26/04/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.difficult for such claims to succeed? We will have a proper

:00:00. > :00:08.consultation in due course and I would imagine that is the kind of

:00:09. > :00:13.issue we can consider at length. Urgent question. Mr Alistair

:00:14. > :00:17.Carmichael. To ask for the home Department if she will make a

:00:18. > :00:24.statement on the UK's membership of the European Convention on Human

:00:25. > :00:29.Rights? I am answering this urgent question today on behalf of the Home

:00:30. > :00:32.Secretary but my right honourable friend will be making a statement to

:00:33. > :00:37.this house on the Hillsborough inquest findings tomorrow. I hope it

:00:38. > :00:41.would be in order for me to make a brief comment on that subject before

:00:42. > :00:45.I turned to the right honourable gentleman's question. As the House

:00:46. > :00:50.will know, the inquest jury have now returned their verdicts. I am sure

:00:51. > :00:53.the whole house would wish to join me in thanking them for the

:00:54. > :00:58.considerable public service that they have performed. As a result, I

:00:59. > :01:03.have this morning written to members advising that care be exercised when

:01:04. > :01:08.making public statements to ensure that nothing is said that suggests

:01:09. > :01:14.that any individual or organisation has been found to be criminally

:01:15. > :01:17.liable. Ultimately, a jury in a criminal trial may need to decide

:01:18. > :01:23.this issue and it is important that nothing is said that may prejudice

:01:24. > :01:28.the right to a fair trial or make it more difficult to pursue appropriate

:01:29. > :01:34.prosecutions. On the subjects of this urgent question, the United

:01:35. > :01:38.Kingdom is a founder member of the European Convention on Human Rights.

:01:39. > :01:42.Lawyers from the United Kingdom were instrumental in the drafting of the

:01:43. > :01:47.European can. We are signatories to the convention and we have been

:01:48. > :01:51.clear throughout that we have no objections to the text of the

:01:52. > :01:54.convention. It is indeed a fine document and the Government is

:01:55. > :01:58.firmly of the view that the rights enshrined in the Convention rights

:01:59. > :02:03.that British citizens and others should continue to hold as part of a

:02:04. > :02:09.reformed human rights framework. This Government was elected with a

:02:10. > :02:15.mandate to reform and modernise the UK's human rights framework. The

:02:16. > :02:17.Conservative Party manifesto said a Conservative Government would scrap

:02:18. > :02:23.the Human Rights Act and introduce a British Bill of Rights will stop as

:02:24. > :02:27.with all elements of our manifesto, we intend to meet that commitment in

:02:28. > :02:31.the course of this Parliament. Honourable members will be aware

:02:32. > :02:36.that we have set out our intention to consult on the future of the UK's

:02:37. > :02:41.human rights framework. The consultation will be published in

:02:42. > :02:45.due course on the future of the UK's membership, on the future of human

:02:46. > :02:48.rights in this country and abroad. We will fully consult on our

:02:49. > :02:52.proposals before introducing legislation and in doing so we will

:02:53. > :02:59.welcome constructive contributions from all sides of the House. The

:03:00. > :03:05.intention of reform is to protect human rights but also to prevent the

:03:06. > :03:09.abuse of human rights's law and to restore some common sense to the

:03:10. > :03:13.system. The premise to has been clear throughout that we were all

:03:14. > :03:19.out absolutely nothing in getting Matt Done although our preference is

:03:20. > :03:23.to seek to achieve reforms while remaining in the European

:03:24. > :03:27.Convention. A reformist world look at their approach to human rights

:03:28. > :03:33.and under the Human Rights Act. While we want to remain part of

:03:34. > :03:37.this, we will not stay in at any cost. If we cannot achieve the

:03:38. > :03:42.satisfactory settlement within the EC HR, we may have no option but to

:03:43. > :03:47.consider withdrawal. The question before the people of the UK in June,

:03:48. > :03:50.thanks to this Government, is not about our future membership of the

:03:51. > :03:55.European Convention on Human Rights but about our future membership of

:03:56. > :03:58.the European Union. It is important that in taking that significant

:03:59. > :04:06.decision, people do not conflate the separate questions. Let me make one

:04:07. > :04:11.thing absolutely clear. The United Kingdom has a proud tradition of

:04:12. > :04:15.respect the human rights which long predate the Human Rights Act and

:04:16. > :04:19.indeed the European Convention on Human Rights. Any reforms we make

:04:20. > :04:24.well maintained that protection. These are not just words. This

:04:25. > :04:28.Government and the Coalition Government that preceded it have a

:04:29. > :04:33.strong record on human rights here and abroad. We brought forward the

:04:34. > :04:37.Modern Slavery Bill act seeking to protect some of the most vulnerable

:04:38. > :04:42.and exploited people in our society and to punish those responsible for

:04:43. > :04:45.that exploitation. We have fought to protect and promote human rights

:04:46. > :04:49.internationally. We are one of the leading members of the United

:04:50. > :04:53.Nations human rights Council, leading negotiations to set up

:04:54. > :04:56.investigations into human rights abuses in Syria and elsewhere. We

:04:57. > :05:01.have transformed the fight against sexual violence and conflict,

:05:02. > :05:04.persuading over 150 states to agree that the first time that sexual

:05:05. > :05:08.violence should be recognised as a grave breach of the Geneva

:05:09. > :05:12.conventions. We have been leading the world on a business and human

:05:13. > :05:15.rights agenda. We are one of the first states to give the UN's

:05:16. > :05:20.guiding principles on business and human rights and the third state in

:05:21. > :05:24.the world to implement them through a national action plan. That is a

:05:25. > :05:28.track record of which we can be justifiably proud and it is that

:05:29. > :05:32.track record on which we will build when we set our proposals for the

:05:33. > :05:42.reform of the human rights framework the UK. I am grateful to the

:05:43. > :05:46.Attorney General for that answer. I should make it clear that I hold the

:05:47. > :05:51.attorney in the very highest regard. I enjoyed working with him as a

:05:52. > :05:56.minister in the previous Government but he is not the Home Secretary. He

:05:57. > :06:02.shouldn't be making this ancestor day. The Home Secretary was the one

:06:03. > :06:06.who could make the speech yesterday. She can make a statement tomorrow

:06:07. > :06:10.and she should be here today. Yesterday she went rogue, today she

:06:11. > :06:15.has gone missing. The truth of the matter is that there is now total

:06:16. > :06:22.confusion at the heart of Government policy on this. What the attorney

:06:23. > :06:28.has just said at the dispatch box contradicts clearly what has been

:06:29. > :06:32.said previously. Yesterday the Home Secretary said, "The EC HR combined

:06:33. > :06:36.the hands of Parliament and nothing to our prosperity makes us less

:06:37. > :06:40.secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals and

:06:41. > :06:45.does nothing to change the attitudes of Government's like Russia when it

:06:46. > :06:49.comes to human rights. Regardless of the EU Referendum Bill my view is

:06:50. > :06:54.this. If we want to reform human rights laws, it is up to the EU that

:06:55. > :07:00.we should -- it is the EU that we should not lead but the EC HR and

:07:01. > :07:07.the jurisdiction of our court." That contradicts what the Parliamentary

:07:08. > :07:12.undersecretary previously told the House had justice questions and also

:07:13. > :07:17.in a succession of Westminster Hall debates on the 30th of June. He

:07:18. > :07:23.said, "Our plans do not involve us leaving the convention. That is not

:07:24. > :07:28.our objective." There has been a major shift in Government policy and

:07:29. > :07:32.this house should have been the first to hear about it. The Home

:07:33. > :07:38.Secretary tells us that apparently she wants to remain in the European

:07:39. > :07:41.Union but leave the convention. The Parliamentary undersecretary was to

:07:42. > :07:45.leave the European Union but remain in the convention. The Lord

:07:46. > :07:50.Chancellor wants to leave the European Union, stay in the

:07:51. > :07:54.convention but ignore the court. Thank goodness we don't have the

:07:55. > :08:01.instability of a Coalition Government any more. It has been

:08:02. > :08:05.apparent for some time that everything in the Government

:08:06. > :08:08.thinking is seen through the prism of the European Union referendum.

:08:09. > :08:12.Now it seems the Home Secretary has taken that to the next level and she

:08:13. > :08:18.has got the eye on the next election, namely the Conservative

:08:19. > :08:23.leadership election. Can the attorney tell us. To be a member of

:08:24. > :08:30.the European Union now requires us to be a party to the European can.

:08:31. > :08:34.How is the Home Secretary's speech yesterday consistent with that

:08:35. > :08:39.policy? The devolved settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

:08:40. > :08:42.all have the European Convention hard-wired into them. They are

:08:43. > :08:48.required to abide with the convention. How can that be done if

:08:49. > :08:53.the United Kingdom as a country is no longer a party to the convention?

:08:54. > :08:59.And does the attorney, a decent man who genuinely respects human rights,

:09:00. > :09:07.honestly want to see his country and mine stand-alone with Belarus

:09:08. > :09:13.against the convention? May I start by returning the right honourable

:09:14. > :09:17.gentleman's confidence. I enjoyed serving in Government with him and I

:09:18. > :09:21.have the highest regard for him as an individual. He is a little unfair

:09:22. > :09:33.about Coalition Government. It wasn't unstable much of the time. We

:09:34. > :09:36.should recognise that what we did in coalition was to produce pieces of

:09:37. > :09:40.legislation like the Modern Slavery Bill act that recognised the real

:09:41. > :09:43.actions we could take in pursuit of defending human rights and this

:09:44. > :09:47.Government will continue that course. It is not right as he

:09:48. > :09:52.suggested to say there is confusion on this policy. I have set it out

:09:53. > :09:56.and indeed he was here in the Chamber when my honourable friend

:09:57. > :10:00.the Minister of human rights to the same. There's no confusion. What has

:10:01. > :10:04.been said throughout by the Prime Minister and all other ministers is

:10:05. > :10:09.that we rule nothing out in seeking to achieve the policy objective that

:10:10. > :10:13.we have set and for which we have a clear mandate from the recent

:10:14. > :10:18.general election. He asked me about the membership of the European

:10:19. > :10:24.Union. It is not in any way clear that membership of the European

:10:25. > :10:27.Union requires membership of the European Convention on Human Rights.

:10:28. > :10:31.As with most of these things, we are both lawyers and he will understand

:10:32. > :10:36.there are considerable legal complexities here. It is certainly

:10:37. > :10:41.not a clear statement that I or he can make.

:10:42. > :10:47.Let me say this to the right honourable gentleman- what the Home

:10:48. > :10:53.Secretary was doing yesterday, in a speech with which I suspect he

:10:54. > :10:57.broadly agrees, and I found to be a persuasive case remaining within the

:10:58. > :11:01.European union- what she was doing was setting out some of the

:11:02. > :11:05.difficulties with the human rights landscape as it stands. And we think

:11:06. > :11:10.that there are considerable difficulties. There is an absence of

:11:11. > :11:14.common sense. There have been cases which have demonstrated that human

:11:15. > :11:16.rights law is heading in the wrong direction, and it is restoring that

:11:17. > :11:25.common sense that is the objective of this entire Government.

:11:26. > :11:31.Does my right honourable friend agree that I work fight against

:11:32. > :11:37.terrorism and excessive immigration had been persistently undermined,

:11:38. > :11:43.not only by the European Court in Strasbourg, but also by the European

:11:44. > :11:49.Court of Justice, adjudicating on the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

:11:50. > :11:55.and that the only answer to this is to leave the European Union?

:11:56. > :12:01.I agree that there have been cases both in Luxembourg and in Strasbourg

:12:02. > :12:07.with which we have found difficulty. And which we have sought to contest.

:12:08. > :12:10.And it is certainly right that, as he suggests, but everything about

:12:11. > :12:13.our membership of the European Union is wonderful. I think the Home

:12:14. > :12:19.Secretary made that point very clearly yesterday. But this is a

:12:20. > :12:23.question of thinking on whether you think on balance it is right or

:12:24. > :12:27.wrong to be part of the European Union. Whether it is better worse

:12:28. > :12:34.for the UK to be there. We have different conclusions on that. He

:12:35. > :12:38.will know on the matter of the ECHR that covers on whether European law

:12:39. > :12:44.as applicable, so it is not quite the same as our membership of the

:12:45. > :12:48.European Convention of human rights. One thing you can say about this

:12:49. > :12:52.Government is they are not short of a choice of policy on the European

:12:53. > :12:56.Convention of human rights. The Prime Minister has said he wants to

:12:57. > :13:05.see reform of the ECHR, not a withdrawal. The former eternal

:13:06. > :13:08.general -- the former at Henry -- Attorney General call that a pillar

:13:09. > :13:13.of foreign policy. When they did clarify in favourite this year the

:13:14. > :13:18.Ministry of Justice line is that our plans to not involved with the

:13:19. > :13:21.convention. Yesterday, we have heard the Home Secretary the absolutely

:13:22. > :13:27.clear that we should leave the ECHR whatever the outcome of the EU

:13:28. > :13:31.referendum. So what's it is to the Home Secretary is remarks have? At

:13:32. > :13:34.the Government policy, to the bind the Ministry of Justice, or is it

:13:35. > :13:42.just the Home Office that is coming out of the convention Haass and

:13:43. > :13:47.while it is always a pleasure to see the right honourable gentleman, this

:13:48. > :13:53.is rather Hamlet without the Princess. Why could the Home

:13:54. > :13:56.Secretary or even the home Chancellor -- Lord Chancellor not

:13:57. > :14:02.clarify policy if they have caused confusion? It would be comical if it

:14:03. > :14:06.was not tragic. We have a series of legal nonsense is set up by the Home

:14:07. > :14:10.Secretary. She claims there is no connection between the EU in the

:14:11. > :14:18.ECHR, where is it is a requirement of membership of the EU that

:14:19. > :14:25.countries joined the ECHR. She wrongly dismissed the importance of

:14:26. > :14:31.Britain's membership of the convention as an example to Putin

:14:32. > :14:35.and his ilk, downplaying both his country's record on human rights and

:14:36. > :14:40.his influence and Europe. Jose ignores the success of the Human

:14:41. > :14:44.Rights Act in incorporating the ECHR into UK law and giving a remedy to

:14:45. > :14:49.vulnerable people scuppering discrimination. I thought the legal,

:14:50. > :14:54.moral and practical arguments had persuaded Government to abandon

:14:55. > :14:58.plans to leave the ECHR. We're log in to deal with the legal and

:14:59. > :15:06.cynical argues today, but will he say when the consultation will be

:15:07. > :15:13.placed? -- published? Could I pin him down on what the Government

:15:14. > :15:17.policy as? If the Home Secretary's remarks are not policy, are they

:15:18. > :15:23.just stump speech? It is an immense pleasure to see the

:15:24. > :15:29.honourable gentleman too. I pass over what I'm sure my honourable

:15:30. > :15:33.friends will regard as the supreme irony being lectured by a member of

:15:34. > :15:40.the Labour Party about unity common purpose. To come to the questions

:15:41. > :15:43.that he asks, what he will find, I'm saying that the Home Secretary is

:15:44. > :15:49.saying, that the Lord Chancellor is saying, is that the status quo on

:15:50. > :15:54.human rights law is not acceptable. And therefore we are bringing

:15:55. > :16:02.forward proposals for reform. And we will do that when they are ready. If

:16:03. > :16:08.I may say so, the contrast is marked between what the size of the House

:16:09. > :16:11.says, which is that there is a deficit in common sense a much of

:16:12. > :16:15.human rights law, and what that side of the House says, which is that the

:16:16. > :16:21.status quo is fine, everything is well, and we should leave it all

:16:22. > :16:25.alone. I have to say that the honourable gentleman will find that

:16:26. > :16:28.many of his constituents and mine do not think the status quo is

:16:29. > :16:31.acceptable. They do wish to see reform. That is what we had a

:16:32. > :16:40.mandate for in the general election, and that is what this Government

:16:41. > :16:43.will deliver. Doesn't this unholy model

:16:44. > :16:49.demonstrate the trouble you get into when we contract out our policy to

:16:50. > :16:53.the tabloid leader writers? At isn't the truth of it that the simpler

:16:54. > :17:00.cities that suit them actually override an immensely complex issue

:17:01. > :17:03.here, and the message nation sends out about our commitment to human

:17:04. > :17:06.rights should be through an unswerving commitment to the

:17:07. > :17:13.convention? It has been made to work better of the course of the last

:17:14. > :17:17.four years, not least by my honourable friend in 2012. The court

:17:18. > :17:21.is learning lessons, let's not undermined it and human rights in

:17:22. > :17:25.the process. I do that these are not simple

:17:26. > :17:28.matters. That is complexity here, and it would be quite wrong to

:17:29. > :17:33.attempt to reduce this debate to sadistic statements. I think it is

:17:34. > :17:38.also right -- simplistic statements. I think it is also right that our

:17:39. > :17:42.commitment to human rights is not limited to signatures on a piece of

:17:43. > :17:46.paper, it is in the actions that we take. I have set out some of those

:17:47. > :17:52.that we have taken in this Government and the last government.

:17:53. > :17:57.I have mentioned some of the things we have achieved. There have been

:17:58. > :18:01.others. We were the Government in coalition with the lead Democrats

:18:02. > :18:09.that reduce the maximum period you can spend an detention to a maximum

:18:10. > :18:16.of 28 days. That was the Government that abolished ID cards. These

:18:17. > :18:20.approaching and rights measures. We demonstrate our commitment to human

:18:21. > :18:24.rights and what we do. I'm grateful to the Attorney General

:18:25. > :18:27.and what he has said so far. But his response, and the absence of the

:18:28. > :18:32.Home Secretary simply will marked do. There is confusion here. Less

:18:33. > :18:35.than an hour ago, the junior Minister for Human Rights issue to

:18:36. > :18:40.me that the Government have no plans to withdraw from ECHR. But yesterday

:18:41. > :18:45.in a speech, the Home Secretary said that withdrawal from ECHR was a

:18:46. > :18:52.mast. Why is she not here to answer this question? Dish not realise that

:18:53. > :18:58.what you said yesterday has caused great concern across these islands,

:18:59. > :19:08.particularly in Scotland is? I can assure her that members on both

:19:09. > :19:16.sides of the House are with the SNP in terms of their position and union

:19:17. > :19:18.rights. There are members and the last Scottish Parliament made it

:19:19. > :19:24.clear they would never make any steps to repeal the Human Rights

:19:25. > :19:29.Act. As the right honourable gentleman says, the ECHR is

:19:30. > :19:34.hard-wired into the Scotland act. Everything that the Scottish Roman

:19:35. > :19:39.does is governed by ECHR. -- Scottish Parliament does. The

:19:40. > :19:41.composition of the last Scottish Parliament, and the electors

:19:42. > :19:45.consisting of the next Scottish Parliament, there is no question of

:19:46. > :19:52.the Scottish Parliament ever giving its consent to the UK were from

:19:53. > :19:54.ECHR. Does the Home Secretary not realise that if Britain were to

:19:55. > :20:01.attempt to withdraw from ECHR, it would cause a constitutional crisis

:20:02. > :20:08.in these islands? On the issue of EU law, it is correct that all EU

:20:09. > :20:13.states and candidate states are required to be signatories to the

:20:14. > :20:18.convention. If the Attorney General is in any doubt about that, he could

:20:19. > :20:25.consult a number of legal academics, including the Professor of European

:20:26. > :20:31.it Newman writes law who has written extensively on this issue. I suggest

:20:32. > :20:36.the Attorney General could give the Home Secretary a tutorial on

:20:37. > :20:39.European law. But if the Attorney General does not accept that

:20:40. > :20:49.signatories to the EU have to be signatories to the ECHR... Yes,

:20:50. > :20:54.there is a question. When is this much promised consultation coming

:20:55. > :21:00.forward? When? Give our occasion when do any longer. When bringing it

:21:01. > :21:07.will it include withdraw from the ECHR?

:21:08. > :21:15.I think there is a risk in this discussion that we make a little too

:21:16. > :21:19.much of what happened yesterday. Let's be clear, I said a number of

:21:20. > :21:23.times, and she has heard different members of the Government make clear

:21:24. > :21:28.in number of times what our policy is in relation to human rights

:21:29. > :21:32.reform. Again, I say, the Prime Minister has been clear, we have all

:21:33. > :21:36.been clear, we rule nothing out. It follows from that that we do not

:21:37. > :21:39.rule out withdrawal from the convention should we not be able to

:21:40. > :21:45.achieve the changes which we all believe are necessary. I accept that

:21:46. > :21:49.the honourable lady's party at the official opposition do not take the

:21:50. > :21:54.view that the status queue is unacceptable. We disagree about

:21:55. > :22:01.that. What I find odd, I have to say, about this position, going to

:22:02. > :22:05.the last question, is that as far as I can tell what they are saying to

:22:06. > :22:10.us is, whatever you do only human rights reform, we will oppose it.

