. That point was accepted even by that arch-Tory, Cherie Blair Booth, in her street weapons commission.
The Government’s principal measure of crime is the British crime survey, yet, as the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s college, London, points out, the BCS fails to measure far more crime than it actually accounts for. At present, it does not include offences against those under the age of 16; murder and homicide are omitted; it does not measure rape and sexual assaults against women; and it underestimates incidences of domestic violence. Crimes against businesses are not included, nor does it measure white-collar, corporate or environmental crimes, all of which can have a devastating impact on thousands of people at the same time. As for the BCS’s treatment of antisocial behaviour, the Government have sought to count what appear to be seven seemingly random measures of behaviour, leading the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies to note that
“it is hardly surprising that anti-social behaviour means whatever the government says it means. This has undoubtedly given ministers enormous scope to target whatever problem they consider to be of interest at any given point in time. Whether such a subjective and amorphous category provides the basis for robust, informed and evidence-based policy is a very different question”.
Even when we talk about reported crime, the Government dent people’s confidence by mis-classifying it. The recent revelation that the crime figures for serious violence had been understated by 13 forces fundamentally undermines the public’s belief in the information that they are being given. If those most serious offences, which have such a great impact on perceptions of public safety, have been understated for as long as 10 years, it is hardly surprising that people should question what they are being told. If we cannot even count a problem, how can we combat it?
It is telling that, according to Louise Casey, the least trusted source on national statistics on crime is the Prime Minister, closely followed by the Home Office. We welcome Ms Casey’s honesty, and her backing for the Conservative proposal for public trust and confidence to be strengthened by collating crime statistics on an independent basis.
I believe that we may need to go further and examine the potential for a single definitive measure for each crime rather than the often contradictory picture of British crime survey figures, as well as reported crime figures, which confuse the public. For some crimes, reported crime numbers may be more appropriate; for others, survey data may be more definitive. Irrespective of that, it is clear that official crime statistics should be at arm’s length from the Home Office, so that the public know that the figures have not been chosen to suit the spin.
What of direct public action to prevent crime or to arrest offenders? According to Louise Casey, 75 per cent. of the public say that they are prepared to take an active role in tackling crime, yet only four out 10 say that they would intervene to challenge antisocial behaviour—fewer than in any comparable European country, with six out of 10 people being prepared to do so in Germany.
One barrier to such direct action is people’s belief that if they get involved and challenge unacceptable behaviour by seeking to enforce their ability to conduct a citizen’s arrest, they fear that they will be the ones on the receiving end. Rather than being supported by police and prosecutors, such people might end up with a criminal record. As Louise Casey stated in her report:
“There was a strong view from members of the public during the review that they would no longer intervene if they saw a crime taking place, for fear that they would either be attacked by the perpetrators or be arrested themselves by the police.”
It is our duty to help, not hinder active citizens. That is why it is right to scrap Whitehall targets that encourage the police to pick on soft targets; why we should amend the police guidelines so that officers back those who use reasonable force to maintain the Queen’s peace; and why the code for Crown prosecutors should be amended to make it clear that it is not in the public interest to prosecute those who perform a citizen’s arrest in good faith. If people take appropriate action to protect their communities, they should be praised, not prosecuted.
I am very supportive of the idea of encouraging people—I mean robust citizens, of course, not frail or elderly pensioners—to intervene actively, and I have always been troubled by messages suggesting that they should not. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful to have clear guidance, to which the Government and police authorities have signed up, on what exactly citizens’ powers of arrest amount to? I do not believe that the public are at all clear about that nowadays. It would also be helpful to have clear guidance on the limit of permissible actions that can be taken without causing subsequent difficulties. If that were made clearer, people would not feel so constrained about intervening to try to break up fights and so forth.
There are two sides to the issue. Advice and guidance could be given to provide greater clarity, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but clarity is equally obtained through enforcement, from cases and the response of the police and law enforcement agencies to particular circumstances. The balance has been skewed so far in the other direction that it has led to real fear in the minds of the public. It is not just a matter of understanding “reasonable force”, which is clearly understood by the police and the prosecutors. I argued earlier that it is important to clarify the public interest test for Crown prosecutors so that they are clear in their assessment of these cases and the police are equally clear about what they can do to support those who conduct a citizen’s arrest. As I said, such people should be supported in taking proportionate and reasonable action.
On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is clear in the sense that reasonable force is permitted in defence of oneself or another, but that the real question is how we interpret the word “reasonable”? The problem, it appears, does not lie with the individual, or with the jury considering the case in the final analysis; generally speaking, it lies with the prosecuting authorities in between. They prosecute cases, but if the word “reasonable” were used in its proper sense, those cases would not be prosecuted at all.
My hon. Friend has summarised the position extremely clearly and made the right points. I think that the issue around the Crown prosecutors is the essential one. Yes, judgment calls need to be made, but if there were clarity on what is meant by “the public interest”, it would go an enormous way to help unblock the current position where members of the public are fearful—the Government’s own adviser recognised this and put it on the record—that if they intervene, they will be the ones who end up getting punished for taking action as active citizens.
I could not help hearing the Minister say, from a sedentary position, that the jury would throw it out. Surely that misses the point entirely. The point is that today the House, and Ministers in particular, must send the public the message that the prosecuting authorities should not take action against people when any sensible jury will dismiss the charges. It is not enough to say that a jury will protect people; we need to know that we have a prosecuting system that will protect those who do the right thing.
I entirely agree. How appalling it would be if we said “Let us leave it to the members of the jury. Let them be the people to decide, exercising their discretion at the time. Let us leave everything hanging over this individual for six months until a conclusion is reached.” That is why the Crown prosecutors must have clarification of what is in the public interest. I am surprised that the Minister does not seem to grasp the point.
There are other ways in which people can become involved: through neighbourhood watch schemes, about which we have already heard this afternoon, through participation in community police beat panels, and by holding those responsible for community safety to account. We strongly believe in giving better information to the public through crime mapping, which allows people to assess crime levels in their areas and hold the police to account.
In cities all over America, police forces regularly publish information about crimes in their areas: the type of crime, when it took place and where. Anyone can take the information and overlay it on an online map. It is a way of giving people unprecedented information about crimes in their areas and enabling social entrepreneurs, drugs charities and a host of other organisations to pick out the hot spots, see what needs to be done, and transform neighbourhoods.
Crime mapping has revolutionised the way in which crimes are fought in American cities, and it could do the same here. We would be able to map a large number of offences at street level for the first time, while being sensitive to issues of victim protection and privacy. I welcome the lead taken by Mayor Boris Johnson on this important innovation in London. I also welcome the Home Office’s late conversion to our way of thinking. At the same time as mandating every force to release local crime statistics each month, we would ensure that quarterly beat meetings were held in every neighbourhood. That would give local people an opportunity to assess the preceding three months’ crime figures and make the police responsible for taking action.
We would cut the bureaucracy and targets to get the police out on to the streets to engage the public day in day out, week in week out. The Government, however, have opted for a much more cumbersome and bureaucratic approach. Their latest supposed new idea is the “councillor call to action”—an idea so cutting-edge that it first appeared in the White Paper “Building Communities, Beating Crime”, published in November 2004, which has been languishing on the statute book shelf gathering dust since Royal Assent was given to the Police and Justice Act 2006. It creates a statutory duty for councillors to respond to complaints made to them within a specified time, with the ability to escalate the matter to an overview and scrutiny committee, which can then take written reports and call police officers and other agencies into meetings to explain what they are doing. Given more paperwork, more reports, more police time off the street and less action, it is hardly surprising that when it was debated during proceedings on the Police and Justice Bill, it was considered to be a last-ditch measure. We begin to wonder for whom!
Then there is what is described as “participatory budgeting”, a further bureaucratic process to engage the public in budget-setting and priorities. Described as a key activity in the Government’s entertainingly entitled White Paper “Communities in control: real people, real power”, the national consultation on participatory budgeting was so successful in engaging the public that it received a massive 14 responses from individuals. Yet again, it looks more like ticking the boxes than tackling the problem—mistaking meaningless public-sector posturing for meaningful public engagement.
The latest initiative, announced this week, is the creation of neighbourhood crime and justice co-ordinators in what have been described as “pioneer areas” in the brave new world that the Government are trying to conquer. The problem is that it is a world entirely of their own making. These council co-ordinators will largely have little more than a public relations role of telling the public about a policing pledge that has largely been implemented by forces in any case—the policing pledge criticised by the TaxPayers Alliance as wasting time and public money on “stating the blindingly obvious”. It will amount to more publicity and less proactivity.
Instead, we need to promote active partnerships on the ground, working within communities. Cutting antisocial behaviour and underage drinking can be achieved by co-ordinated practical steps, such as initiatives like the community alcohol project in St. Neots in Cambridgeshire, bringing together parents, pupils, businesses, police and council trading standards, and by giving councils a much stronger say over licensing and the terms attached to alcohol licences. Rather than focusing on more rules, regulations and procedures, we need to focus on how we can give greater power and authority to communities.
Part of this local engagement will come through greater local accountability. We believe that effective policing is neighbourhood policing—the closer to the community, the better. For that reason, we believe it is necessary to reform the governance arrangements for the police force as a whole. Instead of being directed by, and accountable to, the Home Secretary, police forces should be directed by, and accountable to, the communities they serve.
We would make each police force accountable to an individual directly elected by the citizens of the police force area. Police commissioners would be responsible for setting the budget, appointing and dismissing the chief constable, setting local priorities, monitoring how well the police perform against local targets and ensuring best value from the local police budget. Chief constables would remain in place, free to make decisions in accordance with their professional judgment and oath, and accountable to the elected commissioner in terms of explaining their decisions and how their force is run. The operational independence of police forces will be strengthened, not weakened, as ministerial micro-management is scaled back.
We believe that this governance arrangement with police commissioners working with the local delivery partners of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships provides a much clearer and more effective mechanism for bridging the accountability gap and ensuring that services to fight crime meet the needs of the local community and engage the public.
I am delighted that there is now agreement among Members of all parties that we need the benefits derived from decentralisation that the hon. Gentleman describes. However, as he will be aware, the policing community is anxious that the proposal to elect one person for an entire force area could cause tremendous politicisation of policing, which would not be helpful. In particular, they fear that such a proposal would fail to represent many of the minority communities that exist in areas such as Greater Manchester, Merseyside, the west midlands or that covered by the Metropolitan police. How can the hon. Gentleman assure people that the system he proposes would adequately represent minorities, so that their voice would be heard?
I think that can be achieved through the police commissioner working with crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which are at the community level. They represent the varied communities in the area, and they are the delivery partner to crack down on crime and to deliver on the crime prevention initiatives, which are a key aspect in the creation of the safer communities we all want.
However, I disagree with the Government approach to accountability in that I take issue with their proposal for crime and policing representatives, and with the Liberal Democrats’ approach in their apparent proposal for a two thirds elected, one third councillors, plus a top-up, arrangement. Under the Government’s plans, elected people would sit alongside other elected representatives on police authorities and, importantly, would chair crime and disorder reduction partnerships. If the Government think this solution will provide clarity to the public and bridge the accountability gap, they are fooling themselves—as are the Liberal Democrats in terms of their proposals—and they also risk undermining the effectiveness of CDRPs.
The Government are right that local councils should provide the primary leadership behind CDRPs as the mechanism to deliver local community engagement and crime reduction. The problem is that at the moment many are police led rather than council led. Police officers are effectively taking the lead and running the initiatives. When so many of the services come through local councils, primary care trusts and other such agencies, that cannot be the most effective way to deliver on the ground the initiatives that can help make a difference in those communities. If the crime and policing representatives are intended to chair the CDRPs, it is difficult to see how that structure could possibly encourage councils to take a leading role, as the Government appear to be suggesting. It looks more like a recipe for confusion, chaos and division.
Rather than yet another cosmetic exercise, we believe that we need a fundamental change of thinking. We need active citizens, not overactive Government. We need stronger communities, not stronger central control. We need Government to be on our side, not on our backs. The public have an essential role in the fight against crime, that is without doubt, and to return to Peel’s nine points of policing,
“The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.”
Policing and the public go hand in hand.
Does my hon. Friend agree that an essential part of public engagement is the accessibility of the police, and that an essential part of running a police station is to ensure that enough staff are available to answer the phones when the public are trying to get in touch and give information?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and whatever pledges may be made, written on a card or written down in a Government document, accessibility is key. People need to know that if they contact the police, someone will actually respond. I know that my hon. Friend has had some interesting local difficulties in getting responses to her own inquiries.
Trust and confidence are essential, and policing and the public go hand in hand: if we are to engage the public in the fight against crime, as the Government claim, that is absolutely essential. The problem with this Government is that they just cannot stop being the thick insulating glove that keeps the two apart.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). I served with him for more than two years on the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee. He was then very quiet and studious, intervening in a most helpful way in the surroundings of a Select Committee. He has turned into a veritable Rottweiler since joining the Front-Bench team. I do not know whether it was the influence of the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is sitting on his right, that made him find his proper bearings. I am sorry that the shadow Home Secretary has just left. It used to be good cop, bad cop; we now have bad cop, bad cop: two very strong local PCs, with the divisional commander, the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has just left the Chamber, as a benign chief superintendent looking after the two PCs.
The Opposition used to quote Rudy Giuliani as their model for dealing with crime; it is now Cherie Blair and Louise Casey. How things have changed. At least they have not quoted President-elect Obama. This must be the first debate since Tuesday in which nobody has mentioned him—so I thought I would anyway, just in case people felt that I was not being supportive of him.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on his promotion in the Home Office to the role of Minister of State; it is a very worthy promotion and he will be a superb police Minister. He is of course the son of a police officer himself. I am not sure whether he arrived at his first meeting saying, in the words of “Dixon of Dock Green”, “Evening all”, but we certainly have someone in the job with enormous ability and an understanding of the police force, and we are very proud of what he has done so far. We in the east midlands are extremely proud to have him as our local Minister. Anyone who can go out on Halloween with the specials in Nottingham deserves our respect and thanks.
I am sure that we will also hear from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), who has taken over the old job of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. We welcome him to his new position. I am sure that, as a former Whip, he has been preparing to be junior police Minister for the past four years or so.
May I congratulate the Government? I feel that I must do so in order to redress what has been said by Conservative Members, even though, as Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I try not to be a Government patsy. I thank the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing for ensuring that one of his first acts in post was to settle the police pay dispute for this year by giving them a settlement lasting three years at 2.6 per cent. That was the best and the right thing to do in the circumstances. Like me, he and the Prime Minister, along with many right hon. and hon. Members of the House, attended the Police Dependants Trust event only yesterday, when the Prime Minister rightly paid tribute to the work of the police and the exceptional nature of their job. I am so glad that this year I will not need to spend the period before Christmas joining the police on a big march through London saying to the Government, “Please pay up on the police award.”
The Government did the right thing. We must never be in a situation where the Government and the police fall out over pay, and the Government should always abide by the decision of any independent arbitration, rather than leave officers, who have no ability to strike, to take to the streets to demonstrate. Perhaps that is all in the past, so I say to the Government, “Well done. Thank you for doing that. It is a good thing to get out of your in-tray.”
The shadow police Minister mentioned the appointment of Jan Berry. It is another case of the Government’s appointments being used against them, but the Home Secretary was right to appoint her to her position. She is not quite poacher turned gamekeeper, but I hope that her vast experience will mean that she will be able to assist the Government in their difficult task. Everyone on both sides of the House agrees—I have heard this so many times in debates on crime and policing over the past two years—on the need to cut police bureaucracy. Someone said that we should have a bonfire of targets. We should do that, so I think that Jan Berry’s appointment is a very good thing, and I hope that the Government will be able to listen to her sensible suggestions.
At midnight on Monday, the Home Affairs Committee will publish its long report into policing in the 21st century. We began our inquiry in February, and it has taken a great deal of time. One member of the Committee is in his place, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), and another, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), has just left the Chamber—he will doubtless pop back in during this debate. They will attest to the fact that the Committee took a great deal of time over the report, listening to a large number of witnesses and travelling the country—we visited Reading, Monmouth, Staffordshire and Manchester to take evidence. I hope that the House will be pleased with the report. I have to be careful that I do not inadvertently tell the House what is in it, because it has been embargoed and we must not allow leaks, even to the House itself. I hope that everyone will be waiting outside Her Majesty’s Stationery Office on Monday to receive their copy at one minute past midnight.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch takes public engagement in fighting crime literally, in his new guise as Mr. Nasty. That public engagement does not necessarily mean that the public have to fight crime themselves, although I understand the circumstances in which he and others feel it is necessary to do so. He should acknowledge the copyright of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), another member of the Home Affairs Committee, who originally put through this House a private Member’s Bill on so-called have-a-go heroes as a result of the situation in his constituency. Of course, there are circumstances in which such an approach is necessary and important.
More importantly, however, we need to get the public on side. Fighting crime should be above party politics; and I am surprised that after so many years it still is not. Unless we engage the public in fighting crime, we cannot fulfil the lofty ambitions of Sir Robert Peel quoted by the hon. Member for Hornchurch. I know that that sounds like centuries ago—certainly longer ago than “Dixon of Dock Green”—but core values are extremely important to tackling crime. Everyone acknowledges that the nature of crime has changed since the days of Robert Peel—for example, we have internet crime, which of course was not possible then—but those core values remain important.
To borrow a phrase from new Labour, we need core values in a modern setting. We must make them relevant to the lives of ordinary people. That is why, on 17 November, with the help of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and the deputy Mayor of London, Kit Malthouse, the Select Committee will launch another inquiry into knife crime. We felt that it was important to involve all political parties, hence the involvement of the hon. Gentleman, the deputy Mayor and others—although, sadly, the leader of the Conservative party could not attend because of diary commitments.
It is important to reach a consensus on how to deal with issues such as knife crime, and crime in general. That is what the public want; they do not want to see us squabbling—not that we have been squabbling today; we have to put forward our different ideological views. However, on crime, the public expect us to be above party politics. Crime affects every member of the public—men, women and children—from birth to death. Everyone, at some point, will be involved in the criminal justice system, whether individually or through a family member, either as the perpetrator—of course, that does not apply to anyone in this House—or, more likely, as a victim, or as somebody who knows a victim, observes a crime or reads a newspaper. The responsibility for everyone to rise above politics is extremely important.
I also praise Louise Casey—we are all quoting her like mad, even though she is not here—who has done a pretty good job. She has been allowed to do some “blue-sky thinking”—as it is called—on the Government’s crime policy. She is right to mention the public’s worry that crime is rising, although statistics tell us that it is falling—that is what the British crime survey has told us for the past 11 years. We must overcome that difference in perception, which has been identified by the Opposition and acknowledged by the Government.
We must have faith in the organisation and the individuals fighting crime for us—the police. They need to be well paid, well resourced and well respected. Ian Johnston, the head of the Police Superintendents Association, told his conference:
“The greatest challenge facing policing today is the issue of public confidence.”
When I intervened on the Minister, I mentioned that more than 40 per cent. of those who have had contact with the police have less confidence after their experience than before. Those are the worst figures in the public sector, which should worry the Government and chief constables. This Government have invested more money in fighting crime than any other—the Opposition will probably not accept that, but the statistics bear it out. The police are better resourced than ever before. However, when I try to intervene in cases and ring a police constable—yes, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee actually does this—to find out what is happening, often I am told that the police officer in charge of the case is either sick, out of the office or at lunch and will ring me back. Even I—an elected representative trying to intervene in a case—have found a lack of proper communication. That is the first thing that we need to consider.
What is the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis of our analysis of the problem, which is that there is a lack of accountability? We need to return police accountability to local people. There is cricked-neck management of the police, because they are for ever looking up to the Home Office. If they could only look down at their local population and be accountable to someone elected by that population, the chief constable would have a shield of protection from interfering Home Secretaries and would be able to police for local people and thus repair the divide about which the right hon. Gentleman speaks so powerfully.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need better accountability, but I do not criticise the Home Office for intervening. The Home Secretary and other Ministers intervene not for the sheer hell of it but to try to make sure that the public’s demands are met.
Some sections of the Conservative party have proposed having elected chief constables, but I would not go that far—although the hon. Member for Hornchurch did not say that that proposal was still Opposition policy. I am not sure that that is the right way to proceed, but there needs to be a much more visible presence for elected police authorities.
I think that I can name just two members of Leicestershire police authority. Its chairman is Byron Rhodes, a Conservative councillor who does a very good job. The Labour representative on the authority is Piara Claire, a local councillor, but I cannot name any other members.
The visibility of police authorities is important, and that is why some of the things that Louise Casey has said should be taken to their logical conclusion. In one paper she has proposed that authorities should hold annual meetings and, if we are to have them, we should make sure that members of police committees are in the firing line. They, and not necessarily the chief constable, should be there to answer for what has been going on.
Similarly—and we could have a big debate about quangos—I cannot name one member of the local health trust in Leicestershire, apart from the chief executive. Who are these people? The fact is that those who dispense public money ought to be available to answer questions.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) can take me all the way up to electing police committees, but not beyond that to electing chief constables. However, he has made a good point about accountability.
For the elimination of doubt, the position of the Conservative party is that we need directly elected police commissioners who would work with chief constables. That is my personal belief too, but I want to make it clear that we are not talking about directly electing chief constables. Directly elected police commissioners would give us the visible figurehead that we need, as all the other methods that have been tried, however genuinely, have failed to deliver the accountability and public understanding that the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Perhaps he should join his colleagues on the Front Bench, as he has given us the clearest analysis that I have heard of the Conservative party’s position. Meanwhile, the bad cops on the Opposition Front Bench were chattering to each other and missed what he said.
I want to descend to the mundane and respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s valid point about poor communications with the police. My constituents have a variable view of that, as some get good responses from the police, and some poor. Does he agree that it is imperative that the police understand that it does not really matter to people if they get a reply from a civilian, a volunteer or a police officer? What matters to them is that they get through to a real person when they phone, and that a real person phones them back with the answer that they need, and does so in a reasonable time, which is normally a day. That should not be beyond the wit of any police service in Britain. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in getting the message out that the police must understand that if they do not deliver that, they will be failing our public on a regular basis?
The hon. Gentleman has got it absolutely right. People need to get a reply, and proper information. I did not use the case that I have just described to criticise individual officers but to show how frustrating it is even for Members of Parliament to use the system. How much more difficult must it be for our constituents? They come to our surgeries on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday and expect us to write to the local chief constable. I always do so, even though I never get a reply from my local chief constable, Matt Baggett. I do not expect to, because he is very busy, but I do expect to get a reply from somebody, at the very least. I can send that reply on to my constituents, who can pursue it for themselves.
There is no point in the police giving out unique numbers or e-mail addresses unless someone is available to reply. Communication is very important: we do not need new laws, directives or guidelines from the Minister and the Home Secretary so much as better management and administration. Getting that message across will help to get the public on our side, and that is a very important matter.
My second point is about neighbourhood watch. In the past, it was not regarded as very important in the fight against crime, but we need to go back to praising those involved with it, and we must ensure that communities come together. That meets the point made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch: we cannot fight crime unless communities work together. We should give more support to neighbourhood watch. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is not in the Chamber, because he raised the point when he intervened on the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing. The people involved are our local heroes and heroines. I know that some are criticised; there is an amused attitude to some because they peer from behind their net curtains to see what is happening in the road, but thank goodness that they do.
The “good neighbour” policy should be the bedrock of our fight against crime. If one sees a neighbour’s house being burgled, one does not just go back to the sitting room, watch telly and have a cup of tea. One picks up the phone and rings the police. I am not sure that I am with the hon. Member for Hornchurch; if I saw my neighbour’s house being burgled—I am not often at my house, being a Member of this House—I am not sure whether I would be prepared to rush out and challenge the burglar. I am not sure whether I have that kind of confidence, or whether I would qualify, on age grounds, as being able to do that. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) talked about a robust citizen; that may apply to anyone of any age. If a burglary is taking place, people should at the very least pick up a phone and ring the police.
The right hon. Gentleman described me as a Rottweiler, but I hope that he will take on board the fact that my point was not that someone should automatically rush out in the circumstances that he described, but that they should not actively feel that they are prohibited or prevented from doing so by the structure or operation of the law.
I was only teasing the hon. Gentleman a little, and trying to do his career some good by saying how right wing he is on policing matters. I have now completely forgotten what I was going to say.
Burglary.
I thank the Minister for that prompt. We must value good neighbours. The good neighbour is one of the building blocks of a successful local community policing scheme. The other building block is the beat police officer. I have been to numerous residents’ meetings at which residents have nothing good to say about the police and their response time, but at which they praise the beat officer as if he were the new messiah. That is because they see the beat officer regularly. They do not hold the beat officer responsible for anything that goes wrong with the criminal justice system. They see that beat officer, and are very grateful. The system has somehow become detached from the person who is seen as the local bobby. We need to make sure that the system is re-engaged; what people see should somehow be fed into a system, so that there is a network to inform people that crime is occurring.
Again, I do not wish to stray into what the Home Affairs Committee will say in our report next week, but empowering citizens is important. Police should be given the confidence to realise that when people ring regularly, they are not a nuisance; they are there to help them. Sometimes, we get feedback suggesting that if people ring regularly, the attitude towards them is, “Why do they keep ringing us? We can’t do anything about it.”
We have a problem with quad bikes in Hamilton in my constituency. The quad bikes are out every weekend, and the residents ring the police station every Monday. The police feel very upset about that, because there is nothing that they can do other than rush out and arrest the young people, but they feel that they do not have the resources to do so. A partnership is needed, and that is the basis of how we can proceed.
My final point in this very important debate is that it is absolutely crucial that the Government try to build a better consensus with the Opposition parties on this issue. As to whether we need a forum in which to do that, I do not know. There are clever people in the Home Office—some of them are here today—who, I am sure, will work up some initiatives for the Minister. Somehow, we need to raise the issue above party politics, and if we can do that and pool the good ideas that exist in all parts of the House, we can fashion a new era of policing for our country. I think that we have the best police officers in the world, actually. They are brave and hard-working, but we must understand that we need to re-engage them positively with the rest of the community. Somehow, we need to involve everyone in that process, and I know that the Minister, who is consensual not confrontational, will want to think about the ways in which he can build on all the ideas that we have put forward today.
There is not a huge attendance in the House, and it may be something to do with the fact that something is happening in Scotland later this evening, but we can build on this consensus and take up these new ideas. If the Minister were to return to the House with these new ideas, we could debate them again and try to fashion a programme that was acceptable to the whole country and to all the political parties.
I am delighted to follow, as I often do, the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), but I am slightly frustrated that he was unable to give us more of the contents of his forthcoming report, which I certainly look forward to reading. He is obviously unaware that there is nothing quite so secret as a speech made in this House, particularly on a Thursday afternoon. Looking at the Press Gallery, I am afraid that there was certainly no risk of his breaking an embargo.
Public engagement in fighting crime is absolutely crucial, but unfortunately the problem is rather more deep-seated than that mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and importantly clarified by my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—the issue of have-a-go heroes. I was shocked by the survey evidence about Britain when compared with other major European countries. British residents, for example, are far less likely to challenge antisocial behaviour. In the UK, six out of 10 people said that they would be unlikely to challenge a group of 14-year-olds vandalising a bus shelter—a higher number than in any country surveyed by Laycock in research for the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science. In Germany, for example, the position is the reverse: six out of 10 people said that they would challenge the group.
We have to realise that policing by consent is a two-way process in which the public have to support the police. The police cannot operate in a void or a vacuum where the public are not prepared to come forward. The public do not have to get involved in the have-a-go hero model but, as the right hon. Member for Leicester, East said, they must report issues to the police, be prepared to give witness statements and go to court, and provide leads and intelligence for the police. It is crucial that we try to rebuild the public’s trust—although perhaps it never existed in this country. We have to stop seeing the police as a branch of a supermarket, where we spend our money, get them to do something, delegate all the effort to them and tell them to get on with it because, beyond that, we do not have any public responsibility. That is the wrong attitude.
Louise Casey, in her report, says:
“The public are the most important weapon in tackling crime.”
She is right about that, and there was much in the report to welcome, although we thought that there were some gimmicks, too. I am not sure that I want to bring back tabards with “Community Payback” written on them. Public humiliation as part of a criminal justice strategy went out with the village stocks, and it is not likely to cut reoffending. We must concentrate on that issue.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Bring back the stocks!
I am very happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but for very different reasons. I do not think that these people would feel any sense of shame whatever; some of them would be quite proud to be seen out having committed a load of crimes. It is for that reason that it would not work, and not because there is anything wrong with publicly humiliating people. These people just do not care.
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, certainly about the advisability of publicly humiliating people. These things go in fashions, but when I had responsibility for a group of employees, the one thing that was always stressed to managers was that praise should be public and admonishment private. If somebody decided to humiliate one of their team, they would be guaranteed to lose that person’s trust and commitment. We have to be careful. The key focus of any criminal justice policy ought to be to stop reoffending and cut crime. We are not there to make somebody feel better because of punishment or humiliation, and we should always remember the key objective of cutting crime. Humiliation may not be the best way of achieving that.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s latter point. Far be it from me to defend the Government, but is not Louise Casey’s point rather different from what he suggested? It is that people need to understand what is being done in community punishment, and therefore the visible exercise of such punishment is good, because it restores faith that real punishment is taking place.
The hon. Gentleman is right; that was exactly Louise Casey’s point. However, I am afraid that there would be a lot of collateral damage of the sort that I have described. There are other, more effective, ways of achieving the objective—not least, putting more resources into the probation service and making sure that community sentences are done properly. In that way, magistrates and Crown court judges will have confidence that their non-custodial sentences will be carried out effectively. That will have the effect that the hon. Gentleman and I want.
Time is marching on, and I am sure that many other Members want to speak, but I give way.
My hon. Friend has talked about the need for robust citizens, as has my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). In the small hours of Halloween, I met one group of robust citizens in the high street of Sutton town centre. They were street pastors. Does my hon. Friend agree that street pastors, such as those led in Sutton by Mark Tomlinson, are one way of providing greater safety in our town centres late at night?
I very much agree; my constituency also has a street pastors scheme and the pastors do extremely good work. Unfortunately, a lot of the areas where street pastors would be most beneficial are not those where it is easiest to find volunteers for that work. There is a slight mismatch. If we could bus street pastors to areas where they were most needed, there might be a real advantage.
My hon. Friend probably thinks that Southwark is one of those areas of need, but it has a fantastic network of street pastors and others. The inner city is doing its bit and the pastors and others are very effective.
I am delighted to hear that. The provision is slightly patchy; in south Hampshire, there are active street pastor schemes that do extremely good work and I certainly praise them for that. However, there are not yet such schemes in some of the areas most at risk.
Obviously, the Liberal Democrats say yes to neighbourhood policing, involvement and policing by consent. The success of neighbourhood policing in London is very clear—it raises visibility and gives reassurance, and the public can see the policing take place. That is not just a cosmetic effect; it results in more intelligence leads for the police and greater witness willingness. Both those things are very good.
We also say yes to public information such as ward-level crime and detection data. Like the hon. Member for Hornchurch, I am very much in favour of crime mapping. Like all good ideas, it has many parents; failure is always an orphan. I was recently sitting next to the chairman of the West Yorkshire police authority, and he said that his authority was the first to come up with crime mapping. By all means, let us make it happen. Let us add in not only crime data, but detection data. As far as I know, my force in Hampshire is the only one that produces detection data as well as crime data at ward level. That is necessary to inform the public debate and ensure that the public can hold their local police force to account.
The hon. Gentleman refers to mapping detection rates, but several police officers have told me that those figures are very much open to manipulation and fiddling. Does he acknowledge that that is the case, and if so how would they better inform the public?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising my next point: how we provide the public with greater reassurance about the crime figures. In categories where the statistics are politically charged, we have had periods when their credibility has been completely destroyed by a Government misusing them or an Opposition attempting to undermine them. I give the hon. Gentleman the example of the unemployment figures under the Conservative Governments of 1979 and onwards, when there were so many changes that in the end people did not believe them. There is only one solution, although he did not spell it out. We must give the Office for National Statistics a much clearer and more hands-on role in ensuring that the publication of the crime statistics, whether on a British crime survey basis or a recorded basis, is correct and that the public can have confidence in them.
To what extent is there a match-up between neighbourhood watch and the Government’s proposed community champions? It sounds like the same sort of idea branded in a slightly different way.
We have rightly discussed the important role of special constables and the need to boost them. The Minister mentioned the possibility of having fewer special constables who are more active in terms of the days that they spend with their local force. It would be interesting to have the data on that to see whether it is the right approach. All Members, on both sides of the House, want special constables to play an important role. It is the best and one of the oldest examples of drawing the community in through voluntary work.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Leicester, East that it would be profoundly desirable if there were a genuine political consensus about policing. The police, above all, would like that, because they do not want their professional status to be brought into question by what they see as a political debate that sometimes does not so much shed light as generate heat. We all seem able to agree on the need for public accountability of the police force at local level. We should get rid of national targets, because they are past their sell-by date. I agree with what the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) said about accountability to local people. Local people know what their priorities are and what their service is, and if they are given the power to elect a body that will in turn hold the chief constable to account we will have the beginnings of an answer to this problem, which we all want to be solved.
What is the Liberal Democrats’ position on the election of commissioners? Do they favour that, or not?
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman asked me that, because I was coming to that point. All three parties in this House are now in favour of some decentralised model. We go a little further than other parties in wanting to give police authorities stronger powers to hire and fire and to set priorities and budgets. However, we have been getting into trouble with our local councillors about this. We all need to say clearly that if we are to have genuine decentralisation—if we are to give real power locally to hire and fire a chief constable and to set a budget—then there is a quid pro quo, which is that voters must be able to hold to account the people who are exercising those powers. The indirect form of election does not work. For example, we do not have in Eastleigh a representative on Hampshire’s police authority. If Hampshire’s police authority is to have the power to sack a chief constable of whom it does not approve or to put up the council tax precept—in our case, of course, we would prefer it to be a local income tax—I want to be able to tell the people in my constituency that they have a buy-in, because they have been able to vote for somebody who has such powers, but at the moment they do not have that buy-in. We have to be united in telling local councils that the indirect system does not have adequate accountability to make the new devolved powers work.