:22:11. > :22:14.There is nothing you can do that we will support. There is no reform you

:22:15. > :22:18.can bring forward that we would regard as valid. But would you

:22:19. > :22:24.please get on and bring forward your reforms. That is not a sensible

:22:25. > :22:31.position for the honourable lady and her colleagues to take. She is

:22:32. > :22:34.right, of course, that's what ever proposals we make, there will be

:22:35. > :22:38.significant devolution consequences. And as she has heard me say and I'm

:22:39. > :22:43.a ministerial colleagues say, when we bring forward proposals, we will

:22:44. > :22:49.ensure full consultation happens with the devolved administrations to

:22:50. > :22:55.work through those issues. Those of us who represent this House

:22:56. > :23:00.in Europe are acutely aware of the fact that the convention on human

:23:01. > :23:08.rights has been extended way beyond the original documents but was drawn

:23:09. > :23:12.up in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. My honourable

:23:13. > :23:18.friend is right to pursue changes, but will he do so as soon as

:23:19. > :23:23.possible to get it under control? The difficulty here is not with the

:23:24. > :23:26.convention, the difficulty is with the interpretation of that

:23:27. > :23:30.convention, which has been extended well beyond what the original

:23:31. > :23:36.drafters had intended. Perhaps the most evident result of that is the

:23:37. > :23:42.issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is simple and not

:23:43. > :23:46.what was intended that those conduct themselves in making decisions on

:23:47. > :23:51.the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan should be subject to

:23:52. > :23:57.European human rights law. It was simply not intended that should

:23:58. > :24:04.happen. The attorney and the Justice

:24:05. > :24:09.Secretary say they haven't ruled out leaving the, the UK weaving the

:24:10. > :24:12.ECHR. The more it sounds to me like a direction of travel that that is

:24:13. > :24:17.exactly what they are intending to do, and I find that chilling. The

:24:18. > :24:23.attorney quoted the proud tradition of this country in establishing this

:24:24. > :24:28.international system of guaranteeing human rights here and abroad. Yet

:24:29. > :24:33.it's that are very proud tradition that he appears to be about to kick

:24:34. > :24:42.into the gutter. Will he recognise that you cannot both be a secretary

:24:43. > :24:45.to the European convention but reject the jurisdiction of the

:24:46. > :24:48.European Court of Human Rights. It's not just about the substantive

:24:49. > :24:56.rights, it is about the jurisdiction, the international

:24:57. > :24:58.court, to enforce those rights. Does he recognise that every Government

:24:59. > :25:05.in this country needs to have that restraint? All governments get

:25:06. > :25:09.tempted to abuse their power, and this international system is an

:25:10. > :25:13.important guarantee. Does he recognise, as honourable members on

:25:14. > :25:17.his site has said, how important it is with those struggling for human

:25:18. > :25:22.rights in other countries is that they are part of a system, that we

:25:23. > :25:27.are part of guaranteeing? I hope they will be enough members in this

:25:28. > :25:31.House and the other place, that if they drift towards a position of

:25:32. > :25:31.trying to leave the European convention, that this parliament

:25:32. > :25:45.will stop them. In terms of the example we sat to

:25:46. > :25:49.other countries, that is something that should occupy our minds. I

:25:50. > :25:55.think that the example we set comes from our actions. I don't think that

:25:56. > :25:58.there is any prospect of this Government or any other likely

:25:59. > :26:03.British Government moving away from a clear wish to protect human rights

:26:04. > :26:08.both in this country and abroad. I have set out the ways in which this

:26:09. > :26:11.Government has done that. She attaches too much significance to

:26:12. > :26:16.the convention and to be Human Rights Act. I understand why those

:26:17. > :26:21.in office will that Actaeon and they feel attached to it. She must also

:26:22. > :26:26.recognise that what it attempted to do for the best of motives has been

:26:27. > :26:30.tarnished by a number of cases that have followed which have led many of

:26:31. > :26:36.our constituents to believe that human rights is a term to be

:26:37. > :26:41.deprecated, not a term to be supported and celebrated. We need to

:26:42. > :26:44.get back to a plate -- place where human rights and the protection of

:26:45. > :26:50.human rights is something all our citizens are keen to support all

:26:51. > :26:56.stop the final point is in terms of restraint and in terms of what we

:26:57. > :27:01.are prevented from doing as she would put it by our membership of

:27:02. > :27:05.the Convention of human rights, I am surprised a former law office

:27:06. > :27:08.overlooks the right of our own courts who are robust in the way in

:27:09. > :27:14.which they hold Government to account and the way in which they

:27:15. > :27:21.respect -- restrict the freedom of ministers. I do not believe we need

:27:22. > :27:23.to rely solely on the exercises of foreign jurisdictions in order to

:27:24. > :27:32.restrict our Government appropriately. The Attorney General

:27:33. > :27:38.has been thoughtful in his comments and there is a lot of fuss coming

:27:39. > :27:41.out at the moment. Would he accept that the commitment of this

:27:42. > :27:48.Government and our domestic courts is demonstrated by the fact that

:27:49. > :27:53.only point for percent of places before the EC HR are involved with

:27:54. > :28:02.the UAE -- are involved with the UK as a state party. He should take

:28:03. > :28:08.predictions and incorporate them into a British right and still say

:28:09. > :28:16.they are compliant with those that wish to leave. There are many ways

:28:17. > :28:22.in which reform might be achieved. I am not going to pre-empt the

:28:23. > :28:30.proposals that the Chancellor will bring forward. There are many cases

:28:31. > :28:34.that he fights and wins. One of the difficulties we have is that even

:28:35. > :28:40.when we fight and win, we spend a good deal of time and effort doing

:28:41. > :28:45.so. If people are encouraged by Beauvue, then we have to spend a

:28:46. > :28:51.good deal of time and effort dealing in those cases when it is not

:28:52. > :28:55.appropriate. The convention on human rights was drawn up by British

:28:56. > :29:01.lawyers and has been powerful and present -- spreading standards of

:29:02. > :29:04.human rights. Not just across Europe but much more widely. The Home

:29:05. > :29:11.Secretary didn't say yesterday that we should have reform and think

:29:12. > :29:18.about it. She said we must pull out of the convention. Is that the

:29:19. > :29:23.Government's policy, yes or no? I have been clear about what the

:29:24. > :29:27.Government's policy is. I say to the lady, what the Home Secretary was

:29:28. > :29:31.doing yesterday was explaining why the status quo was unacceptable.

:29:32. > :29:37.There is a difference between the convention drawn up in the 1950s and

:29:38. > :29:41.the interpretation given to it by judges in Strasbourg since that

:29:42. > :29:52.time. It is with the letter we have an issue and not with the former.

:29:53. > :29:58.One of the great advantages of the attorney coming here on behalf of

:29:59. > :30:08.the Home Secretary is not in their reticence that normally applies to a

:30:09. > :30:14.law officer. Given that freedom that the Home Secretary has kindly given

:30:15. > :30:19.to him, would he invite the Home Secretary next time he has eight

:30:20. > :30:27.conversation with her to explain to the Turkish journalists to explain

:30:28. > :30:33.to the Turkish police and the judges all of whom who have been the

:30:34. > :30:37.subject of some revolting treatment by the current Turkish Government

:30:38. > :30:43.and who look to the convention and to the court for the protection that

:30:44. > :30:52.they cannot get in their domestic courts. Can he looked the people in

:30:53. > :30:59.the face and say our leaving the convention would not affect their

:31:00. > :31:02.rights and would not undermine their proper reliance upon the standards

:31:03. > :31:13.of civilised behaviour that I thought we agreed to? There is

:31:14. > :31:19.little doubt that I have advocated my vows. The point he makes is

:31:20. > :31:24.crucial. There are real human rights abuses in the world today and this

:31:25. > :31:28.country should stand against those abuses. We should do so regardless

:31:29. > :31:32.of what international convention we may be part of, regardless of what

:31:33. > :31:37.actually have passed. We should make these positions clear as responsible

:31:38. > :31:42.governments will in this country both now and in the future I have no

:31:43. > :31:46.doubt. It is important that the Foreign Office under the parts of

:31:47. > :31:55.Government do their part to enhance human rights both here and abroad.

:31:56. > :32:00.Post-1945 Europe should be proud to have such a convention which has

:32:01. > :32:06.existed now for so many years. If the argument is that from time to

:32:07. > :32:13.time the judge was faulty, what about judgments in this country? The

:32:14. > :32:16.Birmingham six, Guildford four, there was hardly an argument for

:32:17. > :32:25.changing the judicial system we have. The reason the minister is

:32:26. > :32:31.putting forward this, whether or not it is for political views is because

:32:32. > :32:35.of an extreme element in the party opposite that have resented having

:32:36. > :32:41.the convention on the first place. No court system is perfect and all

:32:42. > :32:47.systems are capable of making mistakes. We should be grateful that

:32:48. > :32:52.our judicial system permits those to be corrected. I don't think that is

:32:53. > :32:57.comparable to the exercise that has been conducted by Strasbourg

:32:58. > :33:01.prudence on the European Convention of human rights which is to move

:33:02. > :33:06.that document's intentions from where the founders had intended they

:33:07. > :33:09.should go. That is a different thing and something which this side of the

:33:10. > :33:16.House is content to allow to proceed. It is not something we are

:33:17. > :33:24.content to let go. A rule of thumb in life when you throw a grenade it

:33:25. > :33:27.usually -- you'd usually rotate to cover. It is under the pressure of

:33:28. > :33:31.concerns over criminals and borders that this has come up. Conflating

:33:32. > :33:34.the two issues has been fundamentally wrong and I would like

:33:35. > :33:38.to know if the Home Secretary has discussed her views before she made

:33:39. > :33:42.them because bringing them up now has made it look as if our

:33:43. > :33:46.Government is in disarray over this matter and this is not acceptable.

:33:47. > :33:51.The Home Secretary should make it very clear as to whether or not she

:33:52. > :34:00.does support being EC age or not. I respect my honourable friend views

:34:01. > :34:06.on this matter. It is not helpful in the debate of us are happening.

:34:07. > :34:11.Having about the control of our borders and criminals coming and

:34:12. > :34:15.going. If she reads the speech that my right honourable friend made

:34:16. > :34:20.yesterday, she will see there was no conflating of the European

:34:21. > :34:23.Convention of human rights and ownership of the European Union. She

:34:24. > :34:28.made it clear they are two different things to be approached in different

:34:29. > :34:30.ways. I don't think there is conflation there and we should be

:34:31. > :34:33.cautious to make sure that we understand clearly what our

:34:34. > :34:42.colleagues are saying before we comment upon them. Following on from

:34:43. > :34:47.those comments made by the eternal General, does he accept there is a

:34:48. > :34:50.parallel that many members of this Chamber accepted the sincerity of

:34:51. > :34:53.Government when they said they rule nothing out but would seek

:34:54. > :34:57.substantial and meaningful reform of the European Union? If the point

:34:58. > :35:00.yesterday was that the European Court of Human Rights is binding on

:35:01. > :35:04.this country and that is a problem, why should members accept the

:35:05. > :35:09.voracity of reform for leaving today? Is it not the case that in

:35:10. > :35:12.making the speech yesterday it approves the fundamental principle

:35:13. > :35:22.that when you try to please everyone, in the end you please no

:35:23. > :35:30.one? Can I say that I think in relation to this question, there is

:35:31. > :35:32.no doubt that as far as the European question is concerned, the

:35:33. > :35:36.Government's position is clear and we have secured substantial and

:35:37. > :35:40.meaningful reform. The Government can recommend to the British public

:35:41. > :35:44.that we should remain within the European Union. We are entitled to

:35:45. > :35:48.our own views about whether that judgment is right or wrong that that

:35:49. > :35:52.is the Government's judgment. It hasn't made the same judgment yet

:35:53. > :35:55.about the European Convention on Human Rights because we have not yet

:35:56. > :36:00.brought forward a proposal is not indeed negotiated a different

:36:01. > :36:03.settlement. That issue is yet to be determined and why it is in a

:36:04. > :36:12.different category to the European Union question. In making the case

:36:13. > :36:16.for sensible reform of our domestic human rights architecture, is it not

:36:17. > :36:19.the case that whether these human rights are upheld in a supranational

:36:20. > :36:24.courts or by our own courts and Parliament, there is an doubt that

:36:25. > :36:26.there will always be respect for fundamental human rights in this

:36:27. > :36:30.country? Many of which have been guarded and promoted by Parliament

:36:31. > :36:36.itself. By contrast, is it not the case that the most egregious rights

:36:37. > :36:49.are found abroad as spam by the brutal murder of the editor of funds

:36:50. > :36:55.-- 18 about the --? We shall stand up against such abuses. He makes the

:36:56. > :36:59.case very well for what we will do which is to bring forward sensible

:37:00. > :37:05.reforms to our human rights framework but to maintain our robust

:37:06. > :37:12.protection of human rights in this country and around the world. The

:37:13. > :37:17.Minister, can he confirm that if the wish came true that the UK would no

:37:18. > :37:24.longer have a British judge at the UK court in this dross Borg,

:37:25. > :37:27.therefore we will be not party to helping make judgments to uphold

:37:28. > :37:33.international law across the whole of Europe? -- Strauss Borg. I say

:37:34. > :37:37.that there is more to promoting human rights here and abroad than

:37:38. > :37:40.our membership of that court or even of that convention. We do a great

:37:41. > :37:49.deal more to help promote human rights and we should continue to do

:37:50. > :37:52.so. May I thank my right honourable and learned friend for showing

:37:53. > :37:57.himself also to be gallant in defending the Home Secretary's

:37:58. > :38:04.position. There are a couple of errors in his speech. One was that

:38:05. > :38:09.she said that it was the ECHR that stopped us deporting foreign people

:38:10. > :38:13.whereas in fact it was the ECJ that stopped Abu Hamza's daughter-in-law

:38:14. > :38:17.being removed contrary to the Home Secretary's view. On this issue,

:38:18. > :38:21.whether we have to be in the European Convention whilst in the

:38:22. > :38:27.EU, I would refer my honourable and right honourable learned friend to

:38:28. > :38:31.article 63 of the Treaty on the European Union which says

:38:32. > :38:34.fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention shall

:38:35. > :38:39.constitute general principles of the union's law. For the more, the

:38:40. > :38:43.commission when asked what would happen if a member's state left the

:38:44. > :38:48.convention said it would look at using article seven which allows for

:38:49. > :38:55.the suspension of a member's voting rights. For once, European treaties

:38:56. > :39:02.are written in clear language, understandable even to nonlawyers.

:39:03. > :39:06.On his latter point, if only that were true. I don't think there is

:39:07. > :39:12.the simplicity that he suggests on this point. EC HR principles

:39:13. > :39:18.contribute to European Union law via the charter but that is not the same

:39:19. > :39:23.as putting together the European Convention on Human Rights and

:39:24. > :39:27.European law in saying they are in distinctions -- indistinguishable

:39:28. > :39:32.from each other. In relation to the deportation, the difficulty we often

:39:33. > :39:36.face is the interpretation of article eight of the convention

:39:37. > :39:40.which deals with the Right to a family life. It is a good example of

:39:41. > :39:45.the way in which rights which ostensibly drawn up can be extended

:39:46. > :39:50.beyond where they were meant to go or whether balancing exercise at the

:39:51. > :40:02.heart is not conducted in a sensible way. In an earlier mention, the

:40:03. > :40:07.minister conceded there would be substantial matters in respect of

:40:08. > :40:11.devolution that that there would be full consultation. Will he accept it

:40:12. > :40:15.is not a matter of full consultation but fundamental change to the way

:40:16. > :40:21.the Welsh Assembly operates? How will they do it? We will have to

:40:22. > :40:24.wait for the proposals to be brought forward before it is sensible to

:40:25. > :40:28.discuss them in detail. He has my undertaking as he had back

:40:29. > :40:32.undertaking of the governments that when those proposals are bought

:40:33. > :40:33.forward, they will be a consultation about how the devolution aspects of

:40:34. > :40:48.such proposals will be managed. I have given evidence at four trials

:40:49. > :40:56.at the International criminal Tribunal for the former Republic of

:40:57. > :41:01.Yugoslavia. The ICT why judges told me that the UK had a superb record

:41:02. > :41:05.on upholding human rights, which I must say with a pleasant for my

:41:06. > :41:12.Mennonite, having to go through four trials. -- men and I. Can I ask my

:41:13. > :41:19.learned friend whether he believes that such a verdict could be applied

:41:20. > :41:25.to all other members of the European Convention on Human Rights?

:41:26. > :41:29.I certainly agree that being a member of the Council of Europe and

:41:30. > :41:34.is signatory to the convention is no guarantee that your human rights

:41:35. > :41:38.record will be spotless. It follows logically from that that is not

:41:39. > :41:42.being such a secretary does not mean you cannot have a hugely impressive

:41:43. > :41:46.record in the protection of human rights, and there are many other

:41:47. > :41:50.countries around the world, not signatories to the documents,

:41:51. > :41:53.demonstrate exactly that. The attorney has made a number of

:41:54. > :42:05.references since the question began to the UK polls Government cos

:42:06. > :42:08.and... The UK Government voted yesterday against the human rights

:42:09. > :42:18.of child refugees requiring cells are in this country? -- cell shelter

:42:19. > :42:23.in this country? I'll do not wish to rehash arguments

:42:24. > :42:29.from yesterday. But the honourable lady should recognise that the

:42:30. > :42:33.donations of aid given not only to Syria but also around the world

:42:34. > :42:37.demonstrates that we do not only care, but that we act. Human rights

:42:38. > :42:41.is only one aspect, there are very real needs we need to support. The

:42:42. > :42:48.fact that this Government, against considerable opposition in many

:42:49. > :42:51.areas of opinion, has maintained our commitment to spend 1.5% of GDP on

:42:52. > :42:58.foreign aid shows that as clearly as anything.

:42:59. > :43:05.Surely the test is how Irish human rights work. Without this Government

:43:06. > :43:13.passed a modern slavery act led the way in Europe. And largely thanks to

:43:14. > :43:17.the intervention of the Prime Minister shows we have an excellent

:43:18. > :43:24.human rights record. One thing I would like to know in legal terms,

:43:25. > :43:31.it is confusing from what has been said, can the UK remain in the EU

:43:32. > :43:37.and leave the convention? Watters is is legal opinion?

:43:38. > :43:41.That legal position is not clear. We do not have the time to go through

:43:42. > :43:45.all the ins and outs of that question just now, but I would say

:43:46. > :43:50.that it is wrong to suggest it is clear in the opposite direction. It

:43:51. > :43:56.is not clear at all that if the UK was to lead the ECHR ill be unable

:43:57. > :44:03.to remain as a member of the EU. I will take the opportunity, as he is

:44:04. > :44:10.mentioned is the modern slavery act, to pay tribute to his own part in

:44:11. > :44:20.that process. He paid a leading part in making arguments and securing a

:44:21. > :44:23.remarkable piece of legislation. May I make it absolutely clear that

:44:24. > :44:28.I hold the Home Secretary and the highest regard. However, I am

:44:29. > :44:34.horrified, absolutely horrified, yesterday at the suggestion that

:44:35. > :44:40.this country would leave the ECHR. After 30 plus years of appalling

:44:41. > :44:46.violence in Northern Ireland, the Belfast agreement, signed on Good

:44:47. > :44:51.Friday, was part of negotiations, and the ECHR was an integral part of

:44:52. > :44:55.that agreement. It was voted on in two referendums in the UK and in

:44:56. > :45:04.Northern Ireland by thousands of people. I want the Attorney General

:45:05. > :45:07.to tell me what consideration the Home Secretary gave to the

:45:08. > :45:12.applications for the peace settlement in Northern Ireland,

:45:13. > :45:16.particularly the applications for the Belfast agreement, before she

:45:17. > :45:22.made her statement yesterday? I know the Home Secretary is clearly

:45:23. > :45:25.aware of this complexity is, as is my honourable friend the Lord

:45:26. > :45:28.Chancellor. It is difficult to me to discuss the details of proposals

:45:29. > :45:33.that are not yet brought forward. The best thing I can do is again

:45:34. > :45:36.assure her that there will be an opportunity to discuss these things

:45:37. > :45:42.in more detail. That is the best I can say at this point.

:45:43. > :45:50.The Government's in something of a pickle, this European project

:45:51. > :46:02.involves human rights frameworks. This data confusion laid out by a

:46:03. > :46:06.report of session... How will the Government ensure that any bill of

:46:07. > :46:11.rights is able to survive the European Court of Justice?

:46:12. > :46:15.My honourable friend tempts me to talk about proposals that are not

:46:16. > :46:19.yet before us. I cannot you do that. He is right to reinforce the point

:46:20. > :46:24.that these matters are exceptional complex. And anyone who's Jess they

:46:25. > :46:31.are simple is wrong. We will have the opportunity to pursue these in

:46:32. > :46:35.detail. In contrast to the position that existed when the human rights

:46:36. > :46:41.was brought forward when there was very little opportunity for

:46:42. > :46:44.consultation. There is clearly some confusion and

:46:45. > :46:49.discomfort on the Government benches about human rights. But there should

:46:50. > :46:56.be no confusion in the minds of voters on June the 23rd about these

:46:57. > :47:01.matters. The ECHR was a creation of the Council of Europe that I

:47:02. > :47:04.absolutely support. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights is a

:47:05. > :47:14.very different matter, a creation of the EU, and has not been so useful

:47:15. > :47:23.in employment rights, when it is found in favour of employers rather

:47:24. > :47:31.than trade unions. Kennedy made clear that leaving the EU will not

:47:32. > :47:37.mean leaving the ECHR on June the 23rd, and Woody also agree that the

:47:38. > :47:47.way to guarantee worker rights in this country estate select a Labour

:47:48. > :47:50.Government next time? Nearly all the way there with the

:47:51. > :48:00.honourable gentleman, can get with the last part I'm afraid. --

:48:01. > :48:06.couldn't get the last part. I hope they have made it clear in my

:48:07. > :48:14.earlier remarks the guv boss Mike position. -- the Government's

:48:15. > :48:18.position. We are all in favour of human rights and will fight hard to

:48:19. > :48:27.defend them. In relation to the charter, he will know that the

:48:28. > :48:31.treaties negotiated by the last Labour Government make it clear that

:48:32. > :48:37.the commission creates no new rights within this country.

:48:38. > :48:48.I'm grateful for the statement of the Government's position for

:48:49. > :48:57.support of the human rights. Will he confirm that in the light of the

:48:58. > :49:01.1950s document drafted which contains derogations for national

:49:02. > :49:04.security and other matters, that it is right and the circumstances to

:49:05. > :49:16.update the Human Rights Act to reflect changes.

:49:17. > :49:23.I'm grateful, she is correct that the document is a separate document.

:49:24. > :49:29.She is also right to talk about how things may develop. Those who

:49:30. > :49:33.support the status quo can't have it both ways. If they think it is

:49:34. > :49:36.probably reasonable for the court in Strasbourg and extend the scope of

:49:37. > :49:44.the convention on the way they have, they should also recognise we should

:49:45. > :49:50.keep up with the times in other too. The Ukip us withdraw from ECHR would

:49:51. > :50:06.represent the most unwelcome set of incentives. -- UK's withdrawal.

:50:07. > :50:10.I understand the points, but I think he's wrong to suggest that despots

:50:11. > :50:18.and Arabs around the world don't fully understand what view the UK

:50:19. > :50:23.Government takes of human rights. -- despots and tyrants. As I say, we

:50:24. > :50:29.have not just spoken, we have also acted, domestic and internationally,

:50:30. > :50:33.support protect human rights. In the European Court of Human

:50:34. > :50:38.Rights we have shoot or judges rather than proper judges. -- studio

:50:39. > :50:44.judges. They make ridiculous decisions. Why should this House

:50:45. > :50:47.vote for something we do not believe in, which are constituents do not

:50:48. > :50:51.believe in, after something which makes the Prime Minister physically

:50:52. > :50:57.sick, just because some ludicrous judge in Strasbourg went way beyond

:50:58. > :51:02.their remit? If we are not repaired to accept such rulings, which I am

:51:03. > :51:09.not, isn't the only acceptable course of action to leave?

:51:10. > :51:15.As always, I wish my honourable friend would say what he thinks. He

:51:16. > :51:19.is right in that the status quo he describes is unacceptable to a lot

:51:20. > :51:22.of people in this country. I think the case for reform is unanswerable,

:51:23. > :51:28.and that is what was Government is going to do.

:51:29. > :51:34.The Minister will know that the Foreign Office has downgraded the

:51:35. > :51:42.global abolition of the death penalty from its top priority to the

:51:43. > :51:45.bottom bullet point. Does he agree with me that taken together with the

:51:46. > :51:49.possible withdrawal from the convention of human rights, this

:51:50. > :51:53.could be seen as a green light to Saudi Arabia, China and other

:51:54. > :51:58.countries that use the death penalty, alongside Russia and

:51:59. > :52:05.Turkey, who abuse such rights, as a way of dividing and ruling the

:52:06. > :52:10.European Union's human rights record?

:52:11. > :52:19.I do not think that follows. Whenever ministers travel aboard we

:52:20. > :52:25.discuss and oppose the use of the death penalty in all circumstances.

:52:26. > :52:30.Does the most agree with me that if we are to stay in ECHR, and if we're

:52:31. > :52:34.to rehabilitate the reputation of human rights the UK, it is important

:52:35. > :52:38.that the European Court curtails its reach and does not intrude into

:52:39. > :52:44.matters such as prisoner voting, which is a matter for this House?

:52:45. > :52:52.Yes. Originally proposed by Winston

:52:53. > :52:57.Churchill, the European Convention on Human Rights is an important part

:52:58. > :53:02.of our post for history. In essence, a British Bill of Rights. How are

:53:03. > :53:06.the public to trust the Government that the hard-won advances to

:53:07. > :53:13.quality, privacy and justice and that long-time legacy will not be at

:53:14. > :53:19.risk from their cruel agenda? Two points - first it's important to

:53:20. > :53:21.distinguish the Human Rights Act and even the convention from the

:53:22. > :53:25.promotion and protection of human rights. These are two different

:53:26. > :53:32.things, and a record of this Government is very clear. In terms

:53:33. > :53:36.of reform of the framework, we have a clear mandate for that. We set out

:53:37. > :53:41.what we want to do in our manifesto at the general election. As it

:53:42. > :53:45.happens, parties that support reform of human rights law received more

:53:46. > :53:54.than 50% of the vote in that election. So the mandate is clear.

:53:55. > :53:58.I'm sure the Attorney General would share my surprise and comments on

:53:59. > :54:06.the idea of Britain having a system similar to other countries of having

:54:07. > :54:12.our human rights and overseen by a Supreme Court, such as Germany does.

:54:13. > :54:16.Will the Mr outline how it has protected the rights of people in

:54:17. > :54:25.eastern Ukraine, given that Russia is a signatory to ECHR?

:54:26. > :54:28.I agree that it is no guarantee that a country well have a spotless human

:54:29. > :54:33.rights record of it as a signatory to the convection. We are clear that

:54:34. > :54:39.we support the protection of human rights, and we continue to take that

:54:40. > :54:44.position. Had it not been for the Strasbourg

:54:45. > :54:49.court, in this country, gay men and women would not be serving in our

:54:50. > :54:53.Armed Forces. But because of the judgment in 1999, there has been a

:54:54. > :54:56.rainbow revolution in our Armed Forces. Is that not just one of the

:54:57. > :55:00.many reasons why we should stick with ECHR?

:55:01. > :55:07.The honourable gentleman draws attention to a positive change, and

:55:08. > :55:10.have been others. But I think he is wrong to minimise the role in our

:55:11. > :55:17.courts in making changes of this nature. And in democratically

:55:18. > :55:23.elected Government is doing the same. The only way we can achieve

:55:24. > :55:26.the outcomes such as the one he described is to issue the status quo

:55:27. > :55:40.is not correct. My constituents are fed up with the

:55:41. > :55:44.Europeans lecturing us on human rights when were it not for this

:55:45. > :55:49.country, our dominion and our empire who stood alone in 1940, there would

:55:50. > :55:54.be no human rights at all on the continent of Europe let alone the

:55:55. > :55:58.convention. Can I say that many of us on these benches don't seem to

:55:59. > :56:01.recognise the conflict that many members of the Cabinet are

:56:02. > :56:04.struggling with between membership of the European Union and membership

:56:05. > :56:12.of the convention and we would be happy to leave both. I understand

:56:13. > :56:16.his position clearly. He is right that the record of protection of

:56:17. > :56:20.human rights, respect the human rights and fighting on behalf of

:56:21. > :56:22.those queues human rights may be infringed is a proud and a

:56:23. > :56:34.long-standing one. That will not change. Protocol one article three

:56:35. > :56:37.of the ECHR states the parties undertake to elections at reasonable

:56:38. > :56:41.intervals by secret ballot under conditions which will ensure the

:56:42. > :56:47.opinion of the people in the choice of the legislator. That given their

:56:48. > :56:51.majority of legislators are unelected, is he satisfied that UK

:56:52. > :57:00.Government complies with this protocol or is this another reason

:57:01. > :57:05.why they want to withdraw? He wants me to get legal advice but I am

:57:06. > :57:09.going for this. What he has read out is part of the convention relied

:57:10. > :57:15.upon to suggest that prisoners should have the vote. I didn't tack

:57:16. > :57:21.-- I didn't detect prisoners having the vote. That is for this

:57:22. > :57:26.Parliament to decide. The Attorney General is quite correct to say this

:57:27. > :57:29.country has a long and proud record of human rights as he is also

:57:30. > :57:36.correct to point out that it is our actions that count more than just

:57:37. > :57:39.mere signatories. Does he agree that it also follows that the

:57:40. > :57:47.international community looks to this country for our reform agenda,

:57:48. > :57:51.such as issues like abolishing slavery? He makes a very good point.

:57:52. > :57:55.By what we have done in the past and by what we are doing now, we do send

:57:56. > :58:01.the kind of signal to other countries that other members of said

:58:02. > :58:04.they would wish us to do. We have a proud record not just of acting in

:58:05. > :58:11.the past but of acting now to encourage others to do better also.

:58:12. > :58:20.The statement by the Secretary of State has undermined the remaining

:58:21. > :58:28.campaign. You stated that this is a complex legal matter. How will the

:58:29. > :58:39.Minister Mari to different points of view? It is a complex matter. Can I

:58:40. > :58:42.say in relation to his first point, I don't agree that what they Home

:58:43. > :58:48.Secretary did yesterday was undermining the case for remaining

:58:49. > :58:51.within the EU. When he reached the speech, she makes a powerful case

:58:52. > :58:56.for remaining within the European Union and it sets out the arguments

:58:57. > :59:00.with a great deal of clarity. After all is said and done, does my right

:59:01. > :59:12.honourable friend agree that there are real issues with Strauss Borg --

:59:13. > :59:15.Strasbourg and to address that? Did Earl of rights will seek to address

:59:16. > :59:26.this and we will scrutinise it carefully when it comes forward. In

:59:27. > :59:30.1997, the then British Government placed before this house with the

:59:31. > :59:34.eventual agreement with both sides a proposal to place before the

:59:35. > :59:40.sovereign people of Scotland a position based on the referendum

:59:41. > :59:43.which reconstituted the Scottish parliament and at its core is the

:59:44. > :59:49.European convention will stop now this Government seeks to undermine

:59:50. > :59:52.that very settlement and the Government has been rejected

:59:53. > :00:06.fundamentally at the last general election, how does the attorney John

:00:07. > :00:11.-- Attorney General... The sovereign will of the Scottish people was

:00:12. > :00:14.expressed in the independence referendum in 2014. When they

:00:15. > :00:18.expressed their view, they concluded they wished to remain part of the

:00:19. > :00:25.United Kingdom. Much as I know the honourable gentleman doesn't like

:00:26. > :00:30.that outcome. That was the outcome and the UK Government will consider

:00:31. > :00:41.this matter for the future. Ten Minute Rule Motion. I beg leave to

:00:42. > :00:45.move to bring in a bill to amend the House of Lords act 1999 to remove

:00:46. > :00:51.section two under which 90 persons have the right to speak in the House

:00:52. > :00:57.of Lords by virtue of hereditary peerage and for connected purposes.

:00:58. > :01:00.Last week a member was elected to a world reviewed Parliament in a

:01:01. > :01:04.by-election following the death of a sitting member. Once elected they

:01:05. > :01:07.will be able to make laws hold the Government to account can have

:01:08. > :01:12.influence on make a difference upon the lives of households up and down

:01:13. > :01:16.this country. Nominations closed on Monday 11th of April and those

:01:17. > :01:19.nominated, of which there were seven, had to convince the

:01:20. > :01:25.electorate of their merits to secure its simple majority which .1 of the

:01:26. > :01:29.seven candidates were elected. This should sound familiar to honourable

:01:30. > :01:34.members. Any democracy has the same pathway for gaining a seat in

:01:35. > :01:37.Parliament, win the argument and get elected. This election was

:01:38. > :01:41.different. This election was not modern, it was not open and it was

:01:42. > :01:44.certainly not democratic because this election was for a hereditary

:01:45. > :01:49.peer in the House of Lords. An peer in the House of Lords. An

:01:50. > :01:52.election for a place as one of the last remaining 92 members to sit in

:01:53. > :01:56.the unelected Chamber. Member should be aware of last week's process in

:01:57. > :02:01.more detail as it deserves full scrutiny. To be nominated for this

:02:02. > :02:07.seat in Parliament, normally had to be a form hereditary peer or be a

:02:08. > :02:12.hereditary peer of the party of the previous member. The electrode power

:02:13. > :02:19.to elect the noble peer was in this case three people. This is the

:02:20. > :02:25.21st-century. The three remaining Lib Dem peers were the sole

:02:26. > :02:30.electorate in this house. This house will remember the great fights on

:02:31. > :02:36.the 1832 reform format that abolished the constituency of an

:02:37. > :02:43.area that used to be able to send two members of Parliament to this

:02:44. > :02:46.house. It had 11 voters. Positively huge, almost the Isle of Wight in

:02:47. > :02:51.comparison with the noble Lord's election last week. The election

:02:52. > :02:56.last week for the Chamber of the noble Lord was three Liberal

:02:57. > :03:04.Democrat peers, all hereditary peers. Baron Addington's peerage

:03:05. > :03:10.dates back to 19 87 when his ancestor was granted the title. The

:03:11. > :03:18.10th Earl of Glasgow can trace his title back to 1703 when it was

:03:19. > :03:25.created for his -- his ancestor. The third Earl of Oxford is a more new

:03:26. > :03:33.entree to the House of Lords has been the grounds of the pro --

:03:34. > :03:37.former Prime Minister. Each hopeful in this election had to write 75

:03:38. > :03:44.words on why this should be trusted with a seat in the mother of

:03:45. > :03:47.Parliament. The eventual winner was excellent. Excellent to the

:03:48. > :03:54.environment and it was a blank piece of paper. For the three people who

:03:55. > :03:58.voted for him there were no words saying what he would do or why he

:03:59. > :04:04.would do it. I'm pleased to tell the House that unlike the national

:04:05. > :04:10.trend, the voter declined, there was a 100% turnout on this election of

:04:11. > :04:18.three. No spoiled ballot papers and miraculously all three votes went to

:04:19. > :04:25.Viscount in the first round. The count took 24 hours, which is not

:04:26. > :04:30.quite Washington self but resulted in a member of Parliament. The

:04:31. > :04:35.Viscount who was the member of parliament elected in the Lords last

:04:36. > :04:39.week was a member of the Lord is to 1999. He subsequently removed

:04:40. > :04:42.himself from a membership and got elected as the member of Parliament

:04:43. > :04:48.the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for ten years until last May.

:04:49. > :04:54.When he lost his seat, somebody else was chosen to be elected to this

:04:55. > :05:01.of democratic elections in this of democratic elections in this

:05:02. > :05:08.House of Commons. He got a return route to the Lords threw the sad

:05:09. > :05:12.death of Lord Heytesbury. I worked with him in the House of Commons and

:05:13. > :05:19.bear him no ill will but even he must be embarrassed by his blue

:05:20. > :05:24.blood transfusion in this election last week. The purpose of my bill is

:05:25. > :05:30.to make sure that that election is the last of this type in this

:05:31. > :05:34.21st-century. Hereditary peers have existed for hundreds of years,

:05:35. > :05:41.through patronage, favours and through who they knew. Laws were

:05:42. > :05:45.elected and made by an elite not by those accountable or elected. In

:05:46. > :05:52.1999, the Lords reform act reduced in number of hereditary peers from

:05:53. > :05:58.over 1300 292 today. That act was brought into office by the Labour

:05:59. > :06:02.Government to make the Lords more democratic and more representative.

:06:03. > :06:08.The first stage was a removal of the 92 hereditary peers as a temporary

:06:09. > :06:13.measure. We are now 17 years on and that temporary measure needs to be

:06:14. > :06:16.terminated. The lawmakers will -- were retired while being able to

:06:17. > :06:23.keep their title devote. Speaking in Government was last -- lost forever.

:06:24. > :06:34.90 to remain and the question is what legitimacy do they have for the

:06:35. > :06:38.future? Their legitimacy is based on one example, Lord Fairfax. He sits

:06:39. > :06:43.there because his ancestor, Thomas Fairfax, was given a seat because he

:06:44. > :06:46.was the first Englishman to travel to Scotland to swear allegiance to

:06:47. > :06:52.the new King James the first. I don't know about you but I do happen

:06:53. > :06:58.to think that lawmaking ability should not be based on the skill of

:06:59. > :07:02.an ancestor catching a coach to Edinburgh in the 17th century.

:07:03. > :07:09.Another ridiculous example is the current Conservative peer. It

:07:10. > :07:14.beggars belief that Bill Ackley, the grandson of a Labour Prime Minister

:07:15. > :07:18.who had a dramatic reform history would be set in the House of Lords

:07:19. > :07:25.and be voting the same way now as his grandson is going to be doing

:07:26. > :07:28.today. The real act would not curtail trade union legislation or

:07:29. > :07:32.vote for the most vulnerable in our society yet through the hereditary

:07:33. > :07:36.principle, his grandson takes the Conservative whip in a peerage that

:07:37. > :07:41.was granted to a Labour peer. To make things worse, we have ministers

:07:42. > :07:49.of the Crown who remain hereditary peers. There was a Parliamentary

:07:50. > :07:58.Secretary of State for business and he is a whip. This is simply not

:07:59. > :08:01.acceptable in the 21st-century. The purpose of my bill is to finally

:08:02. > :08:07.removed those who have their place in Parliament by birth rather than

:08:08. > :08:13.by merit. Why is this important? We need to have change and win the --

:08:14. > :08:18.we will not agree on what that would be. Surely the abolition of the

:08:19. > :08:21.hereditary principle will be a move towards a more equitable Parliament,

:08:22. > :08:24.Chamber where people are not excluded because of their place of

:08:25. > :08:28.birth and not given a place in Parliament because of their

:08:29. > :08:33.parentage. We all have our views on the Lords reform and we want to see

:08:34. > :08:39.different positions. I have always voted for total abolition. Others

:08:40. > :08:44.want an appointed second Chamber, others want a fully elected Senedd.

:08:45. > :08:49.The key thing is we need to ensure we make some change. If this

:08:50. > :08:52.election last week where the method of electing a trade union general

:08:53. > :08:56.secretary, this Conservative Government would have cracked down

:08:57. > :09:03.on it years ago. If this method of election of a member of the House of

:09:04. > :09:06.Lords last week, with the election of a housing association board this

:09:07. > :09:10.Conservative Government would have sold off the housing and abolished

:09:11. > :09:15.the board. If this were the method of electing an air or a leader of

:09:16. > :09:19.the local council, this Government would have abolished that local

:09:20. > :09:23.council or reformed and election years ago. -- Mayor. It is the

:09:24. > :09:27.forgotten election. Let me give the Government another reason to act.

:09:28. > :09:34.The House of Commons is going to face dramatic change. Members will

:09:35. > :09:41.be reduced from 650 to 600. It is time the Lords took a share. The

:09:42. > :09:44.review of this legislation could potentially be a signal to the

:09:45. > :09:51.taxpayer. The current position of this review could well be ?12.2

:09:52. > :09:55.million saved in terms of allowances and costs. It is important we keep

:09:56. > :10:00.our political banter is fair but it is important that we have proper

:10:01. > :10:05.elected Government because we are all in this together. I have had a

:10:06. > :10:08.number of responses but I would like to thank those who I could list

:10:09. > :10:21.including the members for Bootle, Bassetlaw, North Durham, Stockton,

:10:22. > :10:24.Liverpool, Scunthorpe, Worsley and Eccles, Cardiff South, Westminster

:10:25. > :10:32.North, Bolton South East, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Walsall.

:10:33. > :10:37.Let me end this farce. Let us ensure we have an elected House of Commons

:10:38. > :10:44.and we do not have a House of Lords based on the hereditary prison --

:10:45. > :10:48.principle. I beg to move. The question is that the member has

:10:49. > :10:55.leapt to bring in the bill. As many as are of the opinion, say aye. To

:10:56. > :10:57.the contrary, no.. The ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the

:10:58. > :11:47.Bill? House of Lords reform, exclusion of

:11:48. > :11:53.pedantry peers Bill. Friday the 13th of May.

:11:54. > :12:11.-- hereditary peers Bill. We now come to the police and crime

:12:12. > :12:18.Bill, programme number two. The programme motion. Minister to move,

:12:19. > :12:24.Mr Mike Penny. I have no intention of delaying the House more than a

:12:25. > :12:34.few minutes. I would just say we are committed in most parts of the Bill.

:12:35. > :12:38.I thought it was very important that when the business managers started

:12:39. > :12:44.discussing how long we have for the report that we have time to bring

:12:45. > :12:52.the measures forward. That is why I have suggested 4-2 days on report

:12:53. > :13:06.before we come to third reading. The question is an the order paper.

:13:07. > :13:12.We will come shortly to the substantive issues for the day, but

:13:13. > :13:17.we agree the proposed procedure, we agree what will be undertaken today

:13:18. > :13:22.and on the second day. Following the Queen's speech we will return to the

:13:23. > :13:27.issues outlined. But the members are clear today for a point of

:13:28. > :13:36.particular focus on the proposals for fire and volunteers.

:13:37. > :13:39.The question is the Policing and Crime Bill is on the order paper. As

:13:40. > :13:49.many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The

:13:50. > :13:56.ayes habit. -- have it. The clerk will now read the orders of the day.

:13:57. > :14:03.The Policing and Crime Bill to be considered.

:14:04. > :14:11.We begin with a new clause 20, with which it will be convenient to

:14:12. > :14:19.consider amendments 21, 354, 20, and six.

:14:20. > :14:28.I am delighted that you are here for me to serve under your chairmanship.

:14:29. > :14:34.I advise amendments three, four, five, six, 20. We oppose the

:14:35. > :14:41.Government's proposals to allow the PCC is to overtake Fire And Rescue

:14:42. > :14:45.Services. That is why an amendments three, four and five delete the

:14:46. > :14:51.sections in the Bill would enable them to do so. We have also tabled

:14:52. > :14:55.amendments to mitigate against the risks if the Government proposals

:14:56. > :15:01.are enacted. Amendment six with insurer that where a PCC does take

:15:02. > :15:08.over a Fire and Rescue Service, they can only do so with local support.

:15:09. > :15:11.Which can be expressed by elected councillors, with the unanimous

:15:12. > :15:17.agreement of all the local authorities affected or directly

:15:18. > :15:23.through a referendum. Amendment 20 would require the Home Secretary to

:15:24. > :15:28.review the level of funding that is needed at the fire servers to secure

:15:29. > :15:32.public safety. And new clause 20 would give Fire Services in England

:15:33. > :15:38.a statutory responsibility to deal with flooding. I know that the

:15:39. > :15:46.Minister said that during committee stage he was minded to consider this

:15:47. > :15:50.particular new clause. I notice that he has not jumped to his feet saying

:15:51. > :15:58.he wants to take this new clause as the golf course, but I live in hope.

:15:59. > :16:02.-- Government clause. When the minister response, I hope he will

:16:03. > :16:08.take the opportunity to set out for us today what he believes the

:16:09. > :16:13.benefits are that PCCs will bring to the Fire and Rescue Service. What

:16:14. > :16:16.skills and expertise do they have that is not possessed by our current

:16:17. > :16:24.Fire and rescue authorities? How will they help the Fire Service cope

:16:25. > :16:31.with the challenges it faces when it deals with major incidents such as

:16:32. > :16:34.flooding and terrorist attack. And what implication is there that the

:16:35. > :16:38.Government believes that the Fire Service is broken and needs to be

:16:39. > :16:41.replaced? The Government has not begun to answer these questions or

:16:42. > :16:49.begin to make a case for these reforms. I give way.

:16:50. > :16:52.Would she agree with me that the reason the governance of the Fire

:16:53. > :16:56.Service needs to be changed is that very few of our constituents would

:16:57. > :17:04.know the name of every single person on the local authority fire aboard?

:17:05. > :17:10.I wonder whether she herself could name every person on her local

:17:11. > :17:16.authority fire aboard? My Fire Service is through the GLA.

:17:17. > :17:19.I know that if I should speak to anyone about London's Fire Service I

:17:20. > :17:25.could speak to those GLA members. I do the names. Indeed, I could also

:17:26. > :17:29.talk to the mayor. When people and my local authority want it impact on

:17:30. > :17:32.the local service, we tend to approach the local councillors. I

:17:33. > :17:38.think that's not a bad root for them. This, in fact, would change

:17:39. > :17:45.that. They would not be able to go to the local town hall to talk about

:17:46. > :17:49.the service which impacts on them. Members reminds me that it was a

:17:50. > :17:57.fairly low voice when they reminded me, that they will be elected. I

:17:58. > :18:00.know it might be an usual, but new councillors are elected to two, and

:18:01. > :18:08.cancers of the GLA are elected as well. -- councillors are elected.

:18:09. > :18:13.People who vote for police enquiry commissioners know they can hold

:18:14. > :18:15.them to account for policing, that will be extended to the Fire

:18:16. > :18:21.Service. I say to the honourable gentleman

:18:22. > :18:26.that the turnout last time for PCC mops was dismal. And really hope

:18:27. > :18:31.this time that the significant outturn will be better. When I was

:18:32. > :18:37.on the doorstep last year, people and other parts of the country,

:18:38. > :18:43.other than my own patch in London, very few knew who their PCC was. I

:18:44. > :18:46.say, when our constituents go to the parliamentary, they are not going to

:18:47. > :18:51.know they are going to be electing a PCC who might or might not be taking

:18:52. > :18:55.over their Fire Service. Because actually, this will will not be

:18:56. > :19:00.enacted at that point. I think the timing of that is wrong, and I think

:19:01. > :19:06.the way in which we have brought it about has been wrongly done as well.

:19:07. > :19:10.The consultation exercise that preceded this Bill did not seek the

:19:11. > :19:16.views of experts and specialists on the substance of the proposals. It

:19:17. > :19:20.set out how a PCC had issuing control of a Fire and Rescue

:19:21. > :19:26.Service, and then asked Consul Tees what they thought of the process. It

:19:27. > :19:30.did not ask those consulted what they thought of the proposals

:19:31. > :19:35.themselves. It did not ask whether the proposals would increase public

:19:36. > :19:43.safety or whether they would lead to better governance. The review into

:19:44. > :19:47.the future of the Fire Service recommended- and this is not any

:19:48. > :19:54.impact assessment that members will have read, I'm sure, who have sat on

:19:55. > :20:00.the Bill - summoned me say what the review said about PCC takeovers. It

:20:01. > :20:08.said that PCC takeovers should only be attempted if a rigorous pilot

:20:09. > :20:12.could identify tangible and clearly set out benefits. The Government

:20:13. > :20:26.chose to ignore this Keira and Asian. And this instead preceding.