That brings me to the point that the right hon. Member for Leicester, East asked about. We do not approve of the Conservative proposal for a single, directly elected commissioner. If one person is elected to represent a complete and complex force area, such as the west midlands, London, Merseyside or Greater Manchester, where there are substantial minorities who each have their own view, we will not get the sort of accountability that will take care of the important and sometimes fragile relationship between the police and minority communities. That is a recipe for situations such as the Brixton riots and the sort of problems we saw in Bristol. We must not go back there.
Although I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Hornchurch about the need to decentralise, for heaven’s sake we need to be careful how we decentralise. We need to ensure that the system that decentralises represents the whole community, which will be policed in a natural way, and we need to ensure that the police know that they have a sounding board for their ideas and where the community’s views will be genuinely represented.
I am persuaded that in order to get the accountability we need one figure as police commissioner—I am not saying that there are not other arguments or analyses. Without that, even if we have elections to the police authority, they will probably end up not engaging the public imagination, and it is likely that people will carry on not knowing who their elected police commissioners are. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman feels powerfully that minorities will not be represented. We in this Chamber represent varied areas with, in some cases, large ethnic minorities, and we seek to represent all those people. I have never heard that our form of representation is seen to be failing. I do not understand quite why the hon. Gentleman feels the way he does.
I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very intelligent Member, feels that this is a representative Chamber. I do not know whether he realises how many women there are in the Chamber today, or how many members of ethnic minorities there are, but this is not a representative assembly of this nation. The academic evidence is clear: if we elect someone for a single constituency under a first-past-the-post system, we will end up with parties, through the natural operation of their own self-interest, putting forward middle-aged, white, middle-class men in suits. That is a fair description of the people here.
I will give way to anyone who is not a middle-aged, middle-class man in a suit. Are there any?
Yes! I give way to the hon. Lady.
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the whole point of equality is that everybody is treated the same? Dividing people into sub-groups and treating them differently is counter-productive.
I am delighted to reassure the hon. Lady that I have no intention of dividing anybody into a sub-group or treating them differently. I am merely making the point that the international evidence, which is peer-reviewed and academically respected beyond challenge, is that proportional representation systems lead to a much greater balance in terms of gender and ethnicity than first past the post. The system that we propose has two enormous advantages in comparison with the one proposed by the Conservatives. It represents everyone in the community, so that, if it is a complex community, such as London or Greater Manchester, the police genuinely know that every minority will be represented because every party will have an interest in putting forward candidates who represent those groups. Those candidates will be able to hold the police to account fairly. That is a natural process that comes out of the system of election. It is not something that has to be rigged, or for which fair rules have to be introduced, and it is very clear.
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) made was not about whether the Chamber was representative. He asked whether the hon. Gentleman believed that it was impossible for a single individual to represent a varied group of people, as we do. If he believes that, perhaps he should tell the electors of Eastleigh.
The hon. Gentleman may not realise that I favour a change in the electoral system for the House—and I think that my electors in Eastleigh know that. If I had my way, my constituents would have the opportunity of electing a Conservative Member and a Labour Member as well as a Liberal Democrat Member in a multi-Member constituency. I believe that that would help re-engage people in our national politics, but Mr. Deputy Speaker will pull me up for making irrelevant remarks, so I will revert to the subject of the debate.
The police in this country have an extraordinary, honourable tradition of being non-political. We have a fantastically good and successful police force. I do not want the professionalism of police services throughout the country to be tarnished by the sort of yah-boo politics, which, I fear, would ensue if we accepted what the Conservatives advocate and had one person, after election by first past the post, in which the issues would be polarised as much as possible to clarify support for one person against another. That is a recipe for polarising the debate about policing and leading to much worse police outcomes in many parts of the country. Senior police officers, who have thought about the matter, are worried about the proposal. They buy the argument about local accountability because they rightly want national targets to be abolished. It has taken some time—11 years—for Labour Members to reach that view, but, thank heavens, having exhausted all the alternatives, the Government seem to be stumbling into the right policy area.
The method whereby we hold people to account is crucial. We need a system that represents fairly all the groups in the police authorities that will not only act as a sounding board for the chief constable, but will, by virtue of representing all those groups, including the party groups, have to work together through co-operation and consensus rather than confrontation. That is much more likely to guarantee a continuation of the tradition that we all support—professional, non-political policing—than the proposals that Conservative Members have made or those that appear in the Government’s Green Paper. Using first past the post to elect one person for each crime and disorder reduction partnership will have a similar effect to that which I have outlined. On analysis of the likely outcome of the proposals in the Government Green Paper, police authorities will probably be unrepresentative.
Let us go back to the drawing board, agree that we need a decentralised system, with real power for local people, and ensure that the system of accountability genuinely engages local people by drawing everybody in, and does not attempt to polarise and make more confrontational a debate that does not need to be confrontational.
Public engagement in fighting crime is crucial. We all know that we cannot have a civilised society without a consensus approach to fighting crime, and that we need 99 per cent. of the people on our side to implement the laws that we want for our society.
How do we improve matters? Crime has decreased in the past 11 years, funding for forces has increased hugely, we have police community support officers as well as regular police officers, and many other improvements have been made, yet a tremendous fear of crime persists. People remain convinced that there is more crime than actually occurs and that they will be victims of crime. They also still have a negative view of some of their encounters with the police. Clearly, a huge amount of work remains to be done to improve communication between communities and their local police forces.
That approach seems to be working successfully at the local level. The neighbourhood policing scheme seems to have taken off well in the urban areas of my constituency, particularly the Communities First areas, where there is quite a high-visibility approach, with pictures put up, phone numbers and so forth, so that local people can get in touch. Nevertheless, there are still some issues that people feel quite strongly about—although perhaps I am biased and have a more negative view than I should because people come to me when things go wrong. We have a new chief inspector in the Dyfed-Powys force, Ian Arundale, who is determined to look into practices in the force and see what we can do better. We have to be prepared for change, both as communities and in the police force.
One issue that seems to come up again and again is the police not getting back to people. As busy Members of Parliament, we all know how difficult it can be sometimes be to explain to a constituent that they are the 127th person to contact the office in the past few days and that they cannot have an answer immediately. However, it is a worry when people report something in their locality and are told that they will receive a response, but then do not receive one. There seem to be so many small, practical ways of overcoming that problem, such as better logging of promises to ensure that people are kept informed. Where there is progress on a case but that is not communicated to the community, that can leave a negative impression, even though something positive has happened.
There are certainly some positive aspects: we have good meetings with local people, we have boxes in post offices into which people can put their ideas, and we have a generally high profile. We in Dyfed-Powys are lucky not to be plagued by serious crime very often. However, we have our fair share of antisocial and quite unpleasant minor criminal activity, which can be a blight on communities and individual’s lives. We need to think what the best ways are of getting people fully involved. However, we must remember that the police and the average citizens are not the only ones who have a say or who can do something. Local councils, too, have quite a considerable role to play in certain areas, such as licensing.
Too often, when people make applications for licences, they try to turn the current law against us by saying, “You can’t possibly turn us down, because of X, Y and Z.” They say that because they are demanding a licence and employing people specifically to make their case. However, local councils have discretion and can invoke the provisions about not increasing the likelihood of more criminal activity to turn applications down. We were pleased in Llanelli in a few weeks ago when the county council’s licensing committee turned down an application. The committee listened to local residents’ concerns and said that 4 am was too late and would create problems, and so limited the licence to 1 am.
Councillors can use their discretionary powers and must not let themselves be bullied by applicants who say that the law says that they cannot. Councillors should retaliate by saying, “The law gives us full discretion and we as councillors will choose to do what the people of the area want.” There is therefore a role for invoking the laws that we already have and for using them effectively to make our communities safer and more pleasant places to live, where people can be confident that they can go about their business without being confronted by antisocial behaviour.
I am currently working with the mayor of Llanelli to look into the possibility of creating an alcohol-free zone in the town. We are obviously proceeding on the basis of full consultation with stakeholders, local residents and the police on whether such a zone might be an effective tool in the fight against antisocial behaviour. That would not mean that licensed premises would not be able to continue serving alcohol, that they could not use their beer gardens or that, if they have an appropriate licence for tables in the street, they could not continue to serve people there, but it might offer another tool to cut down on reckless and thoughtless antisocial behaviour, which is often fuelled by alcohol, particularly on the lighter summer evenings.
There are a number of stakeholders in the community who have a part to play. It is sometimes easy for us to pass the buck. On the issue of traffic, for example, the police control the double yellow lines and the county council looks after the residents’ parking schemes, and all these things get very confused in people’s minds. It is therefore crucial that we make it clear who can do what, and that the various agencies communicate with each other, so that members of the public do not necessarily have to know who to approach, as long as their problem is passed on to the appropriate person. There is an antisocial behaviour officer in the county, and there should be direct communication between the police and that person. The same applies to the public protection people who clamp down on the shops that sell alcohol to under-age customers.
There has to be direct communication, because members of the public do not always know whom they should go to, and they can sometimes get frustrated if they are passed from pillar to post. All our services should automatically communicate with each other to provide a better service for the public. If a member of the public has made one phone call, they do not want to have to make several more in order to get something done. They often end up in our surgeries, because they feel so frustrated that nothing is being done.
The Green Paper provides us with food for thought, and contains some excellent ideas on possible ways forward. Certainly, anything that we can do to improve communication from the police to the community telling the community what they are doing, and from the community telling the police what they would like to be done, will be welcome.
I am concerned, however, about the idea to scrap the local authority representatives on the police authorities and to have new crime and policing representatives instead. Although I do not always agree with all my local councillors, they are, in general, genuine representatives of the community. They have been elected on a broad slate of issues and they take an interest in all aspects of people’s lives. The councils in the Dyfed-Powys area each select two or three councillors to represent the county on the Dyfed-Powys police authority. Those councillors automatically have a network of people whom they can consult. They know each other, they have meetings and they are able to represent what people across the county are feeling. In a county that measures roughly 45 miles from north to south and 45 miles east to west, how would a crime and policing representative get feedback from the public in order to represent such a large rural area? I do not know how anybody could feel genuinely representative of the whole of the Dyfed-Powys area. As far as I can see, they would not have a mechanism to provide them with the necessary input from their local communities.
I am also worried that this proposal could give rise to some kind of extremist infiltration. We all know that it is not easy to get voters out to take part in elections, but we are now proposing to hold yet another election on a single issue. One can imagine candidates who might be over-the-top, over-enthusiastic vigilante types. One can also imagine some of the more extremist groups trying to get hold of that particular position of power, perhaps even as a knee-jerk reaction to some dreadful crime that has been committed in the community. I wonder whether such people would be representative of all the issues affecting the community.
Our local councillors are also very aware of the other services that link in from the county council to the police authority. I have already mentioned public protection and the antisocial behaviour units. Councillors are also aware of the pressures on funding. They realise that for the police, like everyone else, funds are not limitless, and that they have to make difficult decisions. They probably have a much broader outlook on the issues affecting their communities. I worry that a system of crime and policing representatives that had no representation at all from locally elected members will not be the right way to go about creating a truly democratically representative group of people to advise on the work of the police authority in their area.
Having said that, I welcome the Green Paper in broad terms, particularly its focus on trying to get greater involvement. I have to say that the problem will not be solved overnight; it is going to need continuous work. We are always going to have to find better ways of getting our message across, better ways of communicating with the public and better ways for them, in turn, to communicate with us. Although we all like to have a little moan, members of the public are aware that they cannot be at the forefront of deciding how things are done in every single service. People often say to me, “This is something that the professionals will need to sort out,” so we need to be cautious about believing that everything can automatically be devolved to and decided by communities. We need their input—there must be good consultation—but they also have elected representatives. They have us to change policies at the national level and they have their local councillors to change things at the local level. That is the right way to proceed.
It has been clear throughout the debate that the proposition we are discussing is not only about public engagement in fighting crime, but, linked to it, whether public confidence is sufficient to enable them to engage in an enthusiastic manner. I want to focus on two particular aspects of the process that is followed by all those who have engaged with the police and the criminal justice system.
Let me start with the police and with the point at which people first make contact with them, which is hugely important. First contact may be made by phone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) mentioned earlier, it can be difficult getting through to the police by phone, and when that happens the public’s perception of the police does not start on the right footing. Sometimes, too, the public do not receive a visit when they expect or as quickly as they would like. I was pleased to see that the Green Paper made reference to that in respect of the new national standards on how quickly people should be responded to.
In order for that process to make sense, there must be a reasonable way in which to assess police priorities in terms of response times. We all understand that the police cannot be everywhere at once and cannot respond quickly to everything, so there must be a reasonable method according to which the police may determine which cases are a priority and which are not. I cannot be the only Member who has had long arguments with their local police forces about how that process is carried out.
If the public are to have confidence in the system and remain engaged with it, they must also have confidence in how police priorities are assessed and implemented. It seems perfectly right, as the Green Paper says, that we should look at the vulnerability of the person who makes the phone call and expects the police visit when determining whether the request for such a visit should be viewed as a priority. It is also important to look in a wider sense at how we define vulnerability. Of course, in many cases, it is not a priority to respond to an incident of domestic violence or harassment, but if that violence and harassment occurs in the context of a long-running saga, repeated events or perhaps when a violent partner returns from a period in custody, it should be viewed as a priority. At first sight, such a case might not seem like a matter of high priority, but with a fuller investigation of the background facts, it most certainly can become one. Neither the Minister nor the House will need any reminder that nearly every murder case that the courts have to deal with is effectively a domestic incident that has become extremely serious.
My second point is about accountability. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) made clear, there is a measure of agreement across the House on the need for better accountability in respect of setting policing priorities.
The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) raised the question whether we are talking about directly elected police chief constables—and it was made clear to him that we are not. There is an important distinction between those who set strategic priorities for a police force and those who take operational decisions. I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that such operational decisions should be taken by anyone who is elected; in my view, however, strategic decisions most certainly should be.
The point about direct election is that it is all well and good telling the public, as they have often heard on so many subjects, “Your views are very important to us; consultation is vital”, but that will not work unless there is a mechanism that not only allows the public’s views to be taken into account but, if those views are roundly and widely ignored by the body concerned, allows the public to act to remedy the problem. The most obvious way of doing that is to ensure that, if someone is elected to a position to set particular policing priorities which are not to the public’s liking, the public can get rid of that person. Establishing such a mechanism is vital to supporting public confidence, and public willingness to engage with the policing and criminal justice system.
Confidence is also based on the flow of good information, not just from the public to the police—important though that is—but from the police to the public. As Louise Casey rightly points out in her report, it is important for the public to know when the information that they have given to the police has a positive effect. When they have supplied information—sometimes, as we know, at considerable risk to themselves—they need to be aware that it has resulted in a positive outcome: that arrests have been made or investigations carried out, and that that has had positive consequences.
Confidence can exist only if information is trusted and reliable. The public must be able to believe that what they are being told is accurate and comprehensive. We need not go back too many days or weeks to see that the public’s confidence in crime statistics has been severely dented, although it could be questioned whether it was ever very high in the first place. As has already been said, it is important for crime statistics to come from a trusted, independent source, so that we can all have confidence in them.
Confidence in crime statistics is also linked to a more general confidence in the policing and criminal justice system. That is demonstrated by the vicious downward spiral that sometimes results when those who do not trust the crime statistics do not report offences because they do not believe that their reports will be acted on effectively, and then, of course, trust the statistics even less: because they know from personal experience that some crimes are not reported, they conclude that the statistics cannot possibly be an accurate and comprehensive reflection of the level of crime in their communities.
Public confidence is not just about the way in which the police respond to crime; it is also about the way in which the criminal justice system responds to crime and those who commit it. If we are discussing public engagement in fighting crime, we must take account of ways in which the public engage with the criminal justice system as well as ways in which they engage with the police.
Public engagement is vital in the context of the criminal justice system. The most obvious example is when members of the public serve as jurors in criminal trials. I declare an interest, as one who practised as a criminal barrister for some years in the west midlands. I saw a great number of juries during that time, and gained a huge amount of respect both for the institution and for the people who served as jurors in the criminal cases that I tried. It seems to me that the jury system is the practical and direct application of common sense in the criminal justice system.
One would hope that all those who have served as jurors have slightly more confidence in the criminal justice system, and are slightly more reassured that it operates to defend their interests. That confidence should not be undermined by anything that we do, or by anything that the Government do. The Government talk of cases that it is not suitable for a jury to try: cases that are beyond the capacity of jurors, such as serious fraud cases. I have tried such cases with juries who have reached conclusions identical to those that the judge has said that he would have reached on each and every count.