:20:27. > :20:31.It is a full Iraq worse. The impact assessment -- it is utterly

:20:32. > :20:36.reckless. The impact assessment is threadbare. The intervention offered

:20:37. > :20:39.is that the Government believes there should be critical operation

:20:40. > :20:45.between the emergency services. No-one thinks otherwise. But the

:20:46. > :20:50.Government has not provided any justification as to why this is more

:20:51. > :20:56.likely to occur under a PCCs or any analysis of the current barriers to

:20:57. > :21:03.collaboration. It is policy without evidence or clear rationale.

:21:04. > :21:09.I agree with absolutely everything she's saying. This question

:21:10. > :21:15.Corporation- she knows, it surely the Government benchers note, how

:21:16. > :21:19.much corporation already goes on. It does not have to be prescribed in a

:21:20. > :21:27.way that is top down, it works organically and works very well.

:21:28. > :21:31.That is absolutely right. There is really good collaboration going on

:21:32. > :21:38.now between all parts of the public service armour between fire, police

:21:39. > :21:41.and ambulance. And I do understand the Government wanting to make that

:21:42. > :21:48.agenda on further and Seymour collaboration. It is just that this

:21:49. > :21:52.Bill does not do that. I honestly believe, as I will come to later in

:21:53. > :21:59.my remarks, I believe it will deter some boundary and order mergers from

:22:00. > :22:05.happening. And I think that would be a massive problem. The Government's

:22:06. > :22:11.cavalier approach to this public service of people as completely

:22:12. > :22:18.indefensible given the significant risks that the proposals represent

:22:19. > :22:22.to the Fire and Rescue Service. PCCs are still a nascent institution. The

:22:23. > :22:30.home affairs Select Committee has said, it is too early to say whether

:22:31. > :22:33.it is the introduction of police and crime commissioners has been a

:22:34. > :22:40.success. We don't know whether they have been a success in their core

:22:41. > :22:42.duties, so why is this Government proposing they expand their

:22:43. > :22:49.portfolios by giving them control of the Fire Service too? I think the

:22:50. > :22:53.Government wants to bolster the powers and budgets of PCCs to help

:22:54. > :22:58.them through their difficult inception. And I also think that

:22:59. > :23:05.this is a step towards PCCs becoming many mayors. But a vital public

:23:06. > :23:11.service like fire should not be pond out to save Whitehall inventions or

:23:12. > :23:20.overturn the public vote against the creation of variance. And unlike

:23:21. > :23:26.mayors, the mess we have in combined authorities, the PCCs will be

:23:27. > :23:29.completely free from the democratic scrutiny provided by local

:23:30. > :23:36.government and the creation of the extended office would have been

:23:37. > :23:42.approved by local people. The most important risk of all is that fire,

:23:43. > :23:47.with its much smaller budget and media attention than policing, will

:23:48. > :23:54.be, none loved secondary concern of this new management. A Cinderella

:23:55. > :24:00.service. I have raised this point repeatedly with a minister in

:24:01. > :24:03.committee. But I don't think he has indicated what he might do to

:24:04. > :24:09.mitigate against it. And that's not just me who thinks this. Peter

:24:10. > :24:12.Murphy, the Director of Public policy research at Nottingham

:24:13. > :24:16.business school, has argued that slipping into the status of a

:24:17. > :24:20.Cinderella service would only be a repeat of what happened the last

:24:21. > :24:26.time fire had to share an agenda with policing. I will quit him in

:24:27. > :24:33.full, because I think it gets to the heart of the matter. -- put him in

:24:34. > :24:36.full. He says, if the proposals are implemented, there is a very strong

:24:37. > :24:42.chance that Fire And Rescue Services would go back to the benign neglect

:24:43. > :24:48.that characterised the servers from 1974- 2001, when the Home Office was

:24:49. > :24:52.last responsible for Fire Service. Police, civil disobedience,

:24:53. > :24:58.immigration and criminal justice dominated the Home Office agenda, as

:24:59. > :25:02.well as its time and resources. If the Fire Service becomes the lesser

:25:03. > :25:11.partner in a merged service, the long-term implications will include

:25:12. > :25:16.smaller fire crews, and fewer appliances and older equipment

:25:17. > :25:22.arriving at incidents. Protection and prevention work will

:25:23. > :25:26.significantly fall. This will result in fewer school visits and fire

:25:27. > :25:28.alarm checks for the elderly. What a chilling vision for the future of

:25:29. > :25:39.our Fire Service. Would she agree with me that this

:25:40. > :25:43.proposal, if you combine it with the 17% cuts that have already been seen

:25:44. > :25:47.in the service across the country, could lead to quite a risky

:25:48. > :25:53.situation for many vulnerable households? She is absolutely right,

:25:54. > :26:01.and I will come to that substantially in my speech a little

:26:02. > :26:06.later. I will give way. I listened to the quotations and I would be

:26:07. > :26:12.chilled if any part of what was said there was actually factually true.

:26:13. > :26:17.If there was an attempt to combine the emergency services, fire and

:26:18. > :26:24.police, we would have moved to one funding stream. I categorically rule

:26:25. > :26:30.that out. This sort of scaremongering is actually flawed.

:26:31. > :26:38.There was a separate funding stream from the police and the only piece

:26:39. > :26:43.that will be amalgamated, should the PCCs be doing, is in the

:26:44. > :26:51.administrative, back office side. But should a PCC take over the Fire

:26:52. > :26:57.Service, we will have a person whose main attention is on policing, and

:26:58. > :27:01.all that policing is, because policing is something that the media

:27:02. > :27:06.does focus on more than does the Fire Service. The Fire Service will

:27:07. > :27:09.be secondary, and although the Minister rightly says, and I do not

:27:10. > :27:12.doubt him, that the two funding streams will be different, I do not

:27:13. > :27:19.know how long that will last. And nor does he, in truth, because

:27:20. > :27:22.things do move on. We have had Police and Crime Commissioners in

:27:23. > :27:26.the last Government, this Government is proposing police and crime and

:27:27. > :27:34.Fire Commissioners. What happens in a couple of years' time? I don't

:27:35. > :27:40.know, for I efficiency, budgets may well be merged. I just don't think

:27:41. > :27:46.that these proposals make any sense. A further risk is that these

:27:47. > :27:52.proposals will make mergers between Fire Services more difficult, which

:27:53. > :27:54.would be a real setback, as inter-fire mergers increase

:27:55. > :28:01.resilience and achieve significant savings. The 2007 merger of the

:28:02. > :28:07.Devon and Somerset Fire Services was supposed to deliver ?3 million of

:28:08. > :28:16.savings in the first five years. It actually bettered that target by

:28:17. > :28:20.?600,000. The Minister will no that Martin and hell, the independent PCC

:28:21. > :28:24.for Dorset, I have had -- tried to keep this politically neutral, has

:28:25. > :28:31.said that he has no interest in running the Fire Service. Why?

:28:32. > :28:35.Because Dorset and Wiltshire Fire Service have undergone a merger that

:28:36. > :28:42.proposes to bring significant savings and increase resilience in

:28:43. > :28:47.that area. He does not want to interfere with the process, and he

:28:48. > :28:54.is really wary that his office does not have responsibility for

:28:55. > :28:59.Wiltshire. I admire this decision, made by Mr Underhill. But how many

:29:00. > :29:05.potential mergers between Fire Services will not even be considered

:29:06. > :29:10.as a result of BCC takeovers and the need for coal terminal city? -- PCC.

:29:11. > :29:15.Mergers, which I remind them Minister, until a few months ago,

:29:16. > :29:19.this Government trumpeted as key to the future of the Fire Service. They

:29:20. > :29:24.are now going to, sadly, slip off the agenda. And I know this

:29:25. > :29:29.particular argument I'm about to make does not have much sympathy

:29:30. > :29:36.with the Minister, but I am a brave soul! A large proportion of the work

:29:37. > :29:40.carried out by the Fire Service is preventative. There is a danger that

:29:41. > :29:44.these proposals will make this preventative work a little more

:29:45. > :29:49.difficult. It is a humanitarian service. We need to be honest. The

:29:50. > :29:55.Police Service is not a humanitarian service. The two services are seen

:29:56. > :30:00.differently by some communities, and these proposals could make the Fire

:30:01. > :30:05.Service's preventative work more difficult. There are some people who

:30:06. > :30:11.would not welcome a policeman into their home without a warrant. Police

:30:12. > :30:18.officers turning up at your door can be a scary experience. Firefighters

:30:19. > :30:22.go into people's homes and work spaces and check that smoke alarms

:30:23. > :30:26.and electrical appliances are safe. They fit sprinklers and even look

:30:27. > :30:31.for worrying signs that might concern other services, like the NHS

:30:32. > :30:36.and cancel Care Services Minister up this preventative work is not an

:30:37. > :30:41.add-on to the Fire Service's work, it is at the core of what they do,

:30:42. > :30:49.keeping people safe. So they do not have to rescue them further down the

:30:50. > :30:53.line. I give way. I do not quite understand, well, I think I do but I

:30:54. > :30:58.do not think it is there, why she is completing operational work that the

:30:59. > :31:04.police do, with operational work that the Fire Service do. Of course

:31:05. > :31:08.we do a lot of work together, particularly at RTCs, but there is

:31:09. > :31:18.nothing within this bill that would conflict the two. -- conflict. First

:31:19. > :31:23.of all, we will not have equal partners, because we do have a big

:31:24. > :31:26.service and a small service. But secondly, in the minds of some of

:31:27. > :31:31.our communities, the police and the Fire Service will become one and the

:31:32. > :31:35.same. They have one boss. There will be an anxiety that coming through

:31:36. > :31:42.the door to fix a smoke alarm might have a different... What is the I'm

:31:43. > :31:52.looking for? Over Troon? Agenda, that will do! Thank you. --

:31:53. > :31:56.overtone. In London, which has a Mayor, the mayoral system will be

:31:57. > :32:00.taking over far, there is the same concern in London and Manchester,

:32:01. > :32:08.because the Labour candidate for Manchester once the powers as a

:32:09. > :32:12.Metro member. -- Metro Mayor. In London, the service is run by a

:32:13. > :32:17.Mayor and elected councillors. It is not run by an individual whose other

:32:18. > :32:21.job is to be the Police Commissioner. I do think that there

:32:22. > :32:28.is a difference and I think our communities will think there is a

:32:29. > :32:32.difference. We cannot proscribe for how people think and worry about,

:32:33. > :32:39.but this is a concern that has been raised with me. And let's face it,

:32:40. > :32:47.if we move on from this contentious paragraph... OK. Would the

:32:48. > :32:51.honourable lady not accept that her comments could be interpreted by the

:32:52. > :32:55.police as quite insulting, because they do a lot of preventative and

:32:56. > :33:01.humanitarian work, and this admission she has made is something

:33:02. > :33:04.that she knows comes right of the FBU's consultation document, which I

:33:05. > :33:06.also thought was quite insulting to the great work our police officers

:33:07. > :33:13.do in the very areas she highlighted. The police I meet on my

:33:14. > :33:18.doorstep sand on is our very pragmatic. They do understand the

:33:19. > :33:21.sensitivity is that some communities have, they do treat some of my

:33:22. > :33:27.refugee communities with extraordinary sensitivity in order

:33:28. > :33:31.to overcome the natural barrier that is there. But that -- what I am

:33:32. > :33:35.saying is that there is a natural barrier, this is no slur on our

:33:36. > :33:39.police force, they are an enforcement agency, it is not really

:33:40. > :33:48.a humanitarian service. They are there to implement the law. Let's

:33:49. > :33:54.move on. And the Minister is not passing over a service that does not

:33:55. > :34:00.have some difficulties. The Fire and Rescue Service has been subject to a

:34:01. > :34:07.cumulative cash cut of 200 bed is it million pounds since 2010. 12.5%.

:34:08. > :34:17.And of course, there is more to come. Does the whip want to

:34:18. > :34:24.intervene? I think not. I thought I would give him a chance. I think my

:34:25. > :34:29.college was time to say that perhaps we should not wash over the debacle

:34:30. > :34:31.and the huge costs of the regional fire control centres like the

:34:32. > :34:38.previous Labour administration forced on the Fire Service. Is it?

:34:39. > :34:41.Because when I was a whip, I was told that I should be seen and not

:34:42. > :34:49.heard. I'm sure he didn't really want to intervene on me at all. The

:34:50. > :34:53.issue about fire centres, regional fire control centres, is a well

:34:54. > :34:57.crashed out one in this chamber. There were a myriad of reasons why

:34:58. > :35:01.it did not work, but it did not work and I will accept that. But let us

:35:02. > :35:12.go back to what this Government has been doing. We are in 2006... 26 --

:35:13. > :35:16.2016, it feels like they have been there forever. The Fire Service has

:35:17. > :35:24.been subject to a tumour that of cash cut, of ?236 million since

:35:25. > :35:30.2010. 12.5%. And of course, there is more to come. We know from the local

:35:31. > :35:35.government funding settlement that Fire and Rescue Services are

:35:36. > :35:41.expected to cut spending by a further ?135 million by the end of

:35:42. > :35:48.the Parliament. A stretched service is going to be squeezed even

:35:49. > :35:52.further. 7600 firefighters have already been lost as a result of

:35:53. > :35:57.these cuts. The Government has repeatedly ignored warnings that

:35:58. > :36:04.these cuts might be putting services at risk. These proposals will not

:36:05. > :36:07.protect a single firefighter's job, or put a single pirate --

:36:08. > :36:14.firefighter back in service. I have been told by fire chiefs that their

:36:15. > :36:18.services will not be viable under the Government's proposed spending

:36:19. > :36:23.plans and I am sure they have told the Minister exactly the same thing.

:36:24. > :36:31.The national audit of this calculated that there was a 30%

:36:32. > :36:38.reduction -- National Audit Office in the at a time spent on home far

:36:39. > :36:44.checks. That is huge. -- fire checks. They said the Government

:36:45. > :36:50.had, and I quote, no idea what impact this reduction would have on

:36:51. > :36:56.public safety. The National Audit Office also stated that, as the

:36:57. > :37:01.Government refused to model the risk of cuts, they may only know that a

:37:02. > :37:08.service has been cut too far after the fact. That is, after public

:37:09. > :37:13.safety will stop after the lives of the public have been put at risk. I

:37:14. > :37:19.was not surprised, although I am dismayed, to see the latest in

:37:20. > :37:24.English by a stats. Stats that cover the period between April and

:37:25. > :37:32.September 2015. These statistics showed that there were 139 fire

:37:33. > :37:42.related fatalities during that time. 31 more than during the same period

:37:43. > :37:46.in 2014. There were 1685 nonfatal fire casualties that resulted in

:37:47. > :37:55.hospital treatment, a 10% increase from 2014. Fire and Rescue Services

:37:56. > :38:02.attended around 93,200 fires, 7% higher than in 2014. Madam Deputy

:38:03. > :38:08.Speaker, this Government has cut the Fire Service, cut firefighters and

:38:09. > :38:14.seen a massive reduction in the preventative work undertaken. And I

:38:15. > :38:20.know we are talking about a spike over the course of just a couple of

:38:21. > :38:26.quarters, but there are statistical signs there that the service might

:38:27. > :38:31.be feeling the full effects of the cuts that have occurred. So, what

:38:32. > :38:35.does this Government du? Does it stop the cuts while they undertake a

:38:36. > :38:39.proper risk assessment? Does it begin to develop minimum standards

:38:40. > :38:45.for the numbers of stations, firefighters and four preventative

:38:46. > :38:51.work? No, this Government wants to pass the responsibility to PCCs, who

:38:52. > :38:59.have had to deal with similar cuts to police budgets, and who have lost

:39:00. > :39:05.12,000 front line police officers. The Government is not even assessing

:39:06. > :39:11.what level of funding PCCs would need to maintain resilience and keep

:39:12. > :39:20.the public safe. This is a good line. By passing the buck with out

:39:21. > :39:28.the box, the Government would be asking PCCs, who will be new to the

:39:29. > :39:31.Fire Service, and its complexity, to undertake further potentially

:39:32. > :39:35.dangerous cutbacks. -- without the backs. They will not know what the

:39:36. > :39:41.risks are, because the Government has refused to model it. That is why

:39:42. > :39:46.we have laid Amendment 20, which would require the Home Secretary to

:39:47. > :39:50.carry out an assessment of the funding, the level of funding Fire

:39:51. > :39:57.Services need to keep the public safe. Our fire and rescue

:39:58. > :40:02.authorities are trusted experts on the Fire Service. The councillors

:40:03. > :40:07.who served often have years of experience and a genuine, deep

:40:08. > :40:12.knowledge and judgment gained by overseeing the strategic direction

:40:13. > :40:17.of Fire Services in their area. Given the Trust and respect the

:40:18. > :40:22.local Fire authorities have, allowing PCCs to take over a Fire

:40:23. > :40:27.and Rescue Service without their support runs a clear risk of

:40:28. > :40:31.employees and the public purse eating newly empowered PCCs as a

:40:32. > :40:42.central imposition. Our amendment would ensure we're a

:40:43. > :40:49.PCC state or a pie and rescue service they can only do so with the

:40:50. > :40:57.approval of the elected representatives or alternatively by

:40:58. > :41:02.local people through a referendum. The Government is presenting their

:41:03. > :41:08.reforms as part of the local list agenda. But what sort of localism is

:41:09. > :41:13.it that allows the secretary of state to impose her well against

:41:14. > :41:19.local objections? I guess it is the same sort of localism that is

:41:20. > :41:25.driving the forced a capitalisation of schools. The localism that

:41:26. > :41:29.portrays an utter distrust and content for local government and

:41:30. > :41:33.elected councillors. If the Government does not trust local

:41:34. > :41:38.authorities, and it seems clear they do not, perhaps they would be

:41:39. > :41:42.pleased our amendment allowed the decision to go directly to the

:41:43. > :41:47.people via a referendum. I presume the Government does trust of the

:41:48. > :41:51.electorate? It is a very interesting point she is raising about this

:41:52. > :41:56.local referendum and I wonder if she could tell the house what the cost

:41:57. > :42:02.would be for each fire and rescue authority and who would pay? She has

:42:03. > :42:07.expressed concerns about budgets for Fire and rescue authorities and if

:42:08. > :42:12.they were the ones to beat it would seem more firefighters removed from

:42:13. > :42:18.the front line? The referendum would take place on the same day as any

:42:19. > :42:23.local council election. We would not want to see an election prohibited

:42:24. > :42:28.by costs. As for where those costs should lie they should lie with the

:42:29. > :42:31.Government. They are the proposal of these changes. If the honourable

:42:32. > :42:38.gentleman wanted someone else to pay, then maybe the Government's

:42:39. > :42:46.arm, the PCC, might be as their budgets are larger than any Fire

:42:47. > :42:52.authority. I wonder if you could sell the house what the amendment

:42:53. > :42:55.would do, who would actually pay for this amendment. And the second point

:42:56. > :43:04.is what estimate has she made on the cost? One of the joys of being in

:43:05. > :43:07.opposition is that one must do one's wok oneself, one does not have a

:43:08. > :43:17.phalanx of Wellington employees to do their work for them. I would need

:43:18. > :43:23.to rely on the Government and its civil servants to help us to work

:43:24. > :43:28.out the cost. If the cost beer became prohibitive I could suggest

:43:29. > :43:38.they drop this silly idea altogether and save the money. The gentleman

:43:39. > :43:43.over here. I have sat patiently in number of times when she has

:43:44. > :43:54.referred to elected councillors on to fire authorities. Can she clarify

:43:55. > :44:00.that there are no elected councillors who are elected on to

:44:01. > :44:04.the fire authority in London, which covers her constituency, or indeed

:44:05. > :44:10.in the vast majority of Fire authorities around the country, not

:44:11. > :44:15.one? Do you know, I am wondering what kind of the benches opposite

:44:16. > :44:20.are having with their local councillors. I can only imagine it

:44:21. > :44:28.angered. Every time I raised this issue there are anxieties about the

:44:29. > :44:34.genuine nature of locally elected members. I can only say I have a

:44:35. > :44:40.much better relationship, not only with my councillors, but with a GLA

:44:41. > :44:43.councillors. They are elected, they face the electorate, they are

:44:44. > :44:52.elected on to a body that places them up on a body that is

:44:53. > :44:58.responsible for Fire, just like the place then, give them

:44:59. > :45:04.responsibilities for social services, education etc. It is the

:45:05. > :45:08.same process. I support democracy and my democratically elected

:45:09. > :45:13.councillors who are doing a jolly good job in difficult times to keep

:45:14. > :45:15.services going and I do think the benches opposite should not

:45:16. > :45:23.denigrate their local councillors quite so much. I assume it is

:45:24. > :45:27.entirely my mistake and I probably did not make my question clear

:45:28. > :45:35.enough and take full responsibility for that. Can she name which members

:45:36. > :45:41.were the local councillors or assembly members who are elected by

:45:42. > :45:51.the people of Newham, to sit on the fire authority? And a London the

:45:52. > :45:55.people of Newham elect GLA councillor, the GLA councillors then

:45:56. > :45:59.determine which part of the work they undertake. I don't see that

:46:00. > :46:06.there's a problem, it is the same as a new ham when we elect 60 Labour

:46:07. > :46:11.councillors, zero anybody else councillors and we then get them

:46:12. > :46:16.jobs to look after social services, education, recreation etc. It is the

:46:17. > :46:22.same issue and I can tell you the name of the councillor who has got

:46:23. > :46:27.the fire we met in my counsel. House name is Brian Collier. A wonderful

:46:28. > :46:36.blog and has been doing it for decades. Lots of knowledge. I thank

:46:37. > :46:42.the Shadow Minister for giving way. As someone who was the councillor

:46:43. > :46:46.until this point last month I know the appreciation of local government

:46:47. > :46:51.what it is a strange understanding of democracy when the shadow

:46:52. > :46:55.minister seemed to prefer the patronage of local council group

:46:56. > :47:03.leaders to the direct mandate being elected to a body by voters. I am

:47:04. > :47:10.bemused by the benches opposite and the contempt in which they show to

:47:11. > :47:15.local councils. I hope, for his own sake, he does not have a Tory lead

:47:16. > :47:20.local authority waiting for him to come back on Thursday. If I was a

:47:21. > :47:23.member of his Council I would be sitting on his doorstep with

:47:24. > :47:34.thinking that the word because it is really not on. -- waiting to have

:47:35. > :47:39.the word. I don't even know where I've got two. Rights, if the

:47:40. > :47:44.Government doesn't trust local councillors, and it seemed clear

:47:45. > :47:47.they do not, perhaps they will be pleased to accept our amendment,

:47:48. > :47:54.which gives the decision about whether to place PCCs in control of

:47:55. > :47:58.Fire Services directly to the electorate. These reforms are

:47:59. > :48:05.fundamentally about the transfer of power from the collective democratic

:48:06. > :48:11.representation of local councils to a single individual. The creation of

:48:12. > :48:15.many mailers across England. The minister knows best to be true, he

:48:16. > :48:21.knows there is no democratic mandate for it, none at all if the accept

:48:22. > :48:26.our amendment he can write that wrong and make sure each local

:48:27. > :48:33.community can decide for themselves what is in the best interest of

:48:34. > :48:38.their Fire and Rescue Service, a real localism agenda. Clause 20 will

:48:39. > :48:43.never Fire Services in England a statutory responsibility to deal

:48:44. > :48:48.with flooding. As is already the case in Scotland and Northern

:48:49. > :48:53.Ireland. In December we sought much of the north of England devastated

:48:54. > :48:58.by flooding. Many homes were flooded, bridges connecting

:48:59. > :49:02.communities were washed away, major roads are blocked and in Lancaster,

:49:03. > :49:07.a substation was flooded, leaving tens of thousands of homes without

:49:08. > :49:14.power. In December alone firefighters responded to more than

:49:15. > :49:19.1400 for across the North West. On Boxing Day 1000 people were rescued

:49:20. > :49:22.in greater Manchester. The work of our fire fighters was brilliant

:49:23. > :49:30.during those typical days and I am sure both sides of the house would

:49:31. > :49:33.agree with that, if nothing else. However, Fire Services have

:49:34. > :49:37.expressed concern they were not properly equipped to deal with that

:49:38. > :49:45.situation and the lack the basic kits like boats and dry suits. It is

:49:46. > :49:51.not good enough and I think it stems from the fact it is currently

:49:52. > :49:56.unclear who holds the primary responsibility to respond to floods.

:49:57. > :50:00.When a flooding is not formally the responsibility of any service it

:50:01. > :50:04.will not be given the priority it deserves and budgeting and planning.

:50:05. > :50:09.If we are going to continue to ask the Fire Service to deal with major

:50:10. > :50:13.incidents like flooding we should say so in this place is so proper

:50:14. > :50:19.provisions have been made for them to comprehensively prepare for

:50:20. > :50:24.incidents. Stories of volunteers and the Army being brought them might be

:50:25. > :50:28.a part one week but it is no substitute for it properly organised

:50:29. > :50:39.and funded rescue service. Before I punished, I would like to -- before

:50:40. > :50:47.I finish, I would like to touch on privatisation. The minister Des...

:50:48. > :50:57.What can I say? The minister Des did give us -- did give us their

:50:58. > :51:06.categorical assurances there would not be any movement on this issue

:51:07. > :51:09.and that is why we have not put down any amendments on privatisation at

:51:10. > :51:15.all. I am going to hold the Minister to this word but I am sure possibly

:51:16. > :51:20.people who are in other place might want to just do a bit of digging

:51:21. > :51:25.make sure I am right and he is right that there can be no privatisation

:51:26. > :51:32.of our Fire Service under this legislation. Thank you, Madam Deputy

:51:33. > :51:42.Speaker. Statutory duty on flooding. The question is new clause 28 read a

:51:43. > :51:47.second time. -- new clause 20. I would like to speak amendment two,

:51:48. > :51:51.table in my name and several other than honourable and right honourable

:51:52. > :52:00.members. Part one set of measures being taken to encourage greater

:52:01. > :52:05.collaboration between emergency services. Specifically, closes at

:52:06. > :52:10.six and seven give police and crime commission is the opportunity to

:52:11. > :52:13.extend their responsibilities to include Fire And Rescue Services.

:52:14. > :52:17.This is an extension I have been calling for some time and security

:52:18. > :52:23.debate in Westminster Hall last year. As I said, I welcome the

:52:24. > :52:29.inclusion of these clauses within the bill. The introduction of police

:52:30. > :52:35.and crime commissioners and 2012 has created greater transparency and

:52:36. > :52:40.democratic accountability in policing. With police and crime

:52:41. > :52:45.commissioners replacing what were unelected and unaccountable police

:52:46. > :52:48.authorities. Extending the responsibilities of Police and Crime

:52:49. > :52:54.Commissioners to include that of Fire and rescue authorities will

:52:55. > :53:01.mirror these benefits. Whilst Fire and rescue authorities are made up

:53:02. > :53:06.of elected councillors, they are not directly accountable to the public.

:53:07. > :53:11.But the specific roles as they are appointed to these positions. As I

:53:12. > :53:14.have said before in this house that is very different and should not be

:53:15. > :53:21.confused with democratic accountability. The introduction of

:53:22. > :53:28.directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners mean the public can

:53:29. > :53:32.scrutinise their performance and priorities and they can exercise

:53:33. > :53:36.their approval or disapproval at the ballot box. The public will get

:53:37. > :53:41.their chance to decide on the performance of the first batch of

:53:42. > :53:46.Police and Crime Commissioners on the mess that it might 1st of May.

:53:47. > :53:49.It is absolutely right in the guardianship of the Fire And Rescue

:53:50. > :53:54.Services should be directly accountable to the public and I

:53:55. > :53:57.believe that given the synergies of the two services it is logical

:53:58. > :54:05.Police and Crime Commissioners take on this responsibility as well. I

:54:06. > :54:13.will happily give way. Which she agreed with me that far from

:54:14. > :54:18.overlooking the attributes of our firefighters, would it not be the

:54:19. > :54:23.case that it would be an advantage to local communities if the highly

:54:24. > :54:27.trusted and experienced firefighter was given the opportunity to extend

:54:28. > :54:36.their prevented the remit do things like crime prevention advice as well

:54:37. > :54:40.as fire prevention advice? I thank my friend for his intervention as

:54:41. > :54:43.this is about the extension of collaboration and prevention does

:54:44. > :54:48.extend across our emergency services. Amendment to is designed

:54:49. > :54:52.to provide greater clarification for the public in front of the role of

:54:53. > :54:58.the police and crime commissioners. If they take on the responsibility

:54:59. > :55:04.of Fire And Rescue Services I believe it is important the public

:55:05. > :55:08.are clear that this intervention is responsible for the police service

:55:09. > :55:12.and Fire and Rescue Service. I have called for this type of change

:55:13. > :55:16.before and I believe this will help to address some of the concerns that

:55:17. > :55:24.were raised at second reading and income committee stage. But this is

:55:25. > :55:28.a police take. Under the legislation the services will remain

:55:29. > :55:34.operationally distinct and precepts distinct. To be clear, there is no

:55:35. > :55:36.suggestion that police officers will be fighting fires or firefighters

:55:37. > :55:47.arresting criminals. The legislation simply reforms the

:55:48. > :55:49.governments of the two services and ensures one democratically

:55:50. > :55:53.accountable individual has responsibility for the two services.

:55:54. > :55:58.Whilst the bill is designed to be flexible and does not mandate the

:55:59. > :56:02.lease and crime commission is taking on responsibility for Fire and

:56:03. > :56:05.Rescue Services -- Police and Crime Commissioner, but only where a local

:56:06. > :56:10.case is made, I do believe there is a need to ensure the new title is

:56:11. > :56:14.one that is nationally recognised. It is for this reason that amendment

:56:15. > :56:20.two gives the Secretary of State the power to make this title change in

:56:21. > :56:25.secondary legislation at a future point in time. The danger of leaving

:56:26. > :56:29.the decision in the hands of individual Police and Crime

:56:30. > :56:32.Commissioners who have taken on the extended responsibilities, is that

:56:33. > :56:38.we could find in the future a patchwork of different titles used

:56:39. > :56:42.across the country. Which would create real conflict -- confusion

:56:43. > :56:47.for the public at future election. In order to continue to increase the

:56:48. > :56:51.profile of these nationwide roles, and elections, we need to ensure

:56:52. > :56:58.clarity in the title, and hence this amendment. The amendment does not

:56:59. > :57:03.state what the title should be. It leaves it in the hands of the

:57:04. > :57:06.Secretary of State. There are many different titles that could be used

:57:07. > :57:10.and I have mentioned several myself in previous debates in the House.

:57:11. > :57:15.But I am sure the Secretary of State would like to consult on the title

:57:16. > :57:20.to ensure that it is appropriate and clear and not misleading in any way.

:57:21. > :57:23.This would also give various different organisations and

:57:24. > :57:27.individuals the opportunity to make their representations. This

:57:28. > :57:33.amendment might not be brought into the bill at this stage, as it is

:57:34. > :57:38.meant in a way that when the Minister does come to the dispatch

:57:39. > :57:41.box, it would be for him to provide clarity as to what discussions he

:57:42. > :57:47.has had with his department regarding a title change, his views

:57:48. > :57:51.and intentions as the bill continues to progress through the House. Thank

:57:52. > :57:59.you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Kate Hoey. I Reister support in

:58:00. > :58:03.particular new clause 20, which I think has been something that we

:58:04. > :58:07.have had discussions after discussion about over the years and

:58:08. > :58:13.I declare my interest as chairing the FBU group in Parliament, that is

:58:14. > :58:17.one of the issues this statutory duty giving the Fire and Rescue

:58:18. > :58:25.Service a statutory responsibility for leading the emergency services

:58:26. > :58:29.in response to flooding, we have had meeting over -- after meeting with

:58:30. > :58:33.DEFRA ministers who all said they supported it, with ministers from

:58:34. > :58:38.different departments, then it goes so far, then suddenly it stops.

:58:39. > :58:42.Clearly, there is a Treasury argument here somewhere. But I just

:58:43. > :58:47.feel very strongly, and we have seen increasingly over the past few

:58:48. > :58:51.years, the increase in floods, and the way in which our Fire and Rescue

:58:52. > :58:57.Services have responded. It seems to me quite wrong that when we rely on

:58:58. > :59:05.them, and just looking at the data over the worst areas last year, 34

:59:06. > :59:09.Fire and Rescue Services provided assistance in the areas worst

:59:10. > :59:14.affected, and the data collected by the FBU, and they do a very, very

:59:15. > :59:20.good job in getting this data from individual Fire and Rescue Services,

:59:21. > :59:26.firefighters had responded to at least 1400 flood incidents across

:59:27. > :59:31.north west England and 450 incidents in Yorkshire. The firefighters, and

:59:32. > :59:35.we saw them all on our television screens and we saw our politicians

:59:36. > :59:39.lining up to thank them and say how brave they had been and how

:59:40. > :59:42.wonderful they were, we saw the firefighters rescuing people from a

:59:43. > :59:48.wide range of hazardous situations, evacuating people in advance of what

:59:49. > :59:51.floods were coming, as well as all the other various emergency

:59:52. > :59:57.interventions. It does seem a bit strange that we give that great

:59:58. > :00:01.praise to our firefighters were doing something that we

:00:02. > :00:06.automatically expect them to do and local people expect them to do, and

:00:07. > :00:11.yet, we do not make it a statutory part of their responsibilities. A

:00:12. > :00:16.statutory responsibility for leading the emergency services. I can only

:00:17. > :00:20.assume that the reason for that is that they will not want to spend

:00:21. > :00:26.perhaps what might be some extra resources in ensuring that those

:00:27. > :00:31.firefighters and all the rescue services are properly equipped. We

:00:32. > :00:36.had some terrible examples of firefighters not having the right

:00:37. > :00:39.equipment, not having the right safety prevention equipment with

:00:40. > :00:45.them, not being able to do things in the way that, yes, they did it, but

:00:46. > :00:51.in a way that was actually making them not have the right coverage in

:00:52. > :00:57.clothing, and running out of things in certain areas. I think that is

:00:58. > :01:01.wrong, and I just generally, do not understand, and the Minister, I

:01:02. > :01:05.hope, will come and say, and I'm sure he did support this at one

:01:06. > :01:10.time, I'm sure he wonders -- he was one of those many ministers who

:01:11. > :01:14.supported it that when they get into positions of having to make the

:01:15. > :01:17.decision or are allowed to have involvement in the decision, they

:01:18. > :01:24.seem to change the minds. So I hope we will have the opportunity to

:01:25. > :01:31.support that in a vote today. On the other issues, very briefly, I share

:01:32. > :01:36.the shadow front bench position very much on the issue of the PCCs. There

:01:37. > :01:39.is no public appetite, I have not seen anyone clamouring anywhere I

:01:40. > :01:45.have been around the country, clamouring to reform the way we

:01:46. > :01:51.govern our Fire Services, or transfer the responsibility to PCCs.

:01:52. > :02:00.Or any evidence, I have not heard any evidence today from anyone,

:02:01. > :02:03.including, perhaps we might hear it from the Minister, that there is a

:02:04. > :02:07.problem with the current governance arrangements, and I am not

:02:08. > :02:12.convinced, and I have heard no one convince me of this, that it will

:02:13. > :02:16.actually deliver economic, efficient or effective different types of

:02:17. > :02:20.emergency service. Nor will it actually help in any way to improve

:02:21. > :02:26.public safety. We all want the coordination, and I welcome the fact

:02:27. > :02:29.that in some parts of the country, that corporation has gone further

:02:30. > :02:32.than in other parts of the country, and the honourable member from the

:02:33. > :02:39.front bench said that we want to see more of that, but we do not need to

:02:40. > :02:46.bring it in in this way. It is very top-down and totally, totally

:02:47. > :02:51.anti-democratic. I do believe, and I don't feel ashamed of saying this at

:02:52. > :02:53.all, I do believe that firefighters and police officers perform very

:02:54. > :02:59.different roles and that does not mean to say we do not value the

:03:00. > :03:04.roles both equally, but from very different roles, and they have

:03:05. > :03:08.different units. A police officer is seen as a legal person, someone who

:03:09. > :03:15.is actually there to uphold the law. A firefighter or anyone involved in

:03:16. > :03:21.the rescue services is seen very, very differently, and again, that

:03:22. > :03:28.single employer would begin to confuse that in the public mind. I

:03:29. > :03:32.think the work that firefighters do in preventative work, the way that

:03:33. > :03:37.they are trusted implicitly, completely, by the public, could

:03:38. > :03:43.well be jeopardised if these changes go through. Finally, the bill, and

:03:44. > :03:51.this does nothing at all to invest in actually the Fire and Rescue

:03:52. > :03:56.Services in terms of resources, and I have mentioned already the work

:03:57. > :04:01.that goes into large-scale flooding incidents and providing emergency

:04:02. > :04:06.medical response, and I think that is where the Government should be

:04:07. > :04:09.focusing, to putting the extras Usos -- resources, into these kind of

:04:10. > :04:13.initiatives that will actually be able to make those changes and those

:04:14. > :04:19.coordination matters happen. I give way. I'm sure my friend Matt would

:04:20. > :04:25.agree with me that this is more of saving money -- my honourable

:04:26. > :04:32.friend, and I think she probably knows that there has been a shift

:04:33. > :04:42.from the local authorities, and eventually we will get a situation

:04:43. > :04:46.where we have been here before, local authorities are hit hard.

:04:47. > :04:53.There is no doubt about it, this is a form of cost-cutting exercise,

:04:54. > :04:57.which I accept that everybody in these days have to have constraints

:04:58. > :05:01.on the public purse, as far as possible. But there are ways of

:05:02. > :05:06.doing that, and this way is one of those kind of bureaucratic ways that

:05:07. > :05:10.seem to have been brought in by, I imagine, people who have had this

:05:11. > :05:13.idea for a long time and have seen their opportunity to push it

:05:14. > :05:18.forward. I do think that the Government should not be pursuing

:05:19. > :05:24.these kind of most ideological ways of trying to save money, but

:05:25. > :05:28.actually, looking at ways of improving and ensuring that our

:05:29. > :05:32.emergency services coordinate well together. So, process of

:05:33. > :05:37.transferring responsibility to a PCC I think is wrong, I think it is one

:05:38. > :05:46.of those things where we have a valuable, popular, a service that

:05:47. > :05:50.has the confidence of the public, and we should be very, very wary of

:05:51. > :05:54.making those changes that I think will have a detrimental effect, not

:05:55. > :06:00.just on how the public see it, but also on its effectiveness out in the

:06:01. > :06:04.countryside, and I hope we will be able to make some changes to this

:06:05. > :06:07.and that members will actually vote when they get the opportunity to put

:06:08. > :06:20.a stop to what I think it's something that is very wrong indeed.

:06:21. > :06:27.Madam Deputy Speaker, apologies, I leapt to my feet rather more quickly

:06:28. > :06:37.than colleagues anticipated! I'm very keen to speak, having served

:06:38. > :06:44.both on the bill committee for this bill, but also having served for a

:06:45. > :06:51.number of years as the chair of the London Fire and emergency planning

:06:52. > :06:56.authority. So, I feel I do speak with a fair degree of authority on

:06:57. > :07:01.the invitations of different governance models. Having gone

:07:02. > :07:07.through the process which we had to do in the planning of arty, making

:07:08. > :07:10.some fairly substantial changes -- planning of arty, making substantial

:07:11. > :07:16.changes to the London Fire Brigade, I saw first-hand the widespread

:07:17. > :07:20.misunderstanding of the governance arrangements both of the London Fire

:07:21. > :07:23.Brigade and ultimately through the London Fire authority to the Mayor,

:07:24. > :07:29.and that was reflected also more widely and more nationally. Now, I

:07:30. > :07:37.like clarity, I think that it is one of the cornerstones of democracy.

:07:38. > :07:41.That people can follow that golden thread from the decisions that they

:07:42. > :07:46.make at the ballot box, through to the people who make the decisions

:07:47. > :07:50.about the provision of their public services, then ultimately, on to the

:07:51. > :07:56.delivery of those very public services. I think it is important,

:07:57. > :07:59.because when things go right in the delivery of those public services,

:08:00. > :08:06.those people should know who they should reward at the ballot box.

:08:07. > :08:10.Just as importantly, perhaps indeed more importantly, if things do not

:08:11. > :08:18.go well, those voters should know who they should be able to punish at

:08:19. > :08:22.the ballot box. Now, this is, as I say, a cornerstone of the democratic

:08:23. > :08:30.model to which we all, I'm sure, subscriber. But what we had

:08:31. > :08:34.previously with police authorities was that there was a break in that

:08:35. > :08:43.golden thread. People fundamentally did not know who ran their police

:08:44. > :08:47.forces, they were probably aware of where their police headquarters

:08:48. > :08:51.were, I say probably and I'm being generous, because I suspect that in

:08:52. > :08:57.many parts of the country, people might have a vague idea that the

:08:58. > :09:04.police headquarters would be in the big town, the county town, so, my

:09:05. > :09:08.constituency were aware that the police headquarters was in John

:09:09. > :09:12.thread. But if pushed, -- Chelmsford. I would be surprised if

:09:13. > :09:16.many were able to name their Chief Constable. If pushed further, I

:09:17. > :09:20.would be absolutely amazed if any of them were able to name the local

:09:21. > :09:31.councillors who sat on the police authority. I will give way to the

:09:32. > :09:36.honourable lady. I quite agree with him that my mailbox is full of

:09:37. > :09:41.housing and other matters, but in relation to policing and fire, it is

:09:42. > :09:47.more anxiety, around the level of cuts and reductions that have been

:09:48. > :09:51.since 2010. What I would like is a reassurance that all of this

:09:52. > :09:56.meddling, just meddling around governance, is not going to lead to

:09:57. > :10:00.a further reduction in services for our crucial bobbies on the beat,

:10:01. > :10:03.firefighters that turn up on time and all the rest of those

:10:04. > :10:10.expectations which the community quite rightly has of our emergency

:10:11. > :10:14.services. My intention is to come later on in to this speech about

:10:15. > :10:19.some of the financial benefits that come with greater collaboration and

:10:20. > :10:24.co-working in the back of this. If you will bear with me, I will return

:10:25. > :10:25.to that. I did see a desire to intervene from the honourable

:10:26. > :10:33.gentleman. I thank my honourable friend for

:10:34. > :10:37.allowing me to bring him back to the point he was making about that

:10:38. > :10:42.people may know the Chief Constable at not the police authority. Would

:10:43. > :10:47.he agree with me one of the real benefits of the Police and Crime

:10:48. > :10:53.Commissioner is they will their PCC but they will know the act also be

:10:54. > :10:59.involved in setting priorities for policing and the area. If I think

:11:00. > :11:04.the forthcoming PCC elections and Lancashire, one of our top

:11:05. > :11:09.priorities is to rural crime. This is hugely important to the towns and

:11:10. > :11:14.villages in my constituency and the PCC elections have given us the

:11:15. > :11:19.opportunity to say OK, back at cybercrime, paddle speeding but also

:11:20. > :11:24.tackle rural claim and get people involved with their own policing. He

:11:25. > :11:29.raises a very important point that goes to the heart of the fundamental

:11:30. > :11:33.change in the relationship between the people in the local community

:11:34. > :11:39.and the police force that represent them. It gives them an opportunity

:11:40. > :11:43.periodically, once every four years or indeed sooner, and we have seen

:11:44. > :11:47.examples where the priorities and actions of a Police and Crime

:11:48. > :11:55.Commissioner, fallen foul or below the level of legitimate expectation

:11:56. > :12:01.and that person was then forced to stand down and a by-election was run

:12:02. > :12:05.which focus the minds of the lead people in west Yorkshire, if I

:12:06. > :12:11.remember rightly, about what the role of the PCC as, and it is that

:12:12. > :12:16.requirements to hold yourself to accounts in front of the electorate

:12:17. > :12:20.which goes to the heart of the success of the PCC model and it is a

:12:21. > :12:25.success I believe is important to extend the Fire and Rescue Service.

:12:26. > :12:31.I am grateful for the honourable gentleman giving way. The honourable

:12:32. > :12:33.lady opposite spoke about cuts but Cheshire's Police and Crime

:12:34. > :12:38.Commissioner has very successfully putting more officers on the front

:12:39. > :12:42.line, he is collaborating with his local Fire and Rescue Service where

:12:43. > :12:48.they will be called located in police headquarters and it is an

:12:49. > :12:53.example of where the operation is delivering more for this very

:12:54. > :12:57.effectively and end at way protecting people in Cheshire and in

:12:58. > :13:07.particular in my constituency. Us in a way. It reinforces the belief I

:13:08. > :13:13.have that for all the talk we have here in this chamber about what

:13:14. > :13:18.people want, all the evidence I have received, and we did extensive

:13:19. > :13:23.research during the changes we made to the London Fire Brigade and my

:13:24. > :13:32.former role, but what people really want is is the certainty that there

:13:33. > :13:39.will be a quality public provision when they meet its, where they need

:13:40. > :13:43.it and we should subordinate, we should release of ordinary

:13:44. > :13:50.structures to delivery of that agenda, and I believe that the

:13:51. > :13:54.changes proposed by the Government in this regard go a very long way to

:13:55. > :14:03.protect those structures. I will give way. He has the most generous

:14:04. > :14:06.in thinking that many interventions. Does he share the incredulity with

:14:07. > :14:12.the party opposite when they talk about cuts and if I'm not mistaken

:14:13. > :14:16.it was the Shadow Home Secretary who has gone on the record calling for

:14:17. > :14:27.10% cut in police budgets. I wonder if he would reflect on that very

:14:28. > :14:39.moment? My view is judge people by what they say and I know there is, I

:14:40. > :14:45.know there will be indignation on the benches opposite, but, as we

:14:46. > :14:55.have seen whether the party opposite was in Government, the delivery of

:14:56. > :15:01.public services is not necessarily, the quality of the delivery is not

:15:02. > :15:04.totally interwoven with the budgets allocated and indeed there is

:15:05. > :15:12.massive opportunities to get more with less then surely that should be

:15:13. > :15:16.the marker or performance. Bass track of performance. Can I just say

:15:17. > :15:21.to the honourable gentleman that this has been a better debate than

:15:22. > :15:26.that and the slower he is attempting to place on the side on a

:15:27. > :15:30.reasonably, is actually about our stance on the police services. --

:15:31. > :15:35.the slur he is attempting to place. It would be better if you read the

:15:36. > :15:42.whip's report more clearly before he intervenes. The point the honourable

:15:43. > :15:48.gentleman has put in an interesting and have some validity but London is

:15:49. > :15:54.rather different, I think, than outside of London. London is now and

:15:55. > :15:59.has been used to having a single seat of Government over decades,

:16:00. > :16:09.even though there were spaces in between when the GLC was disbanded.