If we proceed down the Government’s line, we cannot be surprised when the public say “In that case, you do not have as much confidence in the jury system as you say you do.” The jury system is the right way in which to try criminal cases. If a jury has difficulty in understanding a case, that is probably the fault of the advocates and not the fault of the jury. It is important that we maintain our confidence in the system, so that the public can engage with it and have confidence in it themselves. Once the jury has done its job, however, and there is a conviction where appropriate, we must move on to consider sentencing, which is crucial to public confidence in the system. It is perfectly true that the public do not often believe that sentencing decisions are right, but the Minister was also correct to say that in many instances the public have not seen the whole of the case—how could they have done? Public interest in sentencing is always legitimate, but, given that they will not have heard all the evidence and mitigation, public outrage—often aided and abetted by the tabloid press—is not always appropriate. We must draw that distinction.
Judges have a difficult job to do in every case. They have to weigh up different factors on both sides of the argument and make a sensible decision as to what appropriate sentence should result. I appreciate that the Government will not take up every recommendation in Louise Casey’s report, but may I counsel the Minister against proposal 17? It refers to situations in which a judge who wishes to pass a community punishment order first asks for a pre-sentence report to assess suitability to carry out such work. Louise Casey’s concern is that such a delay is very seldom necessary, and that the judge should be able to say straight away, “A community punishment order is what is necessary, so let’s have one; we don’t need a report.” The only cautionary note I would sound on that is that pre-sentence reports are used for a variety of purposes, and it is right that judges should have all the facts available to them before they pass sentence. One of those facts may be whether it is unsuitable for the defendant to carry out community punishment because of a physical disability or illness, but pre-sentence reports also address many other considerations, and I hope the Government would do nothing to restrict the amount of information the judge has before passing an appropriate sentence.
If the public are to have confidence in the system, it is right for them to expect the judge to take everything of relevance into account, including the views of the victim and the victim’s family, but while I support that concept, there is, again, something that troubles me. That information is gathered from a victim impact statement, which allows the victim—or their family where, sadly, they are no longer available to give their views—to explain to the judge the impact the offence has had on them, the wider community, and their friends and family. Although I commend the intention, I do not believe that sentencing should be carried out on the basis of how much a particular offence has affected those who remain behind, because let us consider the most extreme cases. The family of a murder victim may well put forward a very cogent, coherent, moving, emotional response on how a murder has affected them—and they should be able to do so—but we cannot, just because the family have put forward that case, assess that murder as being more serious than a murder where there is no family, and there are no friends and no wider community who came into contact with the victim, and therefore there is no victim impact statement. While I entirely understand the necessity of the public, and the subset of the public most directly affected by a criminal offence, engaging with the process in this way, I am concerned that by doing this we will start to move away from the vital principle that what is most important is not the public’s reaction to the offence, but the criminality of the offender, along with that offender’s particular circumstances and the circumstances of the offence.
The Government must also be careful about their intervention in sentencing. Yes, the public will expect the Government to set a sentencing framework, but they will have confidence in the Government’s ability to help fight crime and run a sensible and responsive criminal justice system only if the Government set an adequate sentencing framework. However, there is a difference between setting a framework and appearing to intervene in individual sentencing decisions. Public confidence in the system is undermined if what appears to be happening is that the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor is writing to judges saying, “Because we’ve got a problem with prison capacity, I don’t think you ought to be sending too many people to prison.” That is precisely the kind of intervention that undermines public confidence in the system and leads the public to say, “I am not engaging with this at all. If the Government cannot respond to a need for prison places, when, frankly, they were told a long time ago that there was a need for them, I do not have confidence in that system”. Governments, of whatever political colour, have got to be careful to set the proper sentencing framework, but not to appear to intervene in individual sentencing decisions.
What is absolutely legitimate in the context of this debate is for the public to expect that sentencing, of whatever type, constitutes proper punishment. We have talked a little about community punishment orders. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Eastleigh, it is entirely appropriate that the public should understand clearly what is done as part and parcel of a community punishment order, that they should see that it is real punishment, and that they should have some understanding of the result of it—of what has been achieved on behalf of the community receiving some form of recompense from the offender.
I support a great deal of what is in Louise Casey’s report and in the Green Paper, which is designed to achieve that effect. However, on prison sentences there are important points to be made about the balance between punishment and rehabilitation, and whether the two need to be mutually exclusive. In my view, they do not. I think it right that the first objective of a prison sentence is to protect the public; it is neither punishment nor rehabilitation. The point of a prison sentence—the first objective—is to take someone whom a judge believes to be dangerous to the public out of the public’s way and put them behind bars, so that they can do no harm for the duration of their imprisonment. The second objective is certainly to punish, and to deter others from committing a similar offence, but there is also an objective of rehabilitation—of preventing that offender from leaving prison and committing further offences. That is absolutely necessary, and most people in this country would say that that is a proper objective for a prison sentence.
What I have never understood is why it appears to some to be mutually exclusive to punish and to rehabilitate. In my view, both can be done at once. One of the best examples of this is an area in which we need to improve our prison system: the effort of educating and training those in prison with inadequate skills and qualifications, to make absolutely sure that when they come out, they have no excuse for not earning a law-abiding living. Why can we not educate and train those people better? If we do do that, let us remember that for a lot of these individuals, the one part of their life that they hated most was when they had to go to school and learn, so it will be punishment for them to have to learn, be educated and gain skills. No one should imagine that a properly run system of educating offenders is anything other than punishment, as well as rehabilitation.
In many ways, what I have been talking about in the context of public engagement in and confidence in fighting crime—engagement with the police and with the criminal justice system—is all far too late. The best type of public engagement in fighting crime happens before either of those two stages, and well before the offender knows that he is an offender. The best type of public engagement in fighting crime is that which takes place when educating people in school, be it a parent, a teacher, a governor of a school or a local education authority. We know about the well-trodden path from truancy to crime. If people can be kept in education and engaged, they are less likely to become criminals. So if we want the public to engage in the fight against crime, we should not wait until we have to call the police. We should encourage such people in what they do in education and in the voluntary sector.
I return to the point that I made in intervening on the Minister. If we want to fight crime effectively, we have got to allow people to work in youth clubs and to encourage them to help with young people’s clubs of all kinds. The people who do such work, and are good at it, are also good at lots of other things, and their time is limited. They do not want to spend a large proportion of that time wading through paperwork; they want to spend it helping young people. What the Government can do, but have not yet done to my satisfaction or, I am sure, to theirs, is ensure that such people face no barriers to helping young people in that way.
That means that we must cut back on the amount of paperwork. I understand that paperwork is necessary on one level—to keep our children safe—but it is becoming overly burdensome and repetitive. I do not want any more of my constituents to say to me, “I am employed at a young offenders institution and, thus, have a high level of clearance for working with young people, but I have to get a separate Criminal Records Bureau check to help the scouts on a Thursday night.” Such a situation is ridiculous. It means that fewer and fewer people will come forward to do this valuable work, and thus our efforts at fighting crime and engaging the public in fighting crime will be impeded. My final plea to the Minister is to ensure that members of the public who are keen to fight crime and engage in that process are encouraged to do so, not only when they contact the police or serve on a jury, but before that, when they help to ensure that there is not a problem in the first place.
I am delighted to take on the role of nice cop this afternoon, as it is a Thursday and the political mantle of Bodie and Doyle has been taken by my colleagues on the Front Bench; I have had to opt for being Dixon of Dock Green instead, just for this afternoon.
In that mode, I thank the Government for highlighting special constables week. I do not know whether I need to declare an interest as a special constable, because I do not claim any expenses for that work, but I make it clear that I am one and have served for 16 hours a month for the past two years. The letter that came from the Home Office asking us to support specials this week was timely and apt, so I offer my support. In keeping with the general tone that we have adopted this Thursday afternoon, I shall say the words that will probably strike fear into the Minister’s heart: I have a wonderful idea. Those words always strike fear into my heart when someone comes to my surgery and says them.
In fact, I have three wonderful ideas for the Minister. They should not cost a lot, and I offer them in the spirit of general bipartisanship. The first relates to the special constabulary, which is a great story; it is a win for all concerned, because the special constables provide cost-effective policing—it is not policing on the cheap. That is a good thing for Ministers and for the public. When a special constable gets their warrant card, he or she is a police officer for 24 hours a day, rather than just for the eight hours a fortnight to which they sign up. Every special constable, like every police officer, will be able to relate anecdotes of when they have put that card to good use as they were out and about as members of the public.
The arrangement is also very good for the reservists themselves. We do not make enough of the skills that people develop, which are very useful for whatever they do in their careers. One such skill is dealing with very angry people. All of us encounter such people in our surgeries, and sometimes even in the Whips Office—that does not apply to me, because the person in charge of whipping me is sitting close by and I have never, as yet, had to use my policing skills to defuse an angry situation with him.
There is a great deal to be gained from the special constabulary for all concerned. My concern is that we do not do enough to promote special constables or to encourage people to join and then to stay. That brings me to the slightly thorny issue of pay, which has been discussed. Even among the police forces and special constables there are mixed feelings about it. I wish to make a suggestion to the Minister, because I do not think there is any point paying special constables until they have gained independent patrol status.
As the Minister will know, the usual process is that one undertakes about eight weekends of training—16 days—and is then given a warrant card, but one is not then allowed to patrol on one’s own; instead, one goes out with an experienced officer, usually a regular police officer or a trainer. The process of gaining independence usually takes about one to two years. I have gone through that process, and I did not feel that I was that much use to the police until I had gained independent patrol status. Obviously, there were occasions when I was useful, but at all times the police force had to ensure that there was a regular constable with me when I was a probationer. To a certain extent, therefore, I question how useful I was.
When special constables gain independent patrol status, which took me about a year, they have various experiences and realise that there is some excitement to the job—special constables do some front-line policing—but that there is also a lot of paperwork, boredom and so on. As the Minister knows, one problem is that many people leave after about two years—just as they become useful. At that point, therefore, we ought to consider payment.
Special constables welcome the flexibility of being a special constable. If there is a one-line Whip, I can, and very often do, go and police my area for four to six hours. However, how much value do I add when I decide, on the spur of the moment, to go and patrol a couple of areas? Sometimes it can be a great deal, but other times not—it depends on what happens. Any system of payment should be based around whether an inspector or senior officer needs extra officers on a particular day. For example, if an inspector knows that a big football match, carnival or something else is coming up that requires large numbers of police officers, they should send e-mails to those concerned and have the flexibility to pay anyone who has gained independent status. That would work for both special constables and the police force.
The Minister might be aware of something called employment support and policing, which is a brilliant idea being pioneered in the Metropolitan police by two unsung heroes, Neil Barrett and Adam Hunter. They looked at what happens in the Territorial Army, where often major employers support their employees in signing up as TA soldiers and pay them while they do their soldiering. Neil Barrett and Adam Hunter decided to pioneer something similar in the Metropolitan police. However, they have taken it further: for example, major shopping chains can allow their employees to do their two days a month to earn their warrant card, after which they tend to police shopping centres.
Bus companies are doing the same with bus drivers: while people are being paid as bus drivers, they can work two shifts a month as police officers. In effect, therefore, they get paid for doing something different from their normal job. They have their warrant card with them 24 hours a day—even when doing their normal job—and can use it if they wish, although obviously that it is up to them. They can use it to intervene directly in a situation or to make a telephone call, and act as an expert witness later. I am sure that Ministers are aware of that very good idea. Will they consider rolling it out more widely?
My next point is about police community support officers. I felt about them how I felt about the Welsh Assembly—at first, I was not a great fan and could not see the point of them, but now I accept that they are there to stay, so we should make the best of them. I pay tribute to the PCSOs in Monmouthshire, one of whom, Darran Grady, might receive a reward next week at the police review dinner. I understand that a Minister will be present at that dinner and, if possible, I would like to introduce them to Darran Grady. He has done some outstanding work in my constituency, and is one of many very hardworking and active PCSOs.
PCSOs could be much more effective, however, if we gave them warrant cards. Arguments have been made for and against that idea, so I shall rehearse the situation as I see it. Within the police family are, first, the police officers—the front-line constables—whose job it is to arrest people if they see offences being committed, and their presence also reassures the public. However, they also investigate offences before carrying out those arrests, which is a side that we do not often see or think about.
The job of special constables is to go out with front-line police officers, reassuring the public and carrying out arrests, if they see offences taking place. The job of PCSOs is to gain intelligence and talk to the public to get information about where crimes might occur and who might be responsible for them. They also support police officers when they make arrests. One problem for PCSOs is that some people wrongly call them “plastic police officers”, and that is because they do not have the power of arrest. That ought to be changed, as a PCSO who is out on the streets is likely to have undergone two or there months more training than a special constable who has gained independent status. For the life of me, I cannot see why it should not be possible to give PCSOs warrant cards and allow them to make an arrest if they see an offence being committed.
However, I am becoming a convert and believe that PCSOs are carrying out their present role reasonably well. I do not think that they should be taken away from that role, but sometimes people see the uniform worn by a police officer or a PCSO and start to misbehave. I think PCSOs would have much more authority if, instead of detaining a person for 30 minutes and calling for back-up, they were able to produce a warrant card and make an arrest immediately. I appreciate that their job is to be out and about on the streets reassuring the public, but people would be even more reassured if they knew that a PCSO was able to arrest a person committing an offence, bring them before a custody sergeant and ensure that they were properly charged. I do not think that there is any reason why the PCSOs whom I know would not be capable of doing that, and of doing it extremely well.
My third suggestion to the Minister would not cost a penny—I am being very responsible about such things—as all it involves is a change to the section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which deals with searches. One of the biggest frustrations for me in my limited experience of the past two years has occurred when I have stopped people for committing minor offences. I am talking about such things as begging in tube stations, or ticket evasion: they would not normally lead to an arrest, because it would clog up the system if everyone who committed a minor offence was taken before a custody sergeant.
However, one of the first things that officers do when faced with a minor offence is to run a check on the police national computer. In that way, they can find out who the person is, and what potential danger they might pose to the police or members of the public. More often than not, people stopped for minor offences will be known to the police for more serious ones. That happens very often, and I could give specific examples of people who have been stopped for minor offences turning out to have recent convictions for carrying knives or even guns, or for dealing drugs.
If a person is found to have a recent conviction, I think that it is reasonable for an officer to want to carry out some sort of search—not an invasive, full-body search, but an airport-style pat down. However, section 1 of PACE does not allow a search to be carried out unless there is evidence that the person involved is carrying a weapon or drugs at that particular moment. Very often, there is no such evidence.
Some police officers try and get around the rules in one way or another, and they often get away with doing so. I wish them the very best of luck, but officers should not have to be inventive in their use of PACE. When a person with a conviction in, for example, the last six or 12 months or two years is stopped while committing an offence—and I am not talking about when they are just pulled up in the street—the police officer involved ought to be able undertake a quick search. A very quick change to PACE would enable that to happen.
I had not intended to mention it, but I should like to add that I think that it would be very useful if the rules governing the citizen’s arrest could be clarified. I am not clear what the present rules are, but I believe that many more people would be willing to intervene if they knew what the definition of the word “reasonable” actually was.
I have spoken on many occasions in the past about the inadequacy of prison and community sentences. I have described how police officers spend so much time chasing after the same small number of criminals, all of whom are known to them. I do not intend to go any further into that today, save to make a final observation about sentencing. It often happens that I read in the newspaper that a lawyer with a client about to be sentenced has said, “Please, m’lud, he’s had a terrible upbringing. It’s not his fault, please be lenient on him.” My response is that the judge should not hand down a community sentence but should send the offender to prison. That is when I will know that community sentences are working, and I look forward to that.
I would like to concentrate on one particular aspect of public engagement in fighting crime, namely antisocial behaviour crime. With such crime, “public engagement” means not the involvement of a random member of the public, but the engagement of the victims of that crime; they are very often the immediate or near neighbours of those committing the crime. It takes a great deal of courage for those people to become engaged in fighting that crime. They often suffer in silence for a long time before they take courage, their patience finally snaps, and they start to report it.
I want to stress the very long period that it takes to resolve antisocial behaviour crime. That is because it involves the collection of evidence, which is a long-term procedure, and co-operation between the local authority, the police and the individuals concerned. It takes an enormous amount of evidence to build up a case that can be brought to court, and to secure a conviction. During that period, there is always the fear of reprisals from the perpetrators of the crime if it is discovered that the victims are making reports. It is difficult for people to stand up to the fear of intimidation, and the aggressive and intimidating behaviour. They need to have confidence in the police response, and in the police’s capacity to protect them while the procedure is under way.
I want to use one case to illustrate my point. It is typical of a number of cases that I have been informed about. It would not surprise me to learn that other hon. Members had come across similar cases. I have a very large file on the case in question. It illustrates how one family can make a misery of a number of people’s lives. The Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing made that very point in his opening remarks.