:16:10. > :16:14.The reality is whenever our local constituents, if they don't know

:16:15. > :16:19.where to go to complain about a service or bring up an issue, at the

:16:20. > :16:27.end up at the door of our town halls, that is where they go. Before

:16:28. > :16:31.we proceed, interventions, with respect, the honourable lady as many

:16:32. > :16:43.points to make would-be house or two here, but interventions really do

:16:44. > :16:46.have to short. -- have to be short. London's exceptionalism is often

:16:47. > :16:50.held up as why things that happen in London can happen elsewhere, and I

:16:51. > :16:55.do not subscribe to that. Having served both in opposite in London

:16:56. > :17:00.and now serving the people Essex, there are many things we can learn

:17:01. > :17:04.from what a Conservative administration has done in London,

:17:05. > :17:08.that the Conservative administration nationally can learn from and I

:17:09. > :17:13.would also say that there are plenty of things that London could learn

:17:14. > :17:19.from other parts of the country, including my wonderful county of

:17:20. > :17:23.Essex. I will give way. He is making some very interesting arguments but

:17:24. > :17:27.in my experience in the West Midlands one of the problems you

:17:28. > :17:34.have if you leave the second back to one side, is the frequency of local

:17:35. > :17:38.superintendents, for example. It changes and the public but they get

:17:39. > :17:45.to know them winners in the past people were unable to identify who

:17:46. > :17:51.was in charge of the local -- were able to identify who was in charge

:17:52. > :17:54.and new law to go to. That is a fair point and I have had a number of

:17:55. > :18:00.people talk to me about the speed with which police officers move

:18:01. > :18:05.through posts. I am not disagreeing, I am going to drag myself back on to

:18:06. > :18:09.the point I was trying to make because I have inadvertently got

:18:10. > :18:13.myself speaking more of policing than Fire and rescue. I think it is

:18:14. > :18:20.legitimate because actually, what we have seen in London is there is a

:18:21. > :18:28.very clear line of accountability. Londoners may not know who their

:18:29. > :18:38.nearest, an adult use the word local, what fire authority member

:18:39. > :18:41.is. -- don't use the word local. The honourable lady mentions the local

:18:42. > :18:46.council and Newham Council denies responsibility for fire and safety,

:18:47. > :18:51.but that council does not set on the London Fire authority. The reason I

:18:52. > :18:55.intervened was I know who it said on the London Fire authority, I am

:18:56. > :18:59.probably one of the few people who does, either in this chamber or

:19:00. > :19:04.elsewhere and I know there is no person from the London of Newham

:19:05. > :19:09.elected or appointed on the London Fire authority. When the people you

:19:10. > :19:14.want to cast a judgment about the delivery of Fire Services in the

:19:15. > :19:21.borough, the only person who they can either be or punishment the

:19:22. > :19:25.ballot box is the Mayor of London. Who, we should remind ourselves,

:19:26. > :19:29.it's also the Police and Crime Commissioner for London. I wanted to

:19:30. > :19:37.address one of her point about the Fire Service being starved of

:19:38. > :19:40.resources to support what the honourable lady opposite felt was

:19:41. > :19:47.the higher profile policing service. After the changes the London Fire

:19:48. > :19:50.authority maids, the Mayor of London, who is the budget holder for

:19:51. > :19:58.both police and fire, made a commitment to protect the London

:19:59. > :20:01.Fire budgets, irrespective of the budgetary award from central

:20:02. > :20:07.Government. He was able to do so because he was able to flex his

:20:08. > :20:13.budgets between the two areas. Far from starving resources from Fire

:20:14. > :20:17.and rescue, to give the policing, in fact, what the mayor was able to do

:20:18. > :20:26.was protect Fire and rescue by dipping into his brother budgets. I

:20:27. > :20:28.fundamentally disagree that the Police and Crime Commissioner with

:20:29. > :20:34.responsibility for both policing and fire automatically rob Peter to pay

:20:35. > :20:40.Paul. That is reinforced by the fact, the Minister has stated that

:20:41. > :20:44.on a number of occasions, the budget lines are separate. I will touch

:20:45. > :20:51.upon, before I conclude, I will touch upon the concerns that were

:20:52. > :20:58.raised from the shadow front bench about the single employer model and

:20:59. > :21:08.the amendment that covers that. There are many instances where the

:21:09. > :21:18.employer has a very different types of employees, in terms of public

:21:19. > :21:21.sector delivery. Nobody confuses civil servants are at the Ministry

:21:22. > :21:27.of Defence with members of the Special Air Service. They are both

:21:28. > :21:30.ultimately employed by the same organisation but there is no

:21:31. > :21:37.confusion in the minds of the public they are, and indeed, any Fire and

:21:38. > :21:40.Rescue Service and the police force we have both uniformed and

:21:41. > :21:45.non-uniform member of staff. The police service, warranted officers,

:21:46. > :21:50.they have community support officers and they have an uniform civilian

:21:51. > :21:55.staff. They are all under the same employer and there is no public

:21:56. > :22:00.confusion about the different roles. The idea that somehow the public are

:22:01. > :22:03.too dim-witted or too slow on the uptake to tell the difference

:22:04. > :22:11.between a copper and a firefighter is I think is a argument which is so

:22:12. > :22:16.bereft of power it should really be disregarded. To conclude, Madam

:22:17. > :22:22.Deputy Speaker, the British people deserve to know who to punish or

:22:23. > :22:27.reward at the ballot box in relation to Fire and rescue because it is a

:22:28. > :22:35.vitally important public servers, just like policing. We will seek

:22:36. > :22:38.next week, I have no doubt, a much greater engagement and product for

:22:39. > :22:44.the PCC elections than previously because now people understand in

:22:45. > :22:48.more detail what they are voting for and scene where the police and crime

:22:49. > :22:57.commissioners have done well, as highlighted in Cheshire. -- where

:22:58. > :23:01.the PCCs have done well. And where the PCCs of the less well and it

:23:02. > :23:06.will be held to account at the ballot box, I am sure. In terms of

:23:07. > :23:11.Fire and rescue provision I think the British people deserve just is

:23:12. > :23:16.much a say in the delivery of that court public servers as they do in

:23:17. > :23:19.policing, so I am happy to support the Government in its position and I

:23:20. > :23:28.would call upon the house to reject the amendments put forward in the

:23:29. > :23:31.name of the Shadow minister. Madam Deputy Speaker, having sporting at

:23:32. > :23:37.the second reading and serve only Bill committee it is a pleasure to

:23:38. > :23:41.talk at report stage. What I want to initially address my comments at new

:23:42. > :23:49.clause 20 as proposed by the opposition. I think in its aim, the

:23:50. > :23:54.aim of making sure the response to flooding and Fire And Rescue

:23:55. > :23:58.Services to take the lead in that, I think is good, I disagree with the

:23:59. > :24:05.clause and I will go on to say why I don't think it is necessary. I was

:24:06. > :24:12.elected as the Conservative parliamentary candidate initially

:24:13. > :24:16.for Rossendale and Darwen in 2007 and on the 13th of January 20 17th

:24:17. > :24:24.it will be ten years since I was selected. In that period the village

:24:25. > :24:31.in my constituency I think has flooded four times. The village of

:24:32. > :24:39.Waterford 's, aptly named, has flooded three times, and quite well

:24:40. > :24:45.bottom has also flooded twice. Like so many towns and villages grown up

:24:46. > :24:51.around the industrial revolution, the towns and villages of the

:24:52. > :24:54.Rossendale and Darwen valleys are built on the valley floor so the

:24:55. > :24:59.manufacturers and industrialists of the day could take advantage of

:25:00. > :25:04.water power. We, like many other areas in the North West, have been

:25:05. > :25:08.subject to severe floods of the last ten years and not more so than on

:25:09. > :25:14.Boxing Day when we had what the Environment Agency referred to as a

:25:15. > :25:20.once in 75 year flood. Having had a once and 25 year flood a few years

:25:21. > :25:28.before that. I know, having been working closely with the residents,

:25:29. > :25:32.some for why they months on, who are still out of their homes, a huge

:25:33. > :25:37.impact flooding has an huge family disruption it can cause.

:25:38. > :25:45.One thing which was fantastic to see on Boxing Day, one ray of sunshine

:25:46. > :25:49.in what was a miserable day for so many, was the fantastic response not

:25:50. > :25:56.just of our Fire and Rescue Service, but of our police force, in other

:25:57. > :26:00.areas of Lancashire specifically, the army came out, in South Ribble,

:26:01. > :26:11.the army came out, and apparently, as the Ministry is indicating, in

:26:12. > :26:15.Wyre. Local people volunteer to help with the clean-up. That is why I'm

:26:16. > :26:20.not sure that putting a statutory duty on Fire and Rescue Services to

:26:21. > :26:25.always take the lead in a flooding situation would in fact work. When I

:26:26. > :26:28.speak to members of the Fire and Rescue Service in my own

:26:29. > :26:34.constituency, they do not need the Government to pass a law to tell

:26:35. > :26:39.them they are responsible for flood recovery and flooding help and

:26:40. > :26:42.prevention of loss of life. But knowing my own situation in

:26:43. > :26:48.Rossendale and Darwin, I could almost imagine a situation where the

:26:49. > :26:51.police would turn up first, the Environment Agency and their

:26:52. > :26:55.officers may even turn up first, or in some cases the Armed Forces. And

:26:56. > :27:00.it would feel that they were unable to take immediate action because a

:27:01. > :27:07.Fire Service were not there to take the lead. I will give way. He is

:27:08. > :27:12.making a very powerful case from personal experience. I wonder if he

:27:13. > :27:17.would agree the best course of action is more about flexibility,

:27:18. > :27:20.surely if someone has the skills and the wherewithal to tackle the

:27:21. > :27:23.situation when they are on the scene, they should be allowed to do

:27:24. > :27:30.so without fear of any legal recourse. I thank him for making

:27:31. > :27:34.that point. I think he makes the point I am seeking to make very

:27:35. > :27:37.clearly. I would just add that people should only try and prevent

:27:38. > :27:41.flooding or loss of life when it is safer to do so and they personally

:27:42. > :27:46.believe they have the capacity to deal with this situation, like

:27:47. > :27:50.members of the Armed Forces or in fact police officers. They are

:27:51. > :27:55.extremely brave. Or the Environment Agency or the water board. I just

:27:56. > :27:58.believe this clause would put an unnecessary straitjacket on the

:27:59. > :28:02.response to floods in Lancashire and while I support a lot of what it

:28:03. > :28:09.seeks to achieve, I think going that extra step of putting legislation is

:28:10. > :28:13.properly a step too far. -- probably. Just so I can update the

:28:14. > :28:16.House, the people of Rossendale are being well served and we have the

:28:17. > :28:25.impending visit of the flooding minister, who is coming to our well

:28:26. > :28:29.they'll on maven 13. I will make sure there are an angry mob there,

:28:30. > :28:33.but no one tell him, I had to keep it a secret! And make sure they talk

:28:34. > :28:37.to him about the response of the Environment Agency and I hope going

:28:38. > :28:40.forward that actually the Environment Agency may be able to

:28:41. > :28:48.take the lead in the Rossendale Valley, looking at the full

:28:49. > :28:58.catchment solution. In the mid-70s, we had a minister -- 1970, who is

:28:59. > :29:04.expected to bring the rain when it was necessary! But there are no

:29:05. > :29:08.drugs in Lancashire. If you want me to come to Coventry and do the rain

:29:09. > :29:13.dance, I am more than happy to do so if it is required! The second

:29:14. > :29:22.Amendment I wish to speak to his amendment two. Signed by honourable

:29:23. > :29:27.members across this House. Having been involved in this bill since

:29:28. > :29:31.second-leading, it is absolutely clear to me and I think probably

:29:32. > :29:36.everyone who has spoken on this bill or served on the committee that the

:29:37. > :29:42.recognition for Police and Crime Commissioners is at an all-time

:29:43. > :29:47.high. When we first went to the polls, on a wet November evening in

:29:48. > :29:50.my own constituency to collect the -- elect the Police and Crime

:29:51. > :29:54.Commissioner as I was knocking on people's doors telling them to come

:29:55. > :29:57.out and vote. I was met by blank faces, people did not know what the

:29:58. > :30:01.office was created for and did not understand what they were going to

:30:02. > :30:06.do. I think everyone who heard the evidence session on this bill, with

:30:07. > :30:10.some excellent contributions from Police and Crime Commissioners all

:30:11. > :30:15.over the country, would say that has certainly now changed. I may

:30:16. > :30:21.fundamentally disagree with a lot of the evidence that was given by Vera

:30:22. > :30:27.Bird at the committee, but I listened and I listen to Radio 4 in

:30:28. > :30:30.the morning and I often hear her on the radio, often beating of the

:30:31. > :30:36.Government, but she is raising the profile of PCCs. And I think the

:30:37. > :30:41.general public like the idea of having one individual that they can

:30:42. > :30:49.hold accountable for the performance of their local Police Service. The

:30:50. > :30:55.old police panel was remote, was appointed, and because of that was

:30:56. > :31:00.unaccountable. I compare this to the situation today with my own local

:31:01. > :31:06.PCC. He has taken the road show is all around the county of Lancashire

:31:07. > :31:12.and going out there and talking to people about what they would like

:31:13. > :31:16.their policing priorities to be over the next four years. I have to admit

:31:17. > :31:19.I am slightly sceptical about his new-found fondness for going out and

:31:20. > :31:25.meeting the public and it does seem a bit of a last ditch attempt for

:31:26. > :31:29.his re-election, and I hope that Andy Pratt, the Conservative

:31:30. > :31:34.candidate, a 30 year time served police officer, will win in

:31:35. > :31:37.Lancashire, so alike in many other areas of the country, including

:31:38. > :31:42.Cheshire and Staffordshire, including other areas, we can have

:31:43. > :31:48.our PCC all year round. Just not every four years at election... I

:31:49. > :31:53.give way. I ask my honourable friend, could he answered this

:31:54. > :32:03.question. If a member of the public has got a problem, are they no

:32:04. > :32:07.longer allowed to go to their police chief, rather, they have to go to

:32:08. > :32:14.the Police and Crime Commissioner? If you feel it is important that you

:32:15. > :32:19.go to the Chief of police, can you write to them and say, I am really

:32:20. > :32:23.worried about this, or have you know, are you expected to go to the

:32:24. > :32:31.Police and Crime Commissioner? There is nothing stopping you from writing

:32:32. > :32:35.to your local police Chief Constable. They are primarily

:32:36. > :32:38.responsible for the operational work of their local police force, if in

:32:39. > :32:44.fact it is related to an operational matter, I recommend that you write

:32:45. > :32:48.to your Chief Constable. But the Google also like to raise things as

:32:49. > :32:52.well with the Police and Crime Commissioner because it is one

:32:53. > :32:55.democratically accountable, known individual who can put pressure on

:32:56. > :33:01.the Chief Constable on your behalf. If you are one person living

:33:02. > :33:05.somewhere in Lancashire, the Chief Constable, I'm sure, we'll be happy

:33:06. > :33:08.to hear from you. It might be quicker to reply to your letter if

:33:09. > :33:15.the Police and Crime Commissioner also had his thoughts as well. Or

:33:16. > :33:24.the MP, lots of people do come to see me about matters relating to...

:33:25. > :33:28.Just a couple of observations. First, I was not happy with the

:33:29. > :33:33.personalisation of the police force, I think it was wrong that we should

:33:34. > :33:39.have Labour or anyone else as PCCs. Secondly, does he agree with me that

:33:40. > :33:45.I think there are potential conflicts between the PCC and the

:33:46. > :33:48.Chief Constable? The PCC is in some cases an ex-policeman. But in some

:33:49. > :33:53.cases they have no expense of the police and has the powers to appoint

:33:54. > :33:59.or sack someone with many years of expense, which is an situation I am

:34:00. > :34:05.not happy with. In relation to the politicisation of the police, it was

:34:06. > :34:12.often driven by low turnout. Even if the appointment was opposed, there

:34:13. > :34:16.are candidates in every division. But at the last one, there were a

:34:17. > :34:23.lot of independents who stood, and the evidence session of the

:34:24. > :34:25.committee stage of this bill, we had the Independent Police and Crime

:34:26. > :34:31.Commissioner for North Wales. His name escapes me, but he came and

:34:32. > :34:36.gave evidence. He was absolutely excellent. Of course, if I lived in

:34:37. > :34:40.North Wales, it would be that sort of excellent individual with

:34:41. > :34:44.fantastic vision for policing who I would probably vote for. If he was a

:34:45. > :34:52.Conservative, I would definitely vote for him. I will give way. He

:34:53. > :34:56.says absolutely about needing the highest possible terror.

:34:57. > :35:02.Historically, the turnout for Police and Crime Commissioner elections

:35:03. > :35:06.have been low. Does he share are surprised that the decision to spend

:35:07. > :35:16.a grand total of ?2700 on advertising this year's BCC

:35:17. > :35:20.election? -- PCC. I think it is slightly disingenuous to say that

:35:21. > :35:25.the turnout was low. It was the first ever election and it was in

:35:26. > :35:29.November, and it was not coterminous with other elections and I think,

:35:30. > :35:32.given the interest in the local elections, in all of our

:35:33. > :35:37.constituencies, I think the turnout would be slightly up. In relation to

:35:38. > :35:41.the ?2000, I'm surprised that the Home Office has spent so much. I do

:35:42. > :35:45.not think there should be any state funding of political parties or

:35:46. > :35:52.elections so he will not find me lobbying for them to spend more. So,

:35:53. > :35:56.just as the support for our Police and Crime Commissioners has grown,

:35:57. > :35:58.including excellent independent Police and Crime Commissioner is, I

:35:59. > :36:07.will just come back to that intervention about the

:36:08. > :36:13.politicisation of the police. In Lancashire we have the Police and

:36:14. > :36:19.Crime Commissioner, who I think is very much at the beck and call of

:36:20. > :36:22.the Chief Constable. I think while the relationship between the Police

:36:23. > :36:25.and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable needs to be a close

:36:26. > :36:29.working relationship, the Police and Crime Commissioner often needs to be

:36:30. > :36:33.a critical friend was not because he is not there just fighting for the

:36:34. > :36:37.interests of the police and the police officers, as important as

:36:38. > :36:41.that is. They should be there putting forward the voices that

:36:42. > :36:45.people from across Lancashire who want to improve Police Services. I

:36:46. > :36:50.said in an division earlier one of the things I would like to see from

:36:51. > :36:56.a Police and Crime Commissioner, whoever they may be or whichever

:36:57. > :37:02.party they are from, to prioritise rural crime. This is not driven by

:37:03. > :37:13.Preston or Blackburn Blackpool, which are the major conurbations in

:37:14. > :37:18.the county, this is driven by smaller towns and villages, where

:37:19. > :37:22.rural crime has a major impact on people's light. Whoever wins the

:37:23. > :37:28.election, I hope they are listening to people there and will prioritise

:37:29. > :37:36.that. Not to push the agenda of the police, but to push the agenda of

:37:37. > :37:40.the people. Does he agree that this is the point of the Police and Crime

:37:41. > :37:46.Commissioner, that they are there to represent the public? And also in

:37:47. > :37:49.doing so, they can look at things differently, for instance, the

:37:50. > :37:55.Police and Crime Commissioner in Staffordshire is showing innovation,

:37:56. > :38:01.looking at ways in which they can use technology when they are out on

:38:02. > :38:05.the doorstep so they are not find a desk, they can be doing the admin

:38:06. > :38:09.when they are out and about on our streets. I agree with those

:38:10. > :38:15.comments. One of the best examples that I know of in terms of Police

:38:16. > :38:17.and Crime Commissioner is taking a different approach, I met the Police

:38:18. > :38:24.and Crime Commissioner for Cumbria just shortly after he had won his

:38:25. > :38:27.election. He had been headmaster of a Lancashire school before he was

:38:28. > :38:34.Police and Crime Commissioner. He told me, he said, do you know there

:38:35. > :38:39.is no rape crisis centre in Cumbria? An absolute disgrace for a police

:38:40. > :38:46.error of that size, a county of that size, having no rape crisis Centre.

:38:47. > :38:48.-- police area. He took some of his budget as Police and Crime

:38:49. > :38:51.Commissioner which was meant to be spent on administration and set up

:38:52. > :38:55.with that money a rape crisis Centre. I think that shows how

:38:56. > :39:00.Police and Crime Commissioners who really care about their error,

:39:01. > :39:04.nothing to do with politics -- area, can make a huge difference to

:39:05. > :39:08.policing. And for years had been no rape crisis centre in Cumbria and

:39:09. > :39:12.when he was elected he said, this is one of the things I will change, it

:39:13. > :39:17.is a disgrace that Cumbria does not have won had he changed it within a

:39:18. > :39:24.year or 18 months that election. Just because of actions like that, I

:39:25. > :39:26.think the recognition and popularity of Police and Crime Commissioners

:39:27. > :39:31.has grown, and I believe the recognition and the popularity of

:39:32. > :39:37.the police and Fire Commissioners will also grow. I think everyone

:39:38. > :39:42.across this House would agree that we have immense respect not just for

:39:43. > :39:46.police officers but also for fire officers, we are except that they do

:39:47. > :39:50.very different jobs. -- but we accept. In the mind of the public,

:39:51. > :39:55.they will often see police officers and fire officers working together

:39:56. > :39:59.at the scene of an accident, on the side of a road, and cooperating with

:40:00. > :40:04.each other. But I think the idea of those two separate services have in

:40:05. > :40:11.common leadership will take longer in fact for the public to

:40:12. > :40:16.understand. This is why I believe that this amendment, amendment two,

:40:17. > :40:22.is absolutely necessary to improve what is otherwise an excellent bill.