I shall start by reading parts of letters that I have received from people who have been the victims of one family’s antisocial behaviour. The first letter is dated July 2008, but the problem predates that; it actually affected the previous tenants of the property referred to in the letter, who were driven out. Homes in Havering is the arm’s length management organisation that deals with housing in my borough, and the letter says:
“Homes in Havering have been dealing with this case for some three years. The levels of ASB”—
that is, antisocial behaviour—
“to date have been three threats to kill me, throwing bricks at my flat, verbal abuse etc.
Homes in Havering managed to have separate injunctions served on the tenant this March along with her Partner, both injunctions have a power of arrest attached to them. He was barred from the property and was not permitted within the road or adjacent roads. She was not allowed to use abusive language and was not allowed to let her ex partner back into her flat.
Well the injunctions have been breached and very little seems to get done. Early June I had to call 999 as I and other neighbours could hear her beating one of her children. The police came arrested her, the kids were taken from her. Nine days later she is back with the kids…The injunctions were again recently broken when he”—
the partner—
“returned to the property, the Police were called but he managed to escape through the back gardens. The Police told us they were going to arrest him later…and come back for her tomorrow once they have alerted Social services…My life has been hell for the last two years, I have been in fear of my life, not knowing if I would be attacked whilst opening my door.
I just feel like giving up, the law just does not protect innocent people.”
Neighbour No. 2, who is suffering at the hands of the same family, says:
“We have had to endure the constant disturbances…I eventually brought it to the attention of Social Services when I witnessed violent behaviour towards the children…I then resorted to calling the Police on many occasions when I again witnessed violence between”
the tenant
“and her partner…these bouts of violence included the children…The language was appalling and as the children have got older they now join in.
To cut a long story short we got in touch with the ASBO officer and Havering Council and since then have spent the last two years calling the Police, making statements, going to court…and signing Affidavits. Unfortunately, the Judge’s decision to place an injunction with the power of arrest on both of them have proved a complete waste of time. They have both breached the injunction on more than one occasion”.
The letter says that the partner
“still comes and goes even though he is banned from the property…but the Police still do not arrest him.”
The neighbour says that they
“even got a video of him scaling the garden wall…The neighbours”
on
“the other side…have moved out and gone to live with inlaws as they could not stand it anymore…I am fed up with hearing about more money being given to reduce Anti Social Behaviour…I am writing to you out of desperation, please tell me where I go from here.”
A third neighbour who is involved in the same case, which has been going on since 2003, says in an e-mail:
“It was only a few days in to our time—
at their address—
“did we realize we had a problem. The disruption and the turmoil to our lives has reigned ever since.
There has been a succession of ASB personnel…trying to deal with these people…. Social Services have documentation… a yard deep”
to deal with all the problems. The neighbour continues, saying that they have
“lost faith in law and order and agree that, after being involved either myself or family members in two world wars, that we now live in broken Britain.”
Homes in Havering has worked closely with the victims of those crimes and with the police, and it has been to court on numerous occasions. My point is that a long period elapses between the antisocial behaviour first occurring—the victim first reporting it, their having to keep diaries of what happens and maintain contact with the police until sufficient evidence has been amassed to take the case to court, and their waiting for a court case—and, for one reason or another, no conviction or prosecution being secured. Sometimes, the accused do not turn up and the case has to be adjourned or, for numerous reasons, there has to be another court case. The case that I have described has been going on for five years and has involved a variety of people.
The victims of such antisocial behaviour crimes are losing faith in the system and in the police. However, in defence of Havering police, I must say that they do suffer—I used the word advisedly—from being a low-crime borough when compared with many inner-London boroughs, so when the Metropolitan police force resource allocation formula is calculated, Havering police are pretty much at the end of queue in respect of the number of additional police constables that they receive. Local people are not very receptive to the argument that other boroughs have more crime than they do; the crime that affects them is important to them, and Havering police are stretched, so they are not always able to react as they would wish.
All of us listening to the individual cases that the hon. Lady has outlined will feel that that situation is not acceptable. I do not know what has happened, but there appears to be a problem. If it is helpful, I shall meet her and talk to her about those cases, and we will see whether we can doing something about it.
I am grateful to the Minister for his kind offer, but it might—just might—not be necessary, because there was a hearing today, and I see that it is past 4 o’clock, so the court will have closed. I do not know the result of the hearing, but, fingers, eyes and toes all crossed, we may have had a successful result today.
I hope so.
As, indeed, do I. I am waiting to hear the outcome from my main correspondent, and I hope that justice has been done.
The antisocial behaviour of one family can affect a large number of people and make their daily lives a misery, because they are unable to go about their ordinary, law-abiding business or to conduct their lives in any way that we would consider normal. The inordinate length of time that it takes to deal with such cases is wrong, but I do hope—I think I am going to find out very soon—that this case has been resolved.
Let us hope that the case discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) is resolved satisfactorily. I am sure that any district judge would be appalled if they made an injunction with an arrest order which was regularly breached without being brought back before them so that they could deal with the case appropriately.
During the parliamentary recess, I spent time with Thames Valley police as part of the police parliamentary scheme. Colleagues may know that it is analogous to the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Members spend 20 days with a police force and see different aspects of how the police work. For me, the experience highlighted the complexity of policing in the 21st century and the considerable professionalism of Thames Valley police.
I have now been a Member for 25 years and know that the only police officers most Members get to meet are the chief constable and area commander. The Thames Valley chief constable usually asks us to exhort Ministers to deal with the outflow of police officers from Thames Valley to the Met, and our area commanders always want to tell us—probably with good justification—that everything is okay on our patch.
The police parliamentary scheme provides the opportunity for Members to talk to other officers, police constables and sergeants and gives them the opportunity to talk to us. One spends some days with a specialist department and others on beat patrol on early and late shifts. I did mine at Cowley police station in Oxford. It is worth while sharing with the House my impressions from my 20-day experience.
First, it struck me that far too many people caught up in the criminal justice system should be treated by the NHS as mental health patients. If I have the misfortune to break my leg in the street, I will be taken immediately to a local hospital with an accident and emergency department where I will be treated unconditionally by the NHS. However, if I were to go out into the street and behave abnormally because of mental health problems, it appears that my admittance into NHS mental health treatment would be entirely conditional on whether the relevant mental health trust decided to treat me.
Let me give one practical example. On one of the early shifts that I joined at Cowley police station, there was a young female overseas student who was threatening to commit suicide. Obviously, she was in a very emotional and distressed state and needed professional support. The local mental health trust refused to help her. As a consequence, the police were obliged to take her to a place of safety—which, in reality, meant the cells at St. Aldate’s in Oxford. A police officer had to be taken out of the shift and spend all day looking after her. Given that the shift comprised just seven police constables for the whole city of Oxford, losing one was not insignificant.
Let us think of the situation from the perspective of the young woman: there she was, in a foreign country, very unhappy and seriously contemplating suicide, finding herself—as she would see it—arrested and put in a police cell. That does not seem an appropriate place for her, and nor does looking after her seem an appropriate use of a police officer’s time. I am told that the mental health trust refuses to treat anyone who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but people with mental health problems often also have problems with drink or drugs; I suspect that the two often mutually reinforce each other. It is extraordinary that we have got to a situation in which one part of the NHS decides whether it wants to treat patients. I fully appreciate that resources at mental health trusts are tight, but it would be better if there were a frank discussion about the mental health treatment of the community rather than people being caught up in the criminal justice system simply because the NHS cannot cope.
That brings me to alcohol and drug abuse. A large amount of police officers’ time seems to be spent on dealing with people who are committing criminal acts in order to find the money to meet a dependency on drugs or alcohol, whether it is the heroin addict who needs £60 a day or the alcoholic stealing a £5 bottle of wine from the Co-op in Jericho. If I had known how much paperwork goes into sorting out the latter, I would have given that person the £5 myself. It took two police officers four hours to do that paperwork, which is crazy. These persistent offenders place disproportionate demands on the police service.
I appreciate that there are no easy answers as regards drug or alcohol treatment and that for it to work there must be a degree of buy-in by the person concerned. However, I am sure that money spent on initiatives such as Smart CJS in Oxfordshire is money well spent. We should be doing more to see how we can improve alcohol and drug treatment, not least because if we could help people to get off drug or alcohol dependency we would substantially reduce the reoffending rate. If all the people with serious mental health problems and substance abuse issues were taken out of local community prisons such as Bullingdon in my constituency, there would be comparatively few left.
My impression is that funding of organisations such as Smart CJS is something of a lottery, probably due largely to Whitehall problems of how spending is allocated. Does money spent on drug and alcohol abuse come from the budget of the Department of Health, or is it money that will help to reduce reoffending and should therefore come from the Home Office budget? Wherever it comes from, in terms of the effectiveness of public spending overall it must make sense to try to reduce reoffending. We will not reduce the volume of reoffending by those with drug and alcohol problems unless we help them to resolve those problems.
Another thing that struck me during my time on shifts with the police in Cowley was that a small but growing number of persistent young offenders are committing a disproportionately large number of offences. One young teenager in Oxford seemed to commit burglaries in the city on a daily basis. We should bear in mind all the associated stress that is caused by such offences. For people such as that teenager, antisocial behaviour orders and community sentences appear not to be working.
I recognise that over the years there was much criticism of detention centres and borstals, but there are few fundamental principles involved. The community is entitled to be protected against persistent offenders irrespective of their age. Persistent young offenders need to understand that continuing to offend will result in punishment, which must ultimately mean curtailment of their liberty. Given that these youngsters have a whole range of other problems at home and elsewhere, it may well be in their interests to put them in an environment where they can get some decent schooling and learn some life skills. The present system of youth justice is not dealing with persistent young offenders, of whom there are a worryingly growing number, on any statistical analysis. I am not sure whether that is dealt with by the youth crime action plan.
I also noticed the growing and worrying trend of youth-on-youth violence, which usually involves a gang of youngsters preying on other youngsters for their mobile telephones, cash, watches, and so on. These are really nasty offences, with youngsters often being attacked in public parks where they have gone to play. That is very distressing for the youngsters and for their parents. Increasingly, an element of violence is used in these crimes. They are classified as robberies, so statistically the number of robberies in areas such as Oxford go up, although much of it is youth-on-youth crime. Tragically, for far too many young people, particularly in cities such as Oxford and other urban areas, violence or the fear of violence is becoming an everyday occurrence. That is wholly unacceptable.
In Oxford there is the added dimension of groups of local youths attacking foreign students, which can only be very damaging to the reputation of Oxford as a place of learning and to Britain’s reputation abroad. Such crimes are difficult to detect. Even if the police react immediately to allegations of robbery, by the time they get to the park or street concerned, those involved will have run off. I would have thought that neighbourhood action groups, schools, communities and local police working together would have an interest in identifying ringleaders and making it clear that such behaviour will not be tolerated.
If I had not seen the paperwork that the police have to deal with, I would not have believed it. I am no stranger to the criminal justice system: like my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), I began my practice at the Bar, some 35 years ago on the midland and Oxford circuit, both prosecuting and defending. We have got ourselves into an Alice in Wonderland situation where police officers, particularly beat officers, feel under pressure to meet certain targets, but to do so they need to spend a disproportionate amount of time completing paperwork. In this target-driven culture, issuing a fixed penalty ticket for antisocial behaviour in Bonn square, in the centre of Oxford, gives a police officer as many points as detecting and making a successful arrest of someone who has committed an offence such as grievous bodily harm. An offence that almost certainly would be taken into consideration involves as much paperwork as one that would be the subject of a contested case in the Crown court. All sense of proportion seems to have gone out of the window.
There is a great risk of looking at the years of one’s youth through somewhat rose-tinted spectacles, but my recollection is that in the days when Thames Valley police officers prosecuted cases in the magistrates court those courts were run efficiently, and the prosecution quite rightly secured a significant number of convictions without an ever-increasing mountain of paperwork. It is difficult to find anyone who can explain how this collective insanity started, or what public mischief it was meant to tackle, but I cannot believe that any objective observer thinks that it has improved the efficiency or the effectiveness of the police. I hope that on day one of any new Administration it will be possible for an incoming Home Secretary to announce the setting up of an inquiry under the leadership of someone such as Lord Stevens on how seriously to reduce police paperwork.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree, based on his experience of criminal practice—and I ask him this based on my experience—that the mystifying thing about paperwork is that there are seven, eight, nine or 10 forms for a police officer to fill in, but no more than one or two find their way to the criminal prosecutor whose job it is to secure a conviction. Does he wonder, as I do, what happens to the rest of them?
There seems to be a collective insanity, and no one knows where it started, its purpose or what it is achieving. Police officers feel increasingly that their integrity, effectiveness and efficiency is somehow being challenged and questioned for reasons they know not what. Understandably, they feel frustrated that their discretion has been taken away.
It is no longer possible for police officers to decide whether a crime has been committed. I shall give the House one example. A new word has entered the English dictionary—something has been “crimed”. People get pretty savvy and they have worked out that if they telephone and complain that their neighbour is playing their television too loudly, the police are likely to refer them to the environmental health department of the local authority. However, if they telephone and allege that their neighbours are involved in a serious domestic incident, the police respond immediately.
One evening, we went to a house in Oxford where it was alleged that the husband was attacking his wife. That had been “crimed” as a domestic attack; the controller, or someone else, had already determined that a crime had taken place. When we got to the house, it was perfectly plain that no crime had been committed. The wife was downstairs and the husband, sadly, was upstairs watching Manchester United playing football. Even sadder, he was wearing his Manchester United strip. The only noise was him cheering loudly at the television. Clearly, that was not a domestic violence incident, but it took the police officers almost as much time and paperwork to get it “de-crimed” as it would have taken if they had arrested someone and taken them to St. Aldate’s police station for committing an offence. It is crazy when police officers do not have the discretion to determine whether an offence has been committed.
If we have policing by consent and the overwhelming majority of the public trust the integrity of police officers, as I believe they do, then it is clear that people are willing to trust police officers’ ability to exercise their discretion rather than having policing controlled by Home Office-driven targets. Moreover, having spent 20 days with Thames Valley police and seen how things are “crimed” or not “crimed”, one’s confidence in police statistics is undermined. One feels that the controllers are often obliged to “crime” things to tick boxes rather than because crimes have been committed. What confidence can one place in national crime statistics?
I was grateful to the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing for kindly coming to my constituency to see neighbourhood policing in Bicester. It is an excellent example of neighbourhood policing, with sworn officers, PCSOs and street wardens working together. As I have made clear in debates in Westminster Hall, neighbourhood policing, especially in my part of the world, is impressive. However, it largely depends on police officers who are allocated to neighbourhood policing teams not being taken away for other duties or having to cover shifts in their local police stations. It is understandably frustrating for local residents to have the benefit of a neighbourhood police officer for some time, only for him or her to disappear because they are taken away for other duties.
Neighbourhood policing also requires good leadership and grip to ensure the maximum synergy between sworn officers, PCSOs and street wardens.
I am sorry to have missed the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and he may have covered the point already, but does he agree that visibility is important? Not only synergy between the beat officer and the local community but seeing police officers and PCSOs out and about is important. People can then see that something is happening locally.
Absolutely. Police officers and PCSOs visibly out and about together is reassuring and good news. However, it is frustrating for local communities if the sworn officer gets taken away to do other things. For a while, local residents see neighbourhood police officers, but then they disappear. That is confusing. Neighbourhood police officers should be ring-fenced for that activity and not extracted for other purposes.
I am worried about whether local councillors and local people have sufficiently bought in to neighbourhood action groups. We have heard much about the involvement of local people in electing those who might be responsible for holding chief constables and others to account. However, we now have neighbourhood action groups, and I visited those in my constituency, as I am sure other hon. Members have done in their constituencies. They work well and bring all the statutory agencies together. However, although there were some good and dedicated volunteers and members of the local community, there were not as many as I had hoped, and not enough to make one feel that it was a genuine neighbourhood body.
Part of the problem is that neighbourhood policing areas have to cover quite large areas, by definition. For example, one neighbourhood policing area in Banbury covers three wards of the town. The reality, however, is that councillors and local residents tend to think of neighbourhoods as much smaller areas. Indeed, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester, East, said that the key was for people to be neighbours to one another. However, I am quite sure that people in Leicester do not consider their neighbourhood to be the equivalent of three wards of the city. They consider their neighbourhood to be, if I may use a parliamentary term, their local polling district equivalent or part of their housing estate at most. The neighbourhood action group areas are perhaps too large. If neighbourhood action groups are to mean more than the local representation of local statutory agencies, they will need to engage a lot more local people in their running.
That leads me to my final point, which is about partnerships more broadly. I can see obvious strengths in partnerships. Many issues, such as alcohol and drug dependency, to which I have already referred, involve a number of different Departments and agencies. The work done by the safer community partnership in Oxfordshire, in bringing together the county council, district councils, the Thames Valley police and a number of agencies, is impressive and worth while. However, I have two concerns about partnerships. The first is a somewhat cynical, world-weary concern that Whitehall can use them as a device to blur which Department is responsible for the cost of delivering various public services. If we are not careful, the default position is for such costs to fall on local authorities. Partnerships then become a way for central Government to shift financial burdens on to local government and local taxpayers, but without any compensating mechanisms.