:40:23. > :40:28.Everyone may have their own idea that if this amendment were accepted

:40:29. > :40:33.the name the secretary of state should direct for the Police and

:40:34. > :40:37.Crime Commissioner who has taken on responsibility for a fire, whether

:40:38. > :40:45.it should be Fire and crime, policing and fire. I think we would

:40:46. > :40:50.all agree it is imperative we preserve a nationally recognised

:40:51. > :40:55.brand for the office. One of the successes of PCCs is it his second

:40:56. > :41:01.sign over a national election with a recognised of those people will,

:41:02. > :41:04.maybe not any dog and duck in Erdington or an Rossendale and

:41:05. > :41:11.Darwen talk about, but people will talk about the PCC and the work they

:41:12. > :41:15.do. As he takes on new responsibilities it is quite to seek

:41:16. > :41:19.the secretary of shall direct a Police and Crime Commissioner about

:41:20. > :41:23.what he or she may be called in the future. It is this national

:41:24. > :41:30.branding, National recognised labelling which is reflected in the

:41:31. > :41:37.national nature of the legislation. I also notes the secretary of state

:41:38. > :41:40.would have the power, at some point in the future, to come up with the

:41:41. > :41:44.name of a Police and Crime Commissioner who were also taken on

:41:45. > :41:50.responsibility for fire. This is because that I hope, in coming up

:41:51. > :41:54.with the name, the secretary of state and her officials would have a

:41:55. > :42:00.very detailed consultation with the Fire Service to find out what would

:42:01. > :42:04.be an acceptable name for the Fire Service, because I share the concern

:42:05. > :42:11.expressed across the house about the different nature of those services.

:42:12. > :42:18.And the Fire Service does not want to be brought in to police work and

:42:19. > :42:22.vice versa. Needlessly so, they are nervous about having a long

:42:23. > :42:27.consultation period would the Fire Service would give them comfort. I

:42:28. > :42:31.think this bill is perceived for our Fire Service as probably bring in

:42:32. > :42:36.the biggest change and biggest risk and I think the change and risk is

:42:37. > :42:41.minimal but that is how they perceive it. Like with all change it

:42:42. > :42:46.is in fact the fear of change itself, rather than those changes

:42:47. > :42:51.happening, which will be concerning. If this clause is accepted, it is

:42:52. > :42:57.essential that the new name for a Police and Crime Commissioner with

:42:58. > :43:02.the added responsibility of Fire Commissioner, keeps front and centre

:43:03. > :43:06.in that title the operational independence of both our fire

:43:07. > :43:14.servers and our police service. No one is suggesting that the day after

:43:15. > :43:16.this bill, I hope becomes an act and received Royal assent, a police

:43:17. > :43:23.officer will be sent out with a bucket and sold to quench a fire,

:43:24. > :43:27.nor should a fire officer ever be expected to go out and feel the

:43:28. > :43:35.collar of the local criminal in the area. They must retain both

:43:36. > :43:40.operational independence. In short, this clause gives the power for the

:43:41. > :43:47.secretary of state to make a name change but a clear name change to

:43:48. > :43:50.ensure that at the next set of national elections people will

:43:51. > :43:54.understand they are voting for a combined role of a Police and Crime

:43:55. > :44:02.Commissioner and a fire Commissioner as well. It must remain cemented in

:44:03. > :44:06.their minds through this title that there roles, although they have a

:44:07. > :44:09.combined readership, remain absolutely separate and the

:44:10. > :44:17.operational independence is protected under this bill. --

:44:18. > :44:21.combined leadership. It is surprising what inspiration you can

:44:22. > :44:26.get by sitting in this place, and I am delighted to speak on the script

:44:27. > :44:30.of amendments. In the good Hope I can curry favour from my honourable

:44:31. > :44:34.friends on the front bench to give me everything I want in my group of

:44:35. > :44:39.amendments which will follow. I hope they are listening carefully to what

:44:40. > :44:42.I have to say. I think this is an excellent clause in this bill

:44:43. > :44:51.because it is enabling but not prescriptive. It enables Fire and

:44:52. > :44:55.rescue authorities to take, we taken over by PCCs but does not compel

:44:56. > :45:03.them to do so. That is where I take issue with the opposition

:45:04. > :45:06.amendments. And yet huge respect for fire and rescue caught fire

:45:07. > :45:09.associations, because they do a fantastic job and they do a

:45:10. > :45:13.fantastic job in my constituency, they are under the control of the

:45:14. > :45:18.county council and they do a very good job. NI area of

:45:19. > :45:24.Gloucestershire, which is why I am so pleased this is enabling but not

:45:25. > :45:29.prescriptive clause. -- in my area. I could not possibly what the fire

:45:30. > :45:32.and rescue Association to be transferred to the BCC because the

:45:33. > :45:36.PCC is an independent and I do not believe they are doing a

:45:37. > :45:40.particularly good job. This is an excellent clause because it deals

:45:41. > :45:47.with everything on a case-by-case basis. Having said that, all my

:45:48. > :45:50.experience from having the fire college and my constituency which

:45:51. > :45:58.provides the major training for the Fire Service, shows me, and they do

:45:59. > :46:01.some amazing blue lights collaborative training between the

:46:02. > :46:08.Fire Services, police services and Ambulance Services, in an emergency,

:46:09. > :46:15.as my honourable friend was saying, you need these services to work as

:46:16. > :46:19.collaboratively as possible. That is essential. It may well be that in

:46:20. > :46:25.some areas, I suspect in some areas where the authorities are bigger

:46:26. > :46:28.than an Gloucestershire, in Gloucestershire they are relatively

:46:29. > :46:33.small compared to some of the larger urban authorities, this chain of

:46:34. > :46:38.command works very well. They all know exactly at any given time what

:46:39. > :46:43.each of them is supposed to do. Having said that, I think, as a

:46:44. > :46:48.country, particularly with more sophisticated and more frequent

:46:49. > :46:53.emergencies, whether it be flooding or regrettably without it be things

:46:54. > :46:58.like terrorism, it is absolutely essential the blue light services

:46:59. > :47:02.work very closely together. I also think our training for those events

:47:03. > :47:06.could be improved. The resilience training of all three bluelight

:47:07. > :47:11.services working together an emergency events could be improved.

:47:12. > :47:16.I think if, God forbid, they ever really insist with a big emergency,

:47:17. > :47:21.particularly an emergency which takes in multiple locations, but I

:47:22. > :47:31.think they will need all of that training and collaboration. That is

:47:32. > :47:40.where I think some of these mergers could help. Having said that, as I

:47:41. > :47:44.say, in my area, what we're looking at is an ever increasing Fire and

:47:45. > :47:47.Rescue Service operating under the county council, it is not just

:47:48. > :47:51.operational efficiency and looking forward to from these Government

:47:52. > :47:58.proposals, it is administrative efficiency as well. Let me get the

:47:59. > :48:04.house an example from the biggest town and my constituency. The fire

:48:05. > :48:08.station there was formally operated by professional firefighters. It is

:48:09. > :48:15.now moving towards retained firefighters. They want to be quite

:48:16. > :48:20.so many and it is a vast premise is maintained at public expense which

:48:21. > :48:23.actually the police could usefully use as the authority also. We begin

:48:24. > :48:29.to get the idea should be pushed more and more with the pressures of

:48:30. > :48:32.public resources we have got, particularly in property, can be

:48:33. > :48:39.better utilised by more than one public authority occupying them at

:48:40. > :48:43.once. This does require a difference of a mindset for these authorities,

:48:44. > :48:48.because the police are just having the police station, the fire I do to

:48:49. > :48:52.having the fire station and had to in some cases the two have never

:48:53. > :48:58.felt it appropriate to mix. I do think we can achieve significant

:48:59. > :49:09.efficiencies by merging the two, particularly in property. I'm sure

:49:10. > :49:12.people agree with me that when talking to constituents they really

:49:13. > :49:16.care about people out on the street and we can measure is serviced by

:49:17. > :49:21.how many buildings they occupy in our town. Is he aware of the sharing

:49:22. > :49:28.of Fire and rescue and police training in Northern Ireland which

:49:29. > :49:32.has saved tens of millions of pounds and shows where corporation is done

:49:33. > :49:39.right and independence is maintained for both police and fire,

:49:40. > :49:44.significant savings can be found. It gives me the opportunity yet again

:49:45. > :49:50.praise what the fire college is doing. This is a large establishment

:49:51. > :49:56.of about 600 acres. It is a old airfield and includes a runway is

:49:57. > :50:00.used as a to simulate motorway pile ups by using real scrap cars,

:50:01. > :50:06.getting the police, ambulance and fire to actually train in a very big

:50:07. > :50:11.joint exercise. They have offices they set on fire which they can you

:50:12. > :50:15.spot police and fire and ambulance. They have a ship the set on fire,

:50:16. > :50:25.all sorts of huge training facilities. In case my honourable

:50:26. > :50:31.friend misunderstands what I say, a model Shep, a model aircraft and

:50:32. > :50:36.that actual office block, where they do these sophisticated training

:50:37. > :50:39.exercises. -- model ship. This is a good example of how collaborative

:50:40. > :50:44.training should be run and we should do much more of it but we should do

:50:45. > :50:49.much more of it only resilience basis to claim for the very

:50:50. > :50:53.sophisticated emergency we have got. We have in The Cotswolds supper

:50:54. > :50:57.considerably by flooding in recent years and I have to praise the

:50:58. > :51:01.emergency services hugely because when we have had flooding events it

:51:02. > :51:06.has been distressing to see people have to be taken out of their

:51:07. > :51:13.houses, their belongings wrecked, and evacuated in some cases. I do

:51:14. > :51:17.praise the emergency services because they are always there in the

:51:18. > :51:26.middle of the night in the most difficult circumstances, often cold

:51:27. > :51:31.and wet and unhappy people. In closing, we should act more

:51:32. > :51:34.collaboratively but pay a great tribute to the emergency services

:51:35. > :51:43.because they do is hugely good and dedicated job on all our behalf is.

:51:44. > :51:48.Minister. Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I praise, as we

:51:49. > :51:52.did at committee and at the second reading, the tone and measured way

:51:53. > :51:57.this debate has been taken forward. Even on certain issues we will

:51:58. > :52:01.obviously disagree. Some 30 years ago I wrote a paper on better

:52:02. > :52:07.collaboration between the emergency services, including the Ambulance

:52:08. > :52:15.Service, fire and police. I was wrong at that time, it should have

:52:16. > :52:21.included the Coast Guard. Can I say, at the outset, I have many

:52:22. > :52:26.sympathies with some of the aspects of the amendments that were down to

:52:27. > :52:30.and some we will look at again and bring back in the Lords. And others

:52:31. > :52:37.I fundamentally disagree with because they would rip the heart out

:52:38. > :52:40.of the bill. I am looking at the Shadow Minister and she knows

:52:41. > :52:45.exactly what I mean. Can I also say I am very proud to be the police and

:52:46. > :52:50.Fire minister, the first police and Fire minister. It is an indication

:52:51. > :52:53.that perhaps the concern the Fire servers have Andy Shadow Fire

:52:54. > :52:59.Minister have around how seriously the Government is taking the new

:53:00. > :53:06.role police and Fire Minister, I actually gave up huge swathes of

:53:07. > :53:12.policy portfolio to other ministers so I could take on this portfolio.

:53:13. > :53:17.And not just because of this bill, it has taken a huge amount of my

:53:18. > :53:24.time as I go on an enormously vast learning curve from when I was a

:53:25. > :53:28.fireman all those years ago. The job has changed, some of the semantics

:53:29. > :53:34.and language has not, some has changed very fast and some not as

:53:35. > :53:39.fast as we could perhaps like. Because we have a fantastic Fire

:53:40. > :53:49.Service, fatalities have decreased by 50% in the last ten years. 50%.

:53:50. > :53:54.Sorry, 17% decrease in fire related fatalities than 50% decrease on

:53:55. > :53:57.reported fires. I am quite concerned about the correlation between those

:53:58. > :54:02.two figures and that is something I asked my bottle to look at. There

:54:03. > :54:06.is, as the Shadow Minister indicated, an increase and we should

:54:07. > :54:16.not take one year as an example and there may be some very sad one of

:54:17. > :54:21.events. I remember the terrible fire on the M5. Many people survived, but

:54:22. > :54:28.out of the vehicles and sadly lost their lives to fire. Can I also say,

:54:29. > :54:35.the Fire Service and police and ambulance are amazing and often go

:54:36. > :54:41.and one direction while the going another and there is a group of

:54:42. > :54:47.people that work in the fire and emergency services that are a

:54:48. > :54:51.special breed. Many ex-services and some of the training we give in our

:54:52. > :54:55.Armed Forces and sadly not as many coming through as there was in my

:54:56. > :55:02.time when I left the Army and went straight into fire and rescue. There

:55:03. > :55:06.is a danger, as I did actually apply for the Metropolitan Police, and

:55:07. > :55:10.could have got accepted into both, except Essex offered me a flat. If

:55:11. > :55:13.they did not do that I probably would not be standing here now and

:55:14. > :55:18.probably would have retired a couple of years ago.

:55:19. > :55:27.I thank him for giving way. Friends of mine who are serving in the Armed

:55:28. > :55:30.Forces are finding it increasingly difficult to try and move from the

:55:31. > :55:35.Armed Forces into the police, or the Fire Service. I wonder whether the

:55:36. > :55:40.Minister could in any way help. Because this training which the

:55:41. > :55:46.Armed Forces gives my friends is so important and should be utilised to

:55:47. > :55:53.make our police and Fire Services even better than they already are.

:55:54. > :55:56.Madam Deputy Speaker, can I say to my honourable friend that this is an

:55:57. > :56:07.issue that has been very close to my hard for some time. For instance, we

:56:08. > :56:12.have a rural issue around -- about HGV drivers. Something like 40% of

:56:13. > :56:17.the Armed Forces leavers have an HGV licence. In Fire Services are run

:56:18. > :56:21.the country, many have not been recruited but some are starting to

:56:22. > :56:25.be recruited now. The police have certainly been recruiting and one

:56:26. > :56:28.thing I intervened on was with the Metropolitan Police, I think they

:56:29. > :56:31.had a right policy of making sure people serving in the police force

:56:32. > :56:36.in London can represent their communities. They come from the

:56:37. > :56:40.communities they live in. When the Minister first proposed this, I said

:56:41. > :56:46.the careful because actually, you would have excluded me from joining

:56:47. > :56:51.the Met because I had been away for five years. That rule has not

:56:52. > :56:55.changed, and quite rightly, the police force in London will allow

:56:56. > :56:59.you to join if you have been in another force for some time. This is

:57:00. > :57:07.an important error, especially as police are now recruiting

:57:08. > :57:12.extensively. -- area. I think there is an excess of 2000 officers

:57:13. > :57:17.training in London imminently. I understand also, perhaps because of

:57:18. > :57:23.my background within the military and the Fire Service, but neither

:57:24. > :57:28.organisation like change. But listen to some of the arguments earlier to

:57:29. > :57:36.do with why there was opposition to PCCs taking possible control of Fire

:57:37. > :57:39.Services in a managerial way, the same as when taking over from the

:57:40. > :57:50.police authorities. Almost an identical argument. What experience

:57:51. > :57:54.do they have? Surely it is better, the expense of the councillors who

:57:55. > :57:58.have sat on committee for 20 years. What we learn from the introduction

:57:59. > :58:06.of PCCs, which I understand, I was fundamentally opposed -- was

:58:07. > :58:09.fundamentally opposed by the party opposite, fortunately they did not

:58:10. > :58:14.win the election for many reasons, not least for people like Vera Bird,

:58:15. > :58:19.who are excellent PCC in their part of the world. Vera Bird has

:58:20. > :58:25.transformed victim support in her part of the world. I know the

:58:26. > :58:30.candidates of their are going to say, well, you should not do this or

:58:31. > :58:36.that. Actually, we should put praise where praise is. There have been

:58:37. > :58:40.good independents, and what Conservative PCCs as well but we

:58:41. > :58:51.have to be pragmatic about making sure we can work together. The

:58:52. > :58:56.concerns about whether or not we have the experience or whether they

:58:57. > :58:59.have it, it is right, some of the PCCs have lots of experience in the

:59:00. > :59:04.police force but that is not necessarily relevant. When the Prime

:59:05. > :59:11.Minister appointed me as shipping Minister, I said, you do realise my

:59:12. > :59:16.constituency is the furthest away from the sea in the whole country?

:59:17. > :59:25.He said, but go and ask the question why. The example I will use was

:59:26. > :59:28.armed guards and ships. When I arrived at the Department for

:59:29. > :59:32.Transport, we had massive problems with Somali pirates. By Sibley said,

:59:33. > :59:43.why have the Royal Navy not been able to do that job? -- I simply

:59:44. > :59:51.said. Allow those people to protect their property. I did not look at

:59:52. > :59:57.that as a shipping person, but from the outside, just trying to say, let

:59:58. > :00:02.these people have an opportunity to do that. It had been looked at by

:00:03. > :00:05.those much more experienced than me in shipping and rejected on more

:00:06. > :00:13.than one occasion because it was not possible. I give way. I think you

:00:14. > :00:20.misunderstood me. I was not saying that the PCC should not be -- should

:00:21. > :00:24.or shouldn't be a police officer. Why were saying the powers they have

:00:25. > :00:29.to appoint and sat a police officer who has maybe had 25 or 30 years of

:00:30. > :00:33.experience, that is where I have concern. I think it should be left

:00:34. > :00:43.to the Home Secretary for that particular role. I understand where

:00:44. > :00:49.he's coming from. There is a process to go through, a disciplinary

:00:50. > :00:56.process, and it is absolutely right that that is no transparent. The

:00:57. > :01:02.other thing we have put in place a -- in this goal. The amendments in

:01:03. > :01:09.this group, if we look at amendments three to six, would frankly decimate

:01:10. > :01:13.the role of the PCC and that is why I think the Shadow Minister has put

:01:14. > :01:20.them down, it is a similar debate we had -- to that we had in committee,

:01:21. > :01:30.which I have to be honest, I am not going to accept it. Can I also say

:01:31. > :01:36.to my honourable friend on amendment two, I think in principle we

:01:37. > :01:40.completely agree, I think there are things we need to do around this to

:01:41. > :01:47.make sure we encapsulated others. For instance, not just about the PCC

:01:48. > :01:51.title, there are other titles and we need to make sure we bring them in.

:01:52. > :01:57.If we were together on this between now and when it comes into law, it

:01:58. > :02:04.is very close to drafting, we will make sure we do not have any issues

:02:05. > :02:12.around that. Thank you. I would like to thank my honourable friend for

:02:13. > :02:17.way. Can I just press him on this point, is it his intention to bring

:02:18. > :02:21.amendment two, or equivalent amendments, forward when the bill

:02:22. > :02:25.goes to the other place, and if I get this assurance I will not be

:02:26. > :02:33.pushing the amendment to effect. I say to my honourable friend that if

:02:34. > :02:38.I had clearance today, I would have supported the moment today. There

:02:39. > :02:41.are issues that I need to get clarification on and they will

:02:42. > :02:44.introduce in the Lord is basically what she is asking for, because I

:02:45. > :02:47.think it is important that the public understand exactly what they

:02:48. > :02:52.have got. This bill will be introduced and hopefully become law.

:02:53. > :02:58.There are PCCs putting in their manifesto is no, quite rightly what

:02:59. > :03:02.they would like to see and there is an issue of whether it should be

:03:03. > :03:09.police and fire rescue... I will give way. May I take the opportunity

:03:10. > :03:14.to deal with a point I raised on this clause in my own speech, will

:03:15. > :03:23.he confirm that before the Secretary of State makes direction as

:03:24. > :03:26.currently envisaged by this clause, there will be wide consultation,

:03:27. > :03:29.chiefly with the Fire and Rescue Service, giving the concerns that

:03:30. > :03:34.they have raised about maintaining not just their operational

:03:35. > :03:36.independence but the element of independence in the eyes of the

:03:37. > :03:42.public, will he confirm the Government will do that? That is

:03:43. > :03:47.exactly what would be proposed. This is not a one size fits all, this is

:03:48. > :03:53.not going to be imposed, in that we would like an agreement locally, and

:03:54. > :03:59.clearly in some places that may not be possible, then it would be for

:04:00. > :04:04.the PCC to put a business case to the Secretary of State, the Home

:04:05. > :04:06.Secretary, then we would go out to independent review where the

:04:07. > :04:11.consultation would take place. So it is absolutely fundamental, what we

:04:12. > :04:16.are trying to do here is not interfere with the operational

:04:17. > :04:21.firefighting and operational police, this is more to do with bringing in

:04:22. > :04:26.the administrative costs, to save the money, and in Lancashire, just

:04:27. > :04:31.using that example, where I met the Chief Constable and the PCC and they

:04:32. > :04:34.said, we will use some of the reserves to build a new police

:04:35. > :04:41.station in Blackpool. I said, fantastic news, but you have had the

:04:42. > :04:45.conversation with the Fire Service as well, haven't you? Because you

:04:46. > :04:51.cannot put a fire station into a police station. But you most

:04:52. > :05:01.certainly can but a police station in a fire station. Just to get .2 --

:05:02. > :05:04.to get to that particular point of mine, before this clause or a

:05:05. > :05:07.similar clause comes forward, before the Secretary of State gives

:05:08. > :05:14.direction about the national title use, will there be wide

:05:15. > :05:21.consultation? I think it is vital that we get the title right, that it

:05:22. > :05:23.is a national title for those taking on those responsibility, and at the

:05:24. > :05:27.centre and there will be consultation not only with the FBU

:05:28. > :05:30.and the other unions and the chief fire officers and their association

:05:31. > :05:36.but also chief constables and the Federation has well. I think it is a

:05:37. > :05:42.title that will live with us for a long time but when I first joined

:05:43. > :05:47.the fine service, I do not think we were Fire and rescue, I think we

:05:48. > :05:52.were just the Fire Service. Sadly, I was a fireman because we did not

:05:53. > :05:55.have fire ladies. We now have fire fighters. I should -- I think I

:05:56. > :06:02.should have happened many years before. Can I just touch on

:06:03. > :06:08.flooding. I was so, so impressed with firefighters, our ambulance

:06:09. > :06:12.crews and the local communities, volunteers on the local authorities

:06:13. > :06:18.and the police in the areas where the flooding took place. Flooding is

:06:19. > :06:22.becoming more and more part of the Fire and Rescue Service but might

:06:23. > :06:31.work. However, it is not new. We used to go to a lovely place near

:06:32. > :06:35.Epping Forest, quite close to East London, where the Shadow Minister

:06:36. > :06:40.resides, and flash flooding was a regular occurrence when we used to

:06:41. > :06:45.go there. As a full-time firefighter, I used to go there on a

:06:46. > :06:49.regular basis. I am not yet convinced, I have said I will keep

:06:50. > :06:54.an open mind about it, that we need to change titles, it is nothing to

:06:55. > :06:57.do with my opinion, I normally agree on everything that the honourable

:06:58. > :07:02.lady from Vauxhall says but on this particular occasion, I do not. Of

:07:03. > :07:06.course, her constituency is only partially affected by this bill

:07:07. > :07:14.because of the Mayor ticking direct responsibility for fire in London.