I am also not sure that there is sufficient political buy-in to all partnership arrangements. In other words, I am not convinced that local councillors and local people are always fully aware of all the partnership arrangements. If I had not spent a day with the Oxford safer community partnership, I would have known little of its workings, and I suspect that the same goes for other parliamentary colleagues. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), might be more up to speed than me, but there can be a tendency for such initiatives to become officer-led. We are therefore talking about “touch on the tiller” stuff, to do with how we keep local councillors and local people briefed and involved in what is happening in such partnerships. I found my experience with the Thames Valley police very valuable, however, as it brought to my awareness certain things that I did not expect I would see.
My last point—we still have plenty of time, although I promise my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) that it really will be my last point—is about hearing from the police. The Police Federation and police officers generally are quite shy about approaching Members of Parliament if they have concerns. They come and tell us about police pay, which is understandable, but they feel constrained about talking to us about operational issues, even though the police parliamentary scheme has given them licence to do that.
Police officers talk to the Police Federation, but the only time that the Police Federation comes and talks to colleagues is to discuss pay and rations. However, there are all sorts of useful operational issues about which the Police Federation can talk to Members of Parliament. I hope that it will do so more, because policing is an incredibly important part of all our constituents’ lives. Members of Parliament want it to work successfully and we are all supportive of our local police forces, but we cannot help to sort things out if we do not know when there is a problem. I therefore hope that more police officers will, through the Police Federation, come and talk to Members of Parliament about their concerns.
It is a pleasure for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I have not taken part in the police parliamentary scheme, but I regularly go out on patrol with members of the Hertfordshire constabulary. I would like to place on record my admiration for the professionalism, skill and bravery of the police in that county, particularly in the Dacorum area.
On Halloween, last Friday night, I patrolled with the special constables in my constituency. The specials are the heart of community policing in this country. They are unpaid, yet dedicated to their community. The special with whom I was serving on Friday night had done 28 years unbroken service as a special in Hertfordshire. We should all try to inspire our constituents to become specials in their communities.
One of the fascinating things about being out on patrol with a special with such experience of his own community was that he did not have a satellite navigation system in his patrol car—he did not need one. He did not need a map, either. He knew the topography of his area—my constituency—like the back of his hand. It was also fantastic that he wanted to get out of his car and walk. He wanted to talk to the young people in particular, on Halloween of all nights, to find out exactly what was going on in the community. I pay tribute this afternoon to the specials. I know that all Members of Parliament were written to by the then Minister of State, asking them to go out with the specials during this time, and I hope that many colleagues from across the House have done so.
I also pay tribute to the many members of the police force in my constituency who are not actually members of the Hertfordshire constabulary, but Metropolitan police officers. My hon. Friend mentioned a particular problem earlier. We train quite a few members of the Metropolitan police in Hertfordshire. We pay for that training, they stay with us for a while, then they disappear because the pay and rations are so much better in the Metropolitan police. I do not blame the constables and sergeants who do that. Some of those who are protecting us here in the House today were formerly community officers in my constituency. That is quite a heavy burden for a small constabulary such as Hertfordshire to bear, however, because it results in our having disproportionately young or short-serving constables in the constituency.
I shall touch on a number of points today. Some might think that the early ones are quite trivial, but, as I get to the end of my short speech, I hope that colleagues will realise just how serious they are. I shall talk first about speed cameras. In a previous life, I was a fireman and I had the honour of being a driver on a rescue tender, so I know that speed kills. I have been all across Essex on the motorways and roads—particularly the minor roads—and I have seen the carnage that can result when young men, in particular, get behind the wheel of a car. It is very sad that there should be such a disproportionately high number of deaths among intelligent young men between the ages of 17 and 25. I am sure that the Minister has looked at the figures. I do not know what happens to young men when they get behind the wheel of a car, although I am sure that I was similar when I was 17. It is frightening to think of the lives that are being wasted.
I praise the projects that have been set up around the country, especially Drive to Survive in the Cheshire area. It is run by the Cheshire fire and rescue service, the other emergency services and the Cheshire education service. It is a wonderful scheme, and it has been driven forward by people who have lost loved ones in this way. That sort of scheme needs to be rolled out across the country.
Speed cameras work only in areas where there is an accident blackspot. That is where they should be. They should not be cash cows. All too often, our constituents make this point is to us. I have been out on patrol with the police when they have said to me, “Why is that camera there, Mr. Penning? Don’t you think it should be in another part of your constituency, where we know there are likely to be problems?” I should like to be quite radical. I do not want to get rid of speed cameras altogether but, speaking from experience, I should like to see more cameras at traffic light junctions, particularly in the big cities. More accidents and deaths involving pedestrians, motor cyclists, cyclists and drivers occur at traffic lights these days than in front of most of the speed cameras in this country, although speed cameras have a role to play in preventing such accidents.
The hon. Gentleman is making not a trivial point, but a very important one. The Home Affairs Select Committee published a report at the end of last year entitled “A surveillance society?”, which pointed to the need for cameras, but said that they need to be in the right place. The number of prosecutions resulting from evidence that comes from cameras is actually quite limited. The hon. Gentleman is right to pursue that point, and I hope that those who have responsibility in these matters will understand it.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those comments; I know that his Committee is looking further into the matter. If cameras are to be placed, they must be there for a purpose, and that purpose should not be to raise money, but to prevent accidents. The accidents that take place at traffic lights are commonly known as “unprotected accidents”, when someone is not at all ready for the impact that is going to happen. It is a serious matter and we have only to set foot outside this place and into Parliament square to see traffic lights regularly being jumped. It is not just one particular sort of driver who does it; it is an almost accepted occurrence nowadays. We have to prevent that.
I also want to speak briefly about the Criminal Records Bureau, and I hope that the Minister will give me some of his time in future to discuss how it operates. I have constituents who have not been convicted of any offence, but malicious allegations have been made against them. When looked into, these people are found to be completely innocent, yet when an advanced check is done, it is found that the accusation sits on their record. It cannot be right in a democracy that completely innocent people against whom no accusations have been proved, no charges brought and no criminal prosecution has taken place, should have their lives blighted through a mechanism that is supposed to be there to protect them. I understand why it is there, but it is being abused.
I believe that the abuse comes from chief constables, who have the power to remove these sorts of record, but do not do so. Perhaps they do not remove them because an element of doubt remains—I guess it is obvious that Huntley provides a good example of what people are so frightened about. I will not mention my constituent’s name, but a malicious accusation was made against him, as I said. He moved to another part of the country, found a job in a bus company, but was later told that he would lose his job because of a CRB check that showed he had been accused of an offence. That cannot be right.
I met the chief executive of the Criminal Records Bureau, who told me that he did not have the power to remove items from the checklist. Apparently, the Information Commissioner is the only authority to which people can appeal. That seems ludicrous, when this is happening as a result of legislation brought in by the Home Office to protect people. We MPs have no way of protecting our constituents from it. I understand that the Home Office is currently conducting a review, but I wanted to raise the matter this afternoon as a very important issue that is affecting people’s lives. The legislation was designed to protect, but it is actually hindering some people who are entirely innocent.
I wish to raise a few points about Greater London policing, particularly about the ability to engage the public in local policing, which obviously applies to my borough of Southwark and my constituency.
We pay tribute to those who are engaged and do their jobs so well. The special constables are often mentioned; they are absolutely meritorious. We hope that many more people will become special constables. All the London boroughs have police and community consultative groups, many of which comprise members of the public who give up their time and energy to volunteer; they do a good job. There are also neighbourhood watch volunteers and many people in the voluntary sector who work in organisations that help to engage with the police. I shall return to some particular examples later, but many work with young people trying to ensure good relations between youth organisations, youth clubs and the police. Some youth workers are out on the street every evening, acting as an interface between a tense situation and the police’s dealing with it.
As I said to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) earlier, I have always taken the view that when people feel confident enough, they should be encouraged to get involved in public order incidents rather than pull back from them. Sometimes we need to be bold and we have to tell people that they should not do relatively minor things like putting their feet on the seats, breaking the rules in buses or trams or on the tube and so forth. If people see something going on that should not be, they should get involved. Many other Members have done that, as I have.
People who are willing to act often find that the incident is thereby defused. The other night—a Sunday night—there was a great fight going on in Bermondsey, with loads of people milling around and kicking each other, girls as well as boys. Other people were doing nothing. I did not consider that acceptable. I shouted at them all and pulled them apart, and in that way it was ended. Such action is quite easy if people are willing to take it. People must understand that we have a responsibility for policing our own communities alongside the police. The expectation that problems can be solved by a phone call and that the police will arrive in time is often naïve. In the case that I have described they arrived well after the event, blue lights blazing, with three or four squad cars. By that time it was all over—the incident had ended long before they arrived. People must be realistic in such circumstances.
Let me reinforce a strong point. There is no excuse, in my book, for a police officer who takes a call from someone reporting a crime not to return to that person within 24 hours, or immediately if need be. The telephone numbers that people are given must be numbers on which someone will answer, and the same applies to e-mail addresses. It is no good saying, “Your neighbourhood team have a mobile phone,” if the blessed thing is not answered, or if someone does not deal with the report that is made. The police say that they are receiving more calls. Well, we are all receiving more calls: that is life. We live in a busier world, and that is no excuse. Civilians work for the police, and the public do not mind if a civilian answers the telephone. The same applies to volunteers. If members of the public receive competent, up-to-date, timely, efficient replies, they will find that encouraging, and we need to ensure that it happens.
The introduction of safer neighbourhood teams was proposed by many of us, but was initiated by Ken Livingstone when he was Mayor of London. It is a good system, involving a sergeant, other police officers and community wardens. Far too often, however, we still see police officers patrolling in pairs when they could be patrolling on their own. The truth is that police officers do not talk to the public nearly as often if they are with a colleague; they talk to the colleague all the time. I understand the safety issues and I am not suggesting that police officers should go into dark alleys alone at night, but we need the police to engage with the public rather than talking to each other. I hope that that cultural change will come about.
I know that the Minister is sympathetic to my views on detached youth workers. Obviously they are not there principally to engage with the police. I believe that every borough in London—the area that I know best—would benefit hugely if the Government helped to finance the provision of enough detached youth workers for each ward, just as we now have police and community support officers in each ward. They are needed to be on the other side of the engagement, as it were—the side of young people rather than the side of the authorities. That money would be hugely well spent. The workers would not need to be statutorily employed—they would not need to be local authority youth workers. They could be employed by the voluntary sector, perhaps by the faith groups. I am convinced that they would add greatly to community safety and to public engagement on the streets of London and elsewhere.
When I last looked at policing in New York, I saw that the New York police department took effective action in engaging local residents to be their eyes and ears. On council estates in New York city, the concierges are residents of the tower blocks. Some are people who have retired early. They have walkie-talkies to link them with the police, and they know exactly who lives in their blocks. If someone comes out with a load of furniture, six television sets and lots of electronic equipment, the concierge will be able to tell immediately that that is not what they are meant to be doing and will get on the phone to the estate-based police. As a result of the work of that fantastic combination, the level of crime fell enormously in the areas of New York that were the most deprived and difficult to police.
I also noted that the police were very versatile. They had pedal bikes, and they were willing to abseil down the tower blocks if that was necessary. That much more flexible approach was combined with a knowledge of the local community eyes and ears: the people behind the curtains. Those people received a small amount of remuneration—some pocket money for helping out and benefiting their community.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made some good points about the complexity of all the consultation processes. I think that, along with the Mayor of London, the Minister should examine the organisational structure in London. Every borough has a police and community consultative group, which is a legacy of the Scarman inquiry. In addition, we have safer neighbourhood partnerships, and there are other links between boroughs and the police service. There are too many of them now; the same people go to all of them, and not enough people go to any of them. We need to streamline the process. In Southwark, we have eight community councils. It would be far more logical to have one overarching police and community consultative group, rather than lots of different organisations that are trying to be the link between the local authority, the police and all the other statutory voluntary agencies.
Comparable statistics are valuable, but it often takes a long time to get the police to run systems that are easily comparable ward by ward, local authority by local authority, and police area by police area. They are useful only if they allow comparisons between one authority and another and if they go back far enough, so that we can compare last year and two years ago with the current year.
On accountability, it would be good for the public—and we would have lots of people coming to meetings—if every quarter in every borough, the police commander, the senior judge or senior magistrate and the leader of the council or the councillor responsible for community safety came out and did a public accountability session. Often the council says it is the police’s responsibility, and the police say, “Tell the courts that, not me,” and the courts say, “It’s the police.” We need to get them all in the same place at the same time, so that they cannot pass the buck and the public can hold their elected and appointed senior people to account.
There is a debate in London about police station closures. I have always understood the need to keep the location of station houses up to date—people cannot always say that they are in the right place—but the police have to understand that if we are to close police stations with public consent, there must be a police presence where the public are. The best way to have police engagement with the public is to put a police point, shop or centre—or whatever it is called—at the tube station, outside the supermarket, in the shopping centre or on the main route where the buses pass, because the place where people can go and tell the police something needs to be the place where they naturally go on their daily trip to or from work, school or college. If the police can organise themselves so they have a presence where the largest numbers of people are, we will not have nearly as many concerns if a police station is being closed down elsewhere.
The Minister will know that two weeks ago a group of community organisations across the river launched, “Enough! Make Youth Violence History.” It was a successful launch, and I have referred to the campaign before. We are hoping that Government will respond positively to the idea of a local organisation saying, “We believe we can make a huge impact in bringing down gun and knife crime, not by having new structures and organisations, but by bringing in volunteers—extra people—to help the existing organisations.” There is a website: www.enoughlondon.com. I hope people will volunteer and encourage others to do so, because the answer to these problems lies in the public taking their civic responsibilities seriously. If they do that, and if people with time on their hands volunteer a bit more, we will get public engagement with the police, to the benefit of both, which will lead to a reduction in crime, an increase in safer neighbourhoods and the creation of the better city and country we all wish for.
We have heard some eloquent and informative speeches from Members in all parts of the House on the important subject of public engagement in fighting crime, not least from my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). I am pleased to be able to conclude the debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition.
When faced with tackling crime today, people will naturally turn to the police force, but in Britain there is a long history of community involvement—of people working together to combat crime. As Members will be aware, the police in the form we know them today are a relatively recent invention. It was the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 that created what we now see as a recognisable police force. Before that, policing was undertaken on a more ad hoc basis, with private individuals, groups and communities funding watchmen to patrol and protect their communities.
Historically, under Anglo-Saxon law it was up to the community to regulate itself—to hold, arrest and often punish criminals. Although we have rightly moved on from that, one can still glean positive elements from that system. After all, at the heart of our laws are the public: laws are made to protect and to be used by the public. Such public involvement needs to be a key feature of how we approach our battle against crime. It is surely right that the public still have a pivotal role to play in helping to protect society and uphold the rule of law. If that is true, it is worrying that recent surveys point to the fact that British citizens are the least likely in Europe to intervene to stop crime. A report by the think-tank Reform concluded that only four in 10 British people would intervene if they saw a group of teenagers committing vandalism.
Why has our nation of have-a-go heroes become so reluctant to intervene on another citizen’s behalf? One of the biggest fears is not that they will get hurt, which must be noted—it is still a serious concern—but that they will end up being arrested themselves. Clearly, that is not right. This is obviously a significant obstacle to encouraging the public to become more involved, and the Government need to address it. Although each and every citizen has the right to make a citizen’s arrest, there is often confusion about this, particularly over exactly how the whole process works in practice. Many people fail to understand when, how or whether they should attempt such interventions. With better public information and encouragement, they could be used as a key part of our crime-fighting strategy throughout the United Kingdom. The public need to know that if they take legitimate and justifiable action to stop crime and catch criminals, they will be given the support that they deserve and have every right to expect from the Government, the police and the courts.
Although the results of surveys such as that carried out by Reform are worrying, they should not and cannot detract from the many heroes who go about their daily business and do their best to reduce crime. Only last week, we heard the story of world war two veteran William Grove, who single-handedly intervened in an attempted robbery of a jewellery store. With no weapon and no assistance from any other onlookers, Mr. Grove threw himself into tackling a sledgehammer-wielding assailant. Stunned by his intervention, the two attackers turned and fled. That is a prime example of how the public can make an important difference and be a key weapon in the fight against crime. However, apart from these have-a-go heroes—they include among their illustrious ranks my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—there are many other ways in which we as a community can work together to fight crime throughout the United Kingdom.
There have been some very useful and interesting speeches this afternoon, and I will refer to some of them, if I may. The Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing referred to police neighbourhood teams, which have been of great advantage to all of us where they have been introduced. However, they should be based on proper communities and genuine neighbourhoods. Their being based on electoral wards makes no sense whatsoever. We all know that electoral boundaries divide communities, so if we want true neighbourhood policing based on community, it needs to be based on just that—the communities, and not on electoral wards alone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) made an important point about the early release scheme when he said that up to 800 crimes have been committed by people who had been released early. That is clearly a great concern to all our constituents, and the scheme should be reviewed, if not scrapped altogether.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch made a series of relevant points. All Members of Parliament have constituents who are deeply unhappy about the way in which crime is tackled in this country by the police and feel that a lot more needs to be done, and he said that the people of this country feel left out of the loop and have concerns about intervening. There has been a breakdown in the relationship between the police and the public. [Interruption.] There has been. People no longer believe that the police will carry out what they should be doing, and I can cite many examples of that from my constituency. Few people have any real belief in the crime figures that are published, and the Government must address this lack of public confidence, because it will deter people from getting involved. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), will refer to that when he replies to the debate.
Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on his comment that there has been a breakdown in the relationships between the police and the public? There are issues to address with respect to the police and the public, and we all want greater public involvement, but will he reflect as to whether he would choose a more careful word than “breakdown”?
What there has been is a failure of confidence; there has been a breakdown in confidence in certain areas. How many times have we heard people say, “We are not going to ring the police”? People ask, “What’s the point of ringing the police, because they won’t come?” The people to whom I speak say those things, and the Minister must have noticed the same reaction in his constituency. Only two weeks ago, a member of my family phoned the police only to get no reaction. Much concern has been expressed about this matter. The police are held in great regard, but on many occasions they have not come up with the goods that people expect. That must be addressed by the Government, and I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) highlighted that matter too, because she said that when people phone their local police station they often receive no answer. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made the same point in respect of mobile phones. This is another example of how confidence is lost. When someone phones their local neighbourhood team and gets no response, and when someone phones their local police station and nobody comes round or even calls back, that causes a breakdown in confidence.
I very much appreciated the comments made by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch, because it was a compliment for him to have been described as a rottweiler. Perhaps that is exactly what we need to tackle crime in this country today. The British people are renowned for their bulldog spirit, and we need a bit of that if we are to tackle crime, violence and antisocial behaviour in this country. Perhaps we need less political correctness. The references to “Dixon of Dock Green” are relevant, because many of our constituents like the idea of a Dixon of Dock Green character—I hope that community policing is meant to be about that approach. We need more community-based policing, but we must have firmness as well as fairness—without the firmness, people believe that the police are not being effective.
Political correctness is a poison in fighting crime—it does not help. Sadly, we have seen political correctness in the police and we have heard it from the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers today. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) seemed to be more concerned about getting the balance right between one section of society and another and about introducing proportional representation for police authority elections than he was about fighting crime. That will be viewed dimly by people across the country.
I commend the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who made a thoughtful speech, with many relevant points about her constituency. It is a pity that more Labour Members have not spoken—only the right hon. Member for Leicester, East and the hon. Lady have chosen to do so.
The reason that more Labour Members have not spoken is that we all agree so fundamentally with what Ministers say.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry) all made interesting and useful points. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth spoke about youth clubs and how CRB checks can be detrimental in encouraging people to get involved. Of course, that has been raised on many occasions before, but no action has been taken by the Government. We need sensible checks, but the current process is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth speaks from considerable experience as a special constable, and I commend him on his work in that role. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Donohoe) is also a special constable, and he and my hon. Friend, in spending their free time—I did not know that MPs had much free time—providing such a valuable service to our community, are great examples for other Members of Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury made points about mental health and drugs, and their impact on crime. Much more needs to be done to address those issues.
It is vital to use modern technology in the fight against crime. Facebook is a site used by millions of youngsters across the world, and is now being used to tackle crime in certain respects. The Minister referred to a similar internet site earlier, and we should use those opportunities to connect with younger people.
We must also work with local groups. I have had the privilege of witnessing the work of the Romford street pastors. We have many nightclubs in the area and there are often disturbances on the streets late at night on Fridays and Saturdays. The street pastors do a magnificent job in defusing situations and calming things down. They talk to young people so that they do not feel threatened, creating a much better atmosphere in the town centre. The pastors work closely with Havering council and have had great support from the Conservative administration and the leader of the council, Councillor Michael White. It is important that councils work with the local community, and we should encourage street pastor schemes to be set up across the country. In Romford, our scheme has been very helpful.
It is also important to encourage neighbourhood watch schemes, which have—sadly—been neglected in some areas. They still have many activists and do a fantastic job, but more needs to be done to support and revive them where they have failed. I have already mentioned special constables, and we should do more to encourage people to join that scheme and play a key role in serving their local community.
Churches, schools, families, Members of Parliament and councillors all have a role to play. If we work together, we can do so much to restore order to our streets and clamp down on criminals who do so much harm to our society. We need to encourage and support all attempts by the public to engage in the national fight against crime. Community schemes and projects make a real difference. There are only so many police able to patrol our streets, so everyone must take responsibility for the protection of their local area and their neighbourhoods. Walking by on the other side must never replace the true British spirit of public involvement. Community groups and individuals can be strong assets in assisting the police to protect society. We must put in place the right projects, funding and support to encourage people to take on more of that responsibility.
Together, as one community, we can make a difference in fighting crime and make our country safer for everyone.
This has been a largely thoughtful and measured debate, and I shall begin by referring to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). He expressed the view—which I share—that our police service is of the highest standard. There are few greater responsibilities than supporting the police service to protect our freedoms and to lead the fight against crime. My right hon. Friend went on to say that matters to do with policing ought to be above party politics, and I agree—although I cannot be absolutely sure that my later comments will reach that standard.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing set out clearly in his speech at the start of the debate the Government’s commitment to a new vision for 21st century policing, which includes a new deal for what the public can expect from the police and the criminal justice system. Our Green Paper sets out the next stage of reform, which has been made possible by our success in cutting crime and by the record level of investment over the past decade.
May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister personally on his promotion? I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Sharma) on his promotion to Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Front-Bench Home Office team. The commitment to reform is clearly in place, but hon. Members of all parties have identified that one of the key issues is the removal of paperwork and red tape. We need a bonfire of targets, so are the Government committed to ensuring that that will happen?
We are, and I hope that in my comments later I will be able to give my right hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks.
The Casey review has been mentioned, quite rightly, in almost every speech this afternoon. It has highlighted the fact that changes are necessary to increase public confidence in the police and to empower people with the information that they need if they are to make well-informed decisions that impact on the local community.
Much has been made about confidence in the police, which is central to the single target that will be part of the policing pledge. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) gave the impression—I think inadvertently—that 1997 was year zero, so let me tell him that confidence in the police unfortunately fell after 1982. In that year, 92 per cent. of people had confidence in the police, whereas only 75 per cent. did in 2003. That shows that the decline in public confidence did not begin in 1997, but I assure the House that it is something that the Government are absolutely determined to put right.
The Green Paper addresses many other concerns, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has outlined already. The national policing pledge will set out for the first time the standard of service that the public can expect from the police. It will include standards and commitments on response times—an issue of great importance in the debate—as well as on neighbourhood policing, community engagement and time spent on the front line.
Does the Minister acknowledge that public confidence in crime prevention means that people need to be able to rely, not just on the police, but on those other agencies charged with keeping them safe? Does he accept that people’s confidence will have been rocked by this afternoon’s shocking news that the Security Industry Authority, which is responsible for vetting nightclub door staff and other security personnel, has not even carried out all the appropriate security checks on its own staff?
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ability to get that point into the debate, but I draw the House’s attention to the statement that the Government have issued this afternoon. That statement is part of the commitment on these matters that was set out earlier so, far from condemning us on that, he should be congratulating us.
The provision of local information about crime and policing issues in a local area will also be included in the pledge, as will follow-up for victims of crime and—importantly—information about how to complain. We want to provide the public with the service that they tell us they want. Any reform must be credible, and offer people the help and support that they need to challenge their police service, in a constructive way, to do better on the issues that matter to them.
I turn now to the comments of contributors to the debate. The hon. Member for Hornchurch opened the debate for the Opposition. He and I are becoming regulars at debates in various places. Often in debate, one side says that the glass is half full, and the other says that it is half empty, but invariably for the hon. Gentleman there is nothing in the glass at all. A lot of good work is done locally, through the efforts of the police and the community working together, but I am sorry to say that he is in danger of giving the impression that the work is not taking place, or is not valued. I am sure that he did not want to give that impression.
The hon. Gentleman went on to welcome—perhaps through gritted teeth—the Casey review and Jan Berry’s appointment to a role in which she will reduce bureaucracy. He suggested that he shares our view at least on the aspiration of reducing targets and bureaucracy, and on the general approach taken in the Green Paper, which includes provisions on crime mapping and regular meetings.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the length of time that members of neighbourhood policing teams would spend on-patch, and complained that the 80 per cent. figure meant that 20 per cent. of their time would be spent elsewhere doing who knows what. They will, of course, be doing partly what he wants them to do. If they are to be effective and arrest criminals, they must spend part of their time preparing evidence and presenting it in court to ensure a conviction and, hopefully, punishment. That will not be included in the 80 per cent. figure, because it does not count as front-line activity.
The hon. Gentleman also called for the greater use of powers, particularly in relation to alcohol. I echo that call. I echo everything that he said on that issue, but I suggest that he has a word with his colleagues in local government, where there is a reluctance to use many of the powers that the Government have introduced. He went on to talk about accountability. Although we agree on the need for accountability, we do not agree on the need for an elected police commissioner. The reason is clear: there is a risk of politicisation, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) pointed out. I also point out that the approach that the hon. Member for Hornchurch takes is not local enough. We have talked about one person representing various groups across a community, but I give him the example of Northumbria police area, my local police area, which stretches from Berwick to Sunderland—a distance of about 80 miles. It is full of diverse communities, each in themselves diverse, and it is spread out geographically. The approach that he advocates would not be local enough. That is why our crime and policing representatives, based in more local areas, offer a much better way forward.
I want to return to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. I thank him for his comments, which he repeated just now. I look forward to working with him and his Committee, and I can assure him that no one would ever accuse him, or it, of being a patsy. I look forward to its report, and I want to place on record our appreciation of the work of the Committee. He identified the issue of lack of confidence, and worryingly said that confidence can sometimes be damaged after someone has come into contact with the police. That underlines the approach being taken in the Green Paper; we want to bring the police and the community closer together to increase understanding and enhance confidence. He spoke in praise of neighbourhood watch, and I join him in that view. He described its members as heroes and heroines, and I echo that. I am pleased to pay tribute to them today.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh talked about community payback and the wearing of tabards. He had something of a spat with the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies); I tended to agree slightly with the latter, but perhaps not to a great extent. The issue is not just the impact on offenders. Quite honestly, what offenders wear and whether it offends them is not of the slightest interest to me. What is of interest is the work that they do while they are wearing those tabards—meaningful work that puts something back into the community. As the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) said, the issue is about the community seeing that justice is done.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh talked about neighbourhood watch and community champions, but it is not an either/or issue: community champions exist and are probably already involved in their local community, but some of them might be members of neighbourhood watch, too. We should all support whatever works in individual areas. The hon. Gentleman went on to repeat a call for cross-party support, but he then talked about accountability. He attacked the official Opposition’s position, and I am glad to join him in that, but I listened very closely to what he said and I am not sure that he gave us any answers at all. I listened to the Liberal position, but, unless I have missed something, I am none the wiser at the end of it all. Not surprisingly, however, he brought us back to proportional representation, so I should point out to him that in some areas, the representative will in fact be a directly elected mayor, who, including my own mayor on Tyneside, will be elected by a form of proportional representation. However, it is hardly fair of him to blame us for what he calls 11 years of inaction when he finishes his remarks by asking us to return to the drawing board.
In a thoughtful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) used her experience to demonstrate the problems that have been highlighted in her area and brought up in the Casey review and in the Green Paper. I agree entirely about the need for local authorities to use the powers that are available, but I do not agree about the issue of crime and policing representatives, because the existing system is by no means perfect, and many local communities simply do not know who the members of their police authority are. I should point out to my hon. Friend that even after the representatives are elected to a police authority, there will still be space on the authority for local authority representatives, because many of them make an important contribution and we want that to continue.
In a knowledgeable and thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth acknowledged the point in the Green Paper about the need for national standards and the role for the police in setting priorities, and he underlined the need to work closely with the community to align those priorities, because, often, individuals will see their priority as something that has happened to them in their area, so it is important that we get the alignment right. The hon. Gentleman used his knowledge to illustrate concerns about jury trials, pre-sentencing reports and interventions, but we have to be careful, particularly if we are looking out from within the criminal justice system, because our constituents have a slightly different view of how it works. We have to maintain its fairness but ensure that it is fit for purpose for our constituents.
The hon. Member for Monmouth paid tribute to special constables, and I am happy to endorse that and point out that, in August, the Home Secretary announced £2.5 million to recruit 6,000 more of them. I wish Darran Grady and all the other police community support officers well, whether they are nominated for an award or not, but the issue of whether they receive a warrant card is contentious. We have to be careful that we do not derail the good work that PCSOs do and upset the balance that has been struck in local communities.
The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) made a number of points that, I hope, my hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has addressed and, therefore, I do not need to. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) raised a number of issues about people with mental health problems and the criminal justice system, and we are talking to health authorities about the situation. We are aware of it, and I should point out to him the very good work that is being done on drug intervention areas, where there is some success. Indeed, I saw some success when I visited Coventry recently.
The money for alcohol and drug treatment to prevent reoffending comes from a number of different places, because we have a joined-up approach throughout the Government and on the ground, but the hon. Gentleman was right to draw our attention to persistent offenders. Nine out of 10 antisocial behaviour offenders stop offending after the third intervention, but that leaves about 7 per cent. who continue. It is important that we focus attention on the issue, and that is where Operation Leopard, for example, has been successful.
I am trying to be quick but as courteous as possible to hon. Members. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) paid tribute to the good work being done on the ground; I echo that, and what he said about the police working with the eyes and ears of the community. Our police pledge and the Green Paper are about working with the eyes and ears of the community and working better with the wider community. That is our ambition, and we are determined to fulfil it. A lot of comment today suggests that there is a lot of good work in the Green Paper and we will—
It being Six o’clock, the motion lapsed, without Question put.
Northern Ireland Grand Committee
Ordered,
That—
(1) the matter of organised crime in Northern Ireland be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 18th November at half past Four o’clock; and(3) at that sitting-(a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above;(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the matter referred to the Committee; and(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Ms Butler.]
Icelandic Banking Collapse
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Butler.]
I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to raise the issue of United Kingdom citizens affected by the Icelandic banking crisis and the fact that they have or had offshore accounts. We have seen much on the news about the collapse of the Icelandic banks, the Government’s seizure of their assets and the subsequent guarantee of all UK deposits in Icelandic banks.
Running alongside that unfolding drama has been the equal drama of the position of people who held Icelandic bank deposits located offshore in the Isle of Man and Guernsey. I shall focus the majority of my remarks on the Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Isle of Man bank, from which two of my constituents have lost large sums. The first is Katy Watt, who has lost everything that she has worked for throughout her life.
Ms Watt moved to the Isle of Man five years ago to take up a job as a youth worker. The wages of UK citizens working on the Isle of Man cannot be paid into a UK bank account, so she was required to open an Isle of Man bank account. She bought herself a house in Peel, and worked for five years on the island. This summer she turned 60, and decided to retire to Wakefield, where her daughter and friends live. In August, she sold her house on the Isle of Man. The proceeds from the sale went into a KSF Isle of Man account along with her life savings, ready to be transferred to a UK account when she found a house in Wakefield. Like all KSF depositors, Ms Watt believed that her money was protected. KSF had specifically told her that she was protected by a 100 per cent. guarantee from the parent Kaupthing bank in Iceland. She was also attracted by a high interest rate of more than 6 per cent.
On 6 October, amid rumours of collapse in the banking sector, Ms Watt contacted KSF Isle of Man and was told that the bank was safe. However, she decided to move her money out of KSF and into a UK-based account. She contacted the bank again and was told that the money had left her account. It never arrived. Her money has been lost in the UK clearing system, and many other people who sought to move their money out have lost it in transit.
Ms Watt had not arranged a private pension, but had carefully saved her money. The money in the KSF account was to buy her a home and provide an income additional to her state and work pension. She is now left with absolutely nothing. She has no home. She is staying with friends and family, but cannot stay with them permanently. She is entirely reliant on her small state pension. When she came to see me in this place it was immediately apparent that her income was such that she now qualifies for pension credit. She is devastated that after a lifetime of working hard and playing by the rules, she is dependent on state benefits to top up her income. I should like to put on the record my thanks to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for helping to speed up the payment of those benefits. I strongly advise other depositors who have lost pension lump sums and rely on their investment income to consider whether they are entitled to pension credit and to claim it immediately if they are entitled.
My second affected constituent is Mr. David Speed, who lives in Farnley Tyas, a small village just outside Huddersfield. He recently retired after 40 years’ work and sold the small business that he had set up and run. He put the majority of the proceeds into a six-year investment bond, which cannot be touched. He placed the remaining cash, about £200,000, in a one-year bond with KSF Isle of Man, on the recommendation of his accountant. Mr. Speed has a £127,000 capital gains tax bill to pay by the end of January 2009, but no cash to settle it. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has a constituent in exactly the same position.
My constituents are typical of many depositors who have lost their money in Kaupthing Isle of Man. Mike Simpson, the KSF Isle of Man provisional liquidator, has stated that there are 8,168 individual depositors with KSF Isle of Man. In total, they have lost £821 million from the bank.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has done well to secure this debate. She has mentioned two very difficult individual cases, and the whole House will have sympathy with her in that regard. I draw to her and the Minister’s attention the case of a company in my constituency, which for obvious reasons I will not name. It is trying to carry on in business despite the crippling problem of having most of its funds tied up in the bank to which she is referring. It feels completely helpless and let down by the black hole of regulation, support and compensation that exists in relation to a bank that it used not because it was searching for high interest but because it used to bank with Singer and Friedlander, which it regarded as a traditional City name.
Many people’s funds have ended up in KSF Isle of Man by a variety of routes. I am sure that we will hear from other hon. Members about the routes by which money ended up in offshore accounts. I entirely understand the position in which the company in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency finds itself. We need to look into the regulation that took place. As he will be aware, the Isle of Man has a separate regulatory regime, and it is not clear to small investors that that is the case. It was certainly not clear to people who invested in Guernsey that they were not covered by any compensation scheme.
Part of this is affecting some of my constituents. Many British citizens working abroad who had sold their homes were not allowed to open bank accounts in the United Kingdom and had to have offshore accounts. My constituents also had accounts in Guernsey and the Isle of Man, but they put their money into subsidiaries of building societies: in the case of the Isle of Man, Derbyshire building society, which had a subsidiary there; and in the case of Guernsey, Portman building society, which has its head office in my constituency. They thought that in doing so they were extremely prudent, because building societies are regulated by the Building Societies Commission, which in turn reports to the Treasury. Even if a building society has overseas subsidiaries, the whole of its activity must be approved by the commission. When Derbyshire was sold to Kaupthing in the Isle of Man and Portman was sold to Landsbanki in Guernsey, there was a duty on the part of the commission and, by extension, to the Treasury, to ensure that their deposits were properly safeguarded, but it appears that that did not happen. I think that there is a case against the commission and the Treasury on this point.
I shall leave the Minister to answer the question of whether there is a case against the Treasury or the UK regulator.
I have sympathy with depositors who find themselves in this predicament. How many of us read the small print on our credit card bills and financial statements? People think that funds have been transferred and will be safe. We have watched what happens when a tsunami hits, and we know that when the water goes out we should run to higher ground, but none of us knew that until a couple of years ago when we saw the devastation that was caused. Now, we all know that the Isle of Man and Guernsey are completely separate regimes, and that banks can collapse and fail, but that has not been part of the British psyche for the past 70 or 80 years, although it might have been part of our grandparents’ psyches having lived through the Depression in the ’30s. It is fine to be wise after the event, but we need much more clarity when people are being sold financial services products such as bonds to alert them to the risks attached to those products.
My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. I have a constituent who invested in Derbyshire Offshore, which was sold to Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, and another constituent who contacted me had the prescience to query the equivalence of the guarantee given. A building society guarantee—bearing in mind that there have been no failures of British building societies ever—was regarded as robust. A guarantee offered by an Icelandic bank was certainly not equivalent, and he detected that. Could he get access to his account and trade it in? No, not without the penalties that were levied. In some cases, the societies that sold on their accounts bear some responsibility.
Indeed they do.
Of the £821 million that has been lost, £450 million is made up of private personal deposits. The balance is made up of bond companies and corporate accounts. The majority of those private depositors are UK citizens. According to the website for KSF Isle of Man depositors, around a quarter are resident in the UK. If we extrapolate that number, we could be talking about as many as 2,000 people. The Manx Government have now extended their depositors compensation scheme to be equivalent to that of the UK, so it will cover deposits of up to £50,000. Unlike the FSCS in the UK, the Manx scheme is not funded, so as yet there is no money in the pot to be given as compensation.
There are question marks over how the FSCS will work in practice. It will require hundreds of millions to become fully funded, and the likelihood is that any payments made will be stretched out over many years, which will be of little comfort to people who may be in their old age and looking to that money for their retirement income. Half of those 8,000 private depositors would be entirely covered by the FSCS if and when it pays out. Half—perhaps some 4,000 people, including my two constituents—would lose tens and in some cases hundreds of thousands of pounds.
I am pleased that this matter has been raised, because huge numbers of people were affected by the collapse of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander bank in the Isle of Man, but does the hon. Lady accept that the collapse was due largely to UK Government action? It is because of Government action here in London that the bank, which did not need to collapse, was folded. Does she agree that the Government in Britain should have liaised with the Manx Government and the Icelandic Government before taking the action that led to this disaster?
I will leave the Economic Secretary to reply on the actions of the UK Treasury. It was clear, however, that the banks were in trouble and had been for some time. I do not think that we can blame our own Government for taking action to protect UK investors—
Yes we can.
The hon. Gentleman might wish to; I am not prepared to do that. I am not clear what happened with the transfer of the £500 million—whether it was transferred from Iceland to London, or from the Isle of Man to London. I understand, though, why people are extremely agitated.
I will make progress, because I want to talk a little about bonds.
The compensation scheme does not cover people such as my constituent, Mr. Speed who invested in bonds. I have a letter from Royal Skandia, with whom Mr. Speed invested his money. It informs him that
“the deposits are held by and in the name of Royal Skandia and are therefore deemed as a corporate investment. As such the Isle of Man Depositors compensation scheme does not cover these deposits.”
The letter continues:
“There is a parental guarantee by Kaupthing Bank hf registered in Iceland that covers these assets. This was put in place in September 2007. It is currently unclear if this guarantee will be honoured. The Isle of Man government has made representation to the UK government which is responsible for defending the Isle of Man's interests internationally requesting them to press the government of Iceland to honour Kaupthing’s guarantee”.
It is important to remember that we are dealing with Icelandic banks. People have mentioned that 100 per cent. guarantee to me time and again. They were putting their money into an institution that had a parental guarantee. It now looks unlikely that that guarantee will be honoured by Iceland, as the bank’s liabilities were many times the sum of Iceland’s GDP.
Another very important group of people have also lost everything. People who were investing for their retirement through the self-invested personal pension, or SIPP, have also lost out. They are UK residents and UK taxpayers, but no onshore bank will accept SIPP deposits because they are held in trust. They have to be placed offshore. The Manx authorities will not accept that those are retail deposits, so they are not covered by their compensation scheme.
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), if he is still interested.
Order. Let me explain that there cannot be an intervention from a Front Bencher in an Adjournment debate. It is simply a rule that we observe on these occasions.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that clarification.
All hon. Members are grateful to the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way, which we appreciate. Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), have constituents who are affected. The hon. Lady was right to draw attention to the Icelandic guarantee, and we are keen to hear from the Economic Secretary what the Government have to say about the fact that they sequestered funding held in the UK banks for KSF Isle of Man. It could be argued that that money could be used to refund at least some of the deposits held by the unfortunate people caught by the problem.
That point has been made. The Chancellor said at Monday’s Treasury Committee meeting that the Isle of Man is
“a tax haven sitting in the Irish Sea”.
The Isle of Man’s tax status may be useful for some non-British residents—and perhaps for some super-British residents—but depositors pay a 20 per cent. withholding tax at source in the Isle of Man. So anyone who is a basic rate taxpayer in the UK no longer has a tax advantage from putting their money into an Isle of Man account. That is not properly explained to people when they take out such investments. Depositors declare their income from deposits to the Government of the country in which they reside via a year-end tax return. Obviously, people who pay tax at the higher rate can pay that extra 20 per cent. at the end of the year.
My constituents are British people, living in Britain, who have lost the money for which they worked throughout their lives. They now rely on Britain to support them and defend their interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said, many were originally savers with the Derbyshire building society. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) has affected constituents who were with the Portman and Cheshire building societies. A few people, such as my constituent, Miss Watt, worked in the Isle of Man. Some worked for British companies, some worked for the UK Government abroad and others worked for UK charities abroad and are not allowed to have accounts in UK banks because they are not resident.
I do not pretend to be an expert in matters of international finance and banking, but I have had to learn a lot in the past few weeks. I emphasise that the transfer of money has been raised.
I would like to deal briefly with the situation of Landsbanki in Guernsey. Savers will receive 30 per cent. of their savings from the liquidator. Some people who invested in Guernsey were not aware that it is not part of the European economic area, and they are not therefore eligible for even the basic £15,000 compensation scheme that applies in Iceland. Serious questions need to be asked of the accountants and independent financial advisers who advised people to invest offshore. They clearly did not explain the risks involved in offshore banking.
Let me end with some questions for my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. Will Treasury officials meet representatives of the KSF Isle of Man depositors to allow them at least to put their case? Will my hon. Friend obtain details of all KSF Isle of Man depositors who are UK residents and who may owe tax to the Revenue? Can he write to me with details of the number of people affected? The Manx Government will have automatically transferred them to HMRC. Will he ensure that HMRC deals sensitively and appropriately with people who have lost everything? Will he do everything in his power to ensure that Iceland honours its commitments to those depositors? Will he write to the Isle of Man liquidator and request that he make himself available in London for a meeting with depositors to explain his actions fully and their options to them? Will he also write to the Isle of Man Government and urge them to press ahead with their compensation scheme for depositors who have lost up to £50,000? Once those people have been dealt with, the nature and scale of the remaining problem will be much clearer.
I cannot overestimate the stress that those affected are experiencing. Samaritans are working with the website to support people through this period of intense stress. Their lives are in limbo, their plans are on hold and their futures are uncertain. I ask that all parties—the Icelandic, UK, Isle of Man and Guernsey Governments, the liquidators, the regulators, HMRC and the banks—work together to bring this unhappy episode to a speedy and satisfactory resolution.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on securing this Adjournment debate. I am sure that the whole House will have sympathy for the plight of her constituents. Let me say in advance that, although she was generous in giving way, I do not intend to give way during my reply, given the time constraints.
The Icelandic economy has experienced increasing difficulties in recent months. Growth has slowed and the currency exchange rate has depreciated; this has been coupled with high inflation and high interest rates. In July, the International Monetary Fund’s mission to Iceland concluded publicly that the Icelandic banking sector faced significant risks. On 29 September the Icelandic Government acquired a 75 per cent. stake in Glitnir, nationalising Iceland’s third largest bank. That was followed by a downgrade by Fitch of all the Icelandic banks and their subsidiaries.
On 6 October the Icelandic Government passed emergency legislation in an attempt to stabilise the financial system in Iceland. That had immediate force and granted extensive powers to the Icelandic financial supervisory authority to intervene in the financial sector in Iceland. Using the new legislation, the Icelandic authorities subsequently took control of Landsbanki Islands and Kaupthing.
Amidst that turmoil, the Financial Services Authority determined, on 7 and 8 October respectively, that Heritable, a UK-based banking subsidiary of Landsbanki, and Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, a UK-based banking subsidiary of Kaupthing bank, no longer met threshold conditions and were in default for the purposes of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. To protect retail depositors, the Treasury, using powers under the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008, transferred retail deposits in Heritable and KSF’s Kaupthing Edge deposit business to ING Direct. The remainder of Heritable and KSF’s business entered into administration, with the remaining retail depositors being guaranteed.
The Government have also committed themselves to protecting in full retail depositors in the Icesave brand of the UK-based branch of Landsbanki. That guarantee does not extend to retail deposits with branches or subsidiaries of Landsbanki or Kaupthing that are located overseas. The guarantee extends only to retail deposits held in the UK.
The Treasury also made the Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008 on 8 October. That was because the Icelandic Government, their authorities and Landsbanki appeared to be on the brink of action that would be to the detriment of the UK economy, including detrimental treatment of UK depositors and consequential burdens on the banking sector. The freezing order was made under a power contained in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which includes a broad range of provisions and is not concerned only with countering terrorism. The power enables the Treasury to make a freezing order where it reasonably believes that action to the detriment of the UK economy or part of it has been or is likely to be taken by a foreign Government or resident of a foreign country or territory. The UK’s action was not taken on the basis of the anti-terrorism provisions in the Act.
On 9 October, the administrators of Landsbanki transferred its domestic deposits and a portfolio of assets to match them in full to a new entity, New Landsbanki. The London branch of Landsbanki Islands was left in old Landsbanki. That action appeared to support our previous concerns about Iceland intending to favour its own domestic creditors, as the transfer is at the expense of non-domestic creditors and could result in their being left to share in a disproportionately smaller asset pool.
The problem with Icelandic banks did not originate in the UK, but in the Icelandic banking system. Although the Government understand that many people have been affected by the failure of Icelandic banks, the oversight of overseas accounts is the responsibility of the relevant regulatory authority in that jurisdiction. As a general principle, arrangements for depositors in banks in overseas territories are a matter for the Governments of those territories. As the Chancellor said to the Select Committee on Treasury earlier this week:
“The British Government’s obligation must be to depositors who have put their deposits into UK banks.”
Let me turn to the specific points raised during the debate. It has been suggested that action by the UK authorities caused the failure of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander in the Isle of Man, by requiring funds to be moved to the UK sister company, which it promptly shut down. I assure the House that that is not how things happened and I want to try to explain how events unfolded.
First, the business models of many banking operations in the Crown dependencies involve the practice of up-streaming deposits for Treasury management by the parent company. Before 8th October, KSF Isle of Man had taken to depositing funds with KSF UK, a practice that resulted from concerns that the Isle of Man authorities had about the position of KSF Isle of Man’s parent company in Iceland. That is to say, KSF Isle of Man appears to have determined that placing money with the UK sister company was more prudent than placing it directly with the parent in Iceland.
I understand that this action was taken following discussions with the FSA in which certain aspects of the regime applied by the FSA to KSF UK were described. I want to say clearly that my information is that the FSA did not advise or require these deposits to be made. Furthermore, I understand that those discussions did not extend to the giving of any specific assurances by the FSA—for example, that KSF UK would be able to repay the money, or that KSF Isle of Man would be treated preferentially in the case of an insolvency. And at all times, the supervision of KSF Isle of Man remained the responsibility of the Isle of Man authorities. The FSA had no power over it.
My understanding is that KSF Isle of Man had some £532 million of deposits in KSF UK, and can be expected to recover a proportion of this from the insolvency process. It is my view that, given the lack of clarity that remains about the winding up of KSF in Iceland, depositors of KSF Isle of Man are likely to be better off than if those sums had been deposited with the parent company. However, under UK insolvency law, KSF Isle of Man ranks like any other creditor of KSF. KSF Isle of Man will have been fully aware of this. It could have chosen to put its money elsewhere.
Indeed, KSF Isle of Man was only one of a number of depositors with KSF UK that was not protected by the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Other depositors included local authorities, building societies and charities. The FSA could not have given KSF Isle of Man advance warning of events, any more than it could have done so for other parties, as to have done so would have been highly inappropriate.
On the question whether depositors in the Isle of Man or Guernsey had any choice in the matter of opening offshore accounts, or whether non-UK residents are forced to open accounts offshore, I can confirm that this is not the case. There is no legal bar under UK financial services regulation that would prevent a non-UK resident from opening a new bank account here. When an account is opened remotely, more onerous anti-money laundering checks are, quite properly, required because of the increased risks involved. This might well be a factor in the willingness of some UK banks to offer new accounts to non-residents. However, this would not be a burden for customers who move offshore but wish to retain existing accounts.
A point was made about Derbyshire Offshore, and I want to make it clear that no member deposits were moved to this subsidiary by the society, other than on the instruction of the member depositor. Depositors in Derbyshire Offshore would not have been covered by the UK FSCS before they were transferred to Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, and it remains the case that, when they were transferred, they were regulated by the Isle of Man authorities and would have come under the Isle of Man’s compensation scheme.
Corporate bonds and similar debt securities issued by banks are not covered under deposit rules, because they are investments rather than deposits. If a bondholder suffers a loss as a result of the failure of the bank that issued the security, they may, for example, have a claim against an adviser who gave advice in relation to the purchase of the bond. If that adviser were in default and unable to meet that claim, there would be a protected claim under the investment business rules of the FSCS, which would be paid by the FSCS, subject to the relevant limits and the normal eligibility conditions being met.
My hon. Friend also mentioned Guernsey. It is certainly not my understanding that depositors in Guernsey lost everything when Landsbanki went into administration on 7 October. I should say, first off, that that entity is regulated by the Guernsey authorities and is therefore outside the UK FSCS. The administrators have already proposed a part-payment to depositors equivalent to 30p in the pound. They have also said that the prospects for further repayment to depositors are good.
I have tried to address the main points raised by my hon. Friend, and I sympathise with her constituents over the situation in which they find themselves. KSF Isle of Man is a matter for the Isle of Man authorities and, as she will be aware, PricewaterhouseCoopers has been appointed as the provisional liquidator. It is engaging directly with the administrators of KSF in the United Kingdom. Depositors with specific queries should contact the provisional liquidator and the Isle of Man authorities. Given the issues that my hon. Friend has raised, however, I would be prepared to ask officials to meet her to discuss the situation—
The motion having been made at Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Six o'clock.