:07:15. > :07:17.-- taking. So I'm not surprised that PCCs in her constituency is do not

:07:18. > :07:23.come to the forefront of the conversations on the doorstep in her

:07:24. > :07:28.part of the world. There are real benefits from collaboration that

:07:29. > :07:32.could take place. I am not saying no celebration is taking place now but

:07:33. > :07:36.there is more to be done, there is more work also to be done with the

:07:37. > :07:40.ambulance services, and particularly with the triage units on the blue

:07:41. > :07:52.lines. I have the privilege to be going to America soon, to New York,

:07:53. > :07:57.to pay my respects there at 9/11, one of the biggest reasons I want go

:07:58. > :08:01.there is to look at their fire houses, as they call them, but also

:08:02. > :08:05.the fact that they carry paramedics on the back of their fire

:08:06. > :08:11.appliances. Something we need, I think, to look carefully at here. I

:08:12. > :08:14.have an enormous out of sympathy for what he is saying and it is

:08:15. > :08:18.absolutely clear we need close collaboration. Whereas in

:08:19. > :08:22.Gloucestershire, we do not at this moment want the Fire and Rescue

:08:23. > :08:25.Service to be put under control of the PCC, can my honourable friend

:08:26. > :08:30.give us an assurance that they will not be forced to, against their

:08:31. > :08:37.wishes? I cannot do that, because that is not part of the bill. The

:08:38. > :08:41.bill is, where agreement can be made, that will happen and wear it

:08:42. > :08:51.cannot be, in many areas where it cannot be, if... If there is a

:08:52. > :09:00.business case put to the Home Secretary by the PCC, if the BCC

:09:01. > :09:03.decides to do it -- if the PCC decides, then it will go to

:09:04. > :09:08.independent review and only then will the Home Secretary make a

:09:09. > :09:14.decision. I'm enormously keen but is not to be a one size fits all

:09:15. > :09:19.provision. However, it has to have the provision for the back office.

:09:20. > :09:22.In a perfect world we have not that we would not have a situation where

:09:23. > :09:26.we would make it a statutory requirement to collaborate but there

:09:27. > :09:29.are parts of the country where collaboration is not at the standard

:09:30. > :09:34.we would expect in the 21st Century Fox so we have to have measures to

:09:35. > :09:48.take that forward. -- in the 21st century. On new clause 21 on the

:09:49. > :09:55.Concorde Act. I do not think it is good to put that on to statutory

:09:56. > :10:01.footing, making it law, it seems to be working well, let's see how that

:10:02. > :10:07.evolves. I know the Shadow Minister did not refer to it but it is in

:10:08. > :10:12.part of this group. We keep a close eye on how that act work. But I do

:10:13. > :10:18.not think putting it into law would be the answer. With that in mind, I

:10:19. > :10:23.hope that I have alleviated the concerns of some of my honourable

:10:24. > :10:34.friends... Just bear with me for one second. I hope that I do not expect,

:10:35. > :10:36.I hope they have listened to the assurances I have given... I will

:10:37. > :10:44.give way. The honourable friend and close

:10:45. > :10:49.collaboration is important for efficiency and also delivery and

:10:50. > :10:55.prevention work. Can he get additional assurances that Fire

:10:56. > :11:01.Services will have their revenue streams protected, including for

:11:02. > :11:04.commercial activities? I have given categorical assurances on committee

:11:05. > :11:08.and end here there will be to funding streams and they will not be

:11:09. > :11:16.combined, even though I would expect, therefore to be better

:11:17. > :11:25.collaboration with hot money is spent. I hope all of the amendments

:11:26. > :11:29.that, they are withdrawn. Under the programme order I must not put the

:11:30. > :11:33.question isn't necessarily to bring to a conclusion proceedings. The

:11:34. > :11:45.question is a new clause 20 B ready second time. As many as are of the

:11:46. > :12:04.opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no the noes have it. The noes

:12:05. > :12:08.habit. -- have it. The question is that amendment three be made. As

:12:09. > :12:16.many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no. The

:12:17. > :13:22.version, clear the lobby. -- division.

:13:23. > :13:28.The question is that amendment three be made. As many as are of the

:13:29. > :20:17.opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no.

:20:18. > :28:02.Order, order. The ayes to the right, 200. The noes to the left, 308.

:28:03. > :28:15.The ayes to the red, 200, the noes to the left, 308. The noes have it,

:28:16. > :28:20.unlock. Glenn Brown to move a movement -- amendment 20, formerly.

:28:21. > :28:23.The question is that amendment 20 to be made. As many as are of the

:28:24. > :30:43.opinion say, "Aye," to the contrary, "No." Division, clear the lobby.

:30:44. > :30:51.As many as are of the opinion say, "Aye," to the contrary, "No." Tell

:30:52. > :43:45.us for the ayes will stop tell us for the noes. Thank you very much.

:43:46. > :44:04.Order, order. The ayes Blu-ray, 209. The noes to the left, 303. That's

:44:05. > :44:09.like ayes to the right. The ayes to the right, to the hundred and nine.

:44:10. > :44:19.The noes to be left, 303. The noes habit. The question is amendment sex

:44:20. > :44:26.be made. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

:44:27. > :44:27."no".. -- amendment sex. Amendment 6-mac.

:44:28. > :46:19.The question is amendment sex be made. As many as are of the opinion,

:46:20. > :52:28.say "aye". To the contrary, "no".. -- amendment six.

:52:29. > :59:11.Can we please investigate what the hold-up is in the lobby?

:59:12. > :59:30.The ayes to the right, 200. The noes to the left, 307.

:59:31. > :59:38.The ayes to the right, 200, the noes to the left, 307, the noes have it,

:59:39. > :59:47.unlock. We come now to Government new clause

:59:48. > :59:50.31 in which it will be convenient to consider the new clauses as listed

:59:51. > :59:56.on the selection paper. Minister to move new clause 30 one. Thank you

:59:57. > :00:01.very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. -- 31. I will at this stage speak to

:00:02. > :00:06.the new clauses and amendments, then I will respond later to the points

:00:07. > :00:11.made about other amendments. I beg to move the Government new clause 31

:00:12. > :00:15.stand part of the bill. Chapter one of part three of the bill will

:00:16. > :00:19.enable chief officers to designate police staff with a wider range of

:00:20. > :00:24.police powers. There will also be able to convert police powers other

:00:25. > :00:28.than the core powers reserved for warranted officers on volunteers.

:00:29. > :00:34.The intention is that powers that can be conferred on employed staff

:00:35. > :00:38.and designated volunteers are the same. This includes the power to

:00:39. > :00:45.carry and use defensive sprays, such as CS gas, where the chief officers

:00:46. > :00:51.consider there to be an operational case for this. It is already the

:00:52. > :00:53.case that chief officers can equip police community support officers

:00:54. > :00:58.with defensive sprays, accordingly to that extent the bill simply

:00:59. > :01:05.codified the existing position. New clause 31 makes a necessary

:01:06. > :01:08.consequential amendment to the firearms act 1968 to ensure police

:01:09. > :01:14.volunteers are civilian officers for the purposes of that act. The effect

:01:15. > :01:18.is that they do not then need a certificate or authorisation under

:01:19. > :01:26.section one or five of the 1968 act in order to carry a defensive spray.

:01:27. > :01:30.I am grateful. I will understand perfectly what she is do here, but

:01:31. > :01:35.does she understand that there is a degree of concern with the public,

:01:36. > :01:42.in that I'm not sure that there is consensus out there for volunteers

:01:43. > :01:48.to be equipped with, for example, CS gas. Does she understand the concern

:01:49. > :01:52.the public have about this? The honourable gentleman, if he had been

:01:53. > :01:55.part of the committee, would have heard the extensive deliberations

:01:56. > :02:00.and debate we had about that issue. I will come later to the specific

:02:01. > :02:03.points about the use of volunteers in my response to the amendment

:02:04. > :02:07.because there are amendments that they would like to hear the

:02:08. > :02:11.arguments put forward before setting out the full argument. But I am

:02:12. > :02:15.aware there are concerns although I may not necessarily agree with those

:02:16. > :02:19.concerns. The new clause we have put forward simply puts community

:02:20. > :02:23.support volunteers and policing support volunteers in the same

:02:24. > :02:29.position that police officers and police civilian staff are currently

:02:30. > :02:34.in. We are also making it explicit, taking the opportunity to make it

:02:35. > :02:37.explicit on the face of the 1968 act that special constables are members

:02:38. > :02:42.of a police force for the purposes of that act, therefore similarly do

:02:43. > :02:46.not require a certificate or authorisation under that act when

:02:47. > :02:50.equipped with a defensive spray. This will avoid any doubt being

:02:51. > :02:54.created by the insertion of a specific reference to policing

:02:55. > :02:58.support and community support volunteers within the meaning of

:02:59. > :03:06.Crown servant in the firearms act. I'm quite sure the Minister will

:03:07. > :03:08.answer my question, which is just to confirm to people listening, anyone

:03:09. > :03:13.issued with such sprays will be fully trained in their use, they

:03:14. > :03:18.will not just be handed out, there will be trained to use them. My

:03:19. > :03:23.honourable friend makes a very important point. I can assure him

:03:24. > :03:29.that appropriate and suitable training will be given. Moving now

:03:30. > :03:32.to Government new clause 32, that clarifies the designated community

:03:33. > :03:35.support volunteers or police support volunteers may be subject to

:03:36. > :03:40.inspection just like any other member of a police force and can be

:03:41. > :03:44.served with a notice requiring information or access to premises.

:03:45. > :03:48.As with other police force members they would have no right of appeal

:03:49. > :03:55.against such a notice. And I will respond to other amendments in this

:03:56. > :04:00.group when winding up. Special constables and volunteers. The

:04:01. > :04:07.question is that new clause 31 B read a second time. Thank you, Madam

:04:08. > :04:11.Deputy Speaker. Can I start with giving apologies of the Shadow Home

:04:12. > :04:17.Secretary as to why he cannot be here today. The right honourable

:04:18. > :04:25.member is at the Hillsborough inquest. 27 years ago, a terrible

:04:26. > :04:30.wrong was done. 96 husbands and wives, fiances, brothers, sisters,

:04:31. > :04:36.sons and daughters died. The fact that today justice was done is

:04:37. > :04:39.because both of the remarkable persistence of the families to

:04:40. > :04:43.ensure that justice was done for those who died, but also to the

:04:44. > :04:51.outstanding leadership of the right honourable gentleman, who in his

:04:52. > :04:54.courage and persistent and championing of a noble cause has

:04:55. > :05:00.served the people not just of Liverpool but the people of this

:05:01. > :05:04.country well. Madam Deputy Speaker, we welcome many of the proposals

:05:05. > :05:09.before the House today. I do not intend to go into detail so much as

:05:10. > :05:14.saying that in the exchanges that took place in committee, we welcomed

:05:15. > :05:19.the move on pre-charge bail to prevent terrorists ever again

:05:20. > :05:24.fleeing the country before charge, we welcome the protection of police

:05:25. > :05:28.whistle-blowers, we welcome improving the way the police deal

:05:29. > :05:33.with people suffering mental health crises and no longer in -- no longer

:05:34. > :05:38.considering police cells as a place of safety. We welcome ensuring that

:05:39. > :05:40.17-year-old detained in police custody are treated as children,

:05:41. > :05:44.something which the honourable member for Rodber has fought very

:05:45. > :05:47.hard for. We support the changes to the firearms act which will tighten

:05:48. > :05:53.our gun laws in line with recommendations made by the Law

:05:54. > :05:57.Commission. We support the duty of the services to collaborate. Many of

:05:58. > :06:03.these issues will be dealt with in some detail on day two of this

:06:04. > :06:06.debate. We also welcome the moves made by the Government on other

:06:07. > :06:12.issues that have emerged during the course of this bill, we are aware

:06:13. > :06:17.for example that agreement has been reached following an excellent

:06:18. > :06:21.campaign run by the Police and Crime Commissioner for the West Midlands

:06:22. > :06:25.on the banning of those hideous zombie knives who only purpose can

:06:26. > :06:30.be to kill or maim. I am bound to say that given the bill purports to

:06:31. > :06:34.complete police reform, there are some issues that should have been in

:06:35. > :06:39.the bill but are not. It does not help the police to adapt to a world

:06:40. > :06:44.in which crime is changing and moving increasingly online. There is

:06:45. > :06:46.a gaping hole in the Government's policing policy on the failure to

:06:47. > :06:51.tackle or even acknowledge in this bill cyber crime or to help them

:06:52. > :06:56.deal with the consequences of the Government's swingeing spending

:06:57. > :07:01.reductions. On child sex exploitation and abuse, whilst the

:07:02. > :07:06.one clause in the bill is a welcome step, a bill which purports to be

:07:07. > :07:10.focused seriously on this grotesque manifestation of all that is worst

:07:11. > :07:16.in our country, one clause alone is not what this bill was purported to

:07:17. > :07:21.be. Neither does the bill go far enough on some of the issues it

:07:22. > :07:24.seeks to address. But we will be returning to some of those on day

:07:25. > :07:31.two, for example, police accountability. Now, there are

:07:32. > :07:35.critical areas of the bill, however I have spelt at that which we agree

:07:36. > :07:38.with where we fundamentally disagree with. We had just had a debate led

:07:39. > :07:46.by the formidable honourable member for West Ham, opposing the

:07:47. > :07:52.compulsory takeover of Fire authorities by PCCs. Our strong

:07:53. > :08:00.view, as was indicated by her, was that yes to greater collaboration,

:08:01. > :08:06.no to hostile takeovers. The other highly controversial proposal that

:08:07. > :08:10.we are debating today is in the bill to give police powers to volunteers.

:08:11. > :08:14.Let me start by making this absolutely clear. There is a long

:08:15. > :08:19.and honourable tradition going back 150 years in this country of special

:08:20. > :08:25.constables. Also, there is a tradition more recently that is

:08:26. > :08:29.profound within the communities we serve, of volunteer engagement in

:08:30. > :08:34.neighbourhood watch. For example, the chair of the neighbourhood watch

:08:35. > :08:40.in my constituency does outstanding work in ensuring that the community

:08:41. > :08:44.is safe, working together with the police. Indeed, here in this House,

:08:45. > :08:51.we have the police Parliamentary scheme. The honourable member for

:08:52. > :08:57.Merthyr Tydfil added a fussing insight into the policing in South

:08:58. > :09:01.Wales and has waxed lyrical about the work he has seen on mental

:09:02. > :09:05.health, for example, but also working with volunteers. We are

:09:06. > :09:14.strongly in favour of enhancing citizen engagement and voluntary

:09:15. > :09:18.efforts. As the great road -- Robert Peel said, the people are the police

:09:19. > :09:24.and the police are the people. Therefore, the role of the citizen

:09:25. > :09:30.in policing is key. But, but, but, the public demands that it is

:09:31. > :09:33.essential that police functions are discharged by police officers. We

:09:34. > :09:39.are extremely concerned that the proposals contained in this bill are

:09:40. > :09:45.an attempt by the Home Secretary to provide policing on the cheap. I am

:09:46. > :09:50.grateful and I think he is hitting the nail on the head, because most

:09:51. > :09:54.people will see through this, and what they are seeing is the number

:09:55. > :09:58.of police officers and PCSOs in their own policing neighbourhood

:09:59. > :10:05.teams cut back and watch the Government is proposing to do is to

:10:06. > :10:09.hand those powers to civilians. He is exactly right. If you look at all

:10:10. > :10:14.the surveys of public opinion over the past couple of years in relation

:10:15. > :10:17.to visibility of the police, there are more and more complaints on the

:10:18. > :10:21.part of the public that they no longer see their police officers or

:10:22. > :10:25.their PCSOs, they no longer have the contact with them, there is no

:10:26. > :10:28.longer the routes within the community, and that neighbourhood

:10:29. > :10:32.policing is being progressively hollered out. What people want is

:10:33. > :10:35.for neighbourhood policing, the bedrock of British policing, to be

:10:36. > :10:41.rebuilt, but not rebuilt by using volunteers.

:10:42. > :10:48.The role played about specials in supporting the police force has been

:10:49. > :10:54.a success because it has been accompanied by mind training,

:10:55. > :10:58.appropriate support and they are sworn officers. In contrast, the

:10:59. > :11:05.Government have done nothing to reassure others use of such forced

:11:06. > :11:09.by their brand-new police volunteers will be accompanied by appropriate

:11:10. > :11:14.training, scrutiny and accountability. Indeed, an committee

:11:15. > :11:18.we tabled an amendment explicitly to guarantee there would be a duty on

:11:19. > :11:22.the College of policing to issue guidance to Chief officers on the

:11:23. > :11:30.training of volunteers but this was not supported by the Government. On

:11:31. > :11:35.this point, can I mention the outstanding police crime, China for

:11:36. > :11:42.Northumbria that the police minister earlier on wax lyrical about. She

:11:43. > :11:45.said as follows, volunteers have a very important role to play in

:11:46. > :11:50.supporting policing, but not to place themselves and potentially

:11:51. > :11:54.dangerous situations. When the Home Secretary consulted on proposals to

:11:55. > :12:02.increase volunteer hours I said she was trying to provide policing on

:12:03. > :12:05.the cheap. I understand the point of the honourable gentleman is making

:12:06. > :12:11.but I do not agree with him. Would he accept there are circumstances in

:12:12. > :12:16.which we all have police powers. If I were the in the process of

:12:17. > :12:19.committing what I consider to be an indictable offence I am able to

:12:20. > :12:23.arrest a person without a warrant, as a citizen. With the also

:12:24. > :12:28.therefore agree if we are going to have volunteers amongst the police,

:12:29. > :12:31.as he, unless he wants to do with them at them completely, they at

:12:32. > :12:35.least should be trained so if they do find themselves in a dangerous

:12:36. > :12:40.situation they had have act as a police officer they are able to do

:12:41. > :12:45.so? Using purely the power of citizens arrest, perhaps. The

:12:46. > :12:51.problem is the Government simply failed to spell out how they would

:12:52. > :12:55.ensure these of volunteers are properly trained, properly

:12:56. > :12:59.accountable and that there is clarity as to their role. As I will

:13:00. > :13:05.come to sit later, the Government have not ruled out anything in terms

:13:06. > :13:07.of the overall they might play. Though about the honourable

:13:08. > :13:11.gentleman might want to come back but forgive me if I say on that

:13:12. > :13:23.particular point he will wait until I get to that part of my speech. Of

:13:24. > :13:29.course and whales, the Labour run Welsh Government has a use community

:13:30. > :13:35.support officers which are funded by Welsh Government and perform a very

:13:36. > :13:39.similar role. What is the distinction, which is amendment not

:13:40. > :13:44.prevent those sort of community support officers? I am very familiar

:13:45. > :13:49.with what has happened in Wales because all credit to Labour was

:13:50. > :14:01.Welch assembly they have funded 500 PCS gos. I wasn't Wales two weeks

:14:02. > :14:05.ago and met with some of them, with 200 PSCOs who are very popular with

:14:06. > :14:11.the public. What is being proposed here is a new generation of

:14:12. > :14:14.volunteer PSCOs. As I will come to say, not just in respect of this

:14:15. > :14:21.issue of training and accountability, but also able to use

:14:22. > :14:25.powers, particularly on the issues of CS gas but I think the public

:14:26. > :14:35.will be incredulous about when it becomes clear what the Government is

:14:36. > :14:39.proposing. Madam Deputy Speaker, she was right and no wonder because the

:14:40. > :14:42.last five years Government funding to police forces has seen the

:14:43. > :14:47.biggest cuts or any police service in the entire continent of Europe, a

:14:48. > :14:54.staggering 25%. For that same five-year period the alibi was, we

:14:55. > :15:02.cut police, yes, but the cut crime. Not true that they have got crime.

:15:03. > :15:05.The statistics that the police recorded crime are included in the

:15:06. > :15:13.cleaned up over the last few years following criticism, violent crime

:15:14. > :15:20.up 27%, homicide up 11%, 9% right and they've crime and over police

:15:21. > :15:29.recorded crime up 7%. -- 9% rise in they scream. -- in life crime.

:15:30. > :15:34.Cybercrime and online fraud is included in the statistics in the

:15:35. > :15:40.crime survey of England and Wales in two years' time, it will show crime

:15:41. > :15:46.near doubling. I hope the honourable gentleman is not confusing reported

:15:47. > :15:49.crime with the prevalence of crime. The independent crime survey of

:15:50. > :15:54.England and Wales is very clear the prevalence of crime is down but

:15:55. > :15:58.reporting of crime is up. I hope he would welcome the fact we have more

:15:59. > :16:05.reported crime because it is only by getting reports of crime that the

:16:06. > :16:10.police are able to solve them. I agree the issue of proper reporting

:16:11. > :16:15.and recording is key. For example in relation to sexual offences. But the

:16:16. > :16:22.Government saying we have cut the police but got crime have relied

:16:23. > :16:26.upon the crime survey of England and Wales. The crime survey of England

:16:27. > :16:31.and Wales, the projections, including from the ONS, our own

:16:32. > :16:34.fraud and online cybercrime is included, we're talking about

:16:35. > :16:39.potentially 5 million offences which will nearly double crime. The alibi,

:16:40. > :16:43.with the greatest respect to the Minister, for whom I have great

:16:44. > :16:48.respect, but Ally will be blown apart. Those the honourable

:16:49. > :16:52.gentleman agree that that crime was happening before and it was not

:16:53. > :16:56.included in the survey that the previous Government? Is this

:16:57. > :17:03.Government making sure it is included and we need to be honest

:17:04. > :17:06.about the prevalence so we can then tackle the problem. If I agree it

:17:07. > :17:09.should have been included in the past I hope the Minister and a Greek

:17:10. > :17:13.never again will I hear the Government seat we have cut crime

:17:14. > :17:22.will stop crime is not falling, crime is changing. -- here the

:17:23. > :17:25.Government say. Surely the central point to the honourable gentleman's

:17:26. > :17:31.argument is clause 35 should be deleted. Always pussyfooting

:17:32. > :17:38.amendments are designed to undermine the concept of the volunteer. -- all

:17:39. > :17:44.this pussyfooting. Why doesn't he just speak to that argument rather

:17:45. > :17:51.than wasting our time with amendments 11, 12 and 13, which are

:17:52. > :17:54.actually designed to achieve the inability of a volunteer to perform

:17:55. > :18:02.the function of a police of volunteer? With the greatest

:18:03. > :18:06.respect, I wouldn't downplay the significance of this, according to

:18:07. > :18:11.the public we serve. We will be coming specifically to issues in

:18:12. > :18:20.relation to clause ten on volunteers and clause 13 on volunteer PSCOs

:18:21. > :18:26.being able to carry CS gas. Now, if I can continue, it is simply not

:18:27. > :18:32.true crime is falling. Neither is it true that the Government have

:18:33. > :18:36.protected the front line. The police minister has been good enough to

:18:37. > :18:39.acknowledge she inadvertently misled Parliament by suggesting that.

:18:40. > :18:45.Neither is it true for this funding has been protected. It was said by

:18:46. > :18:50.the Chancellor last November the police protect us, we protect the

:18:51. > :18:56.police. It is now clear the hundred ?60 million cut in real terms in

:18:57. > :19:02.this financial year alone. The inconvenient truth for the

:19:03. > :19:06.Government is there for 18,000 officers have gone an ever fewer are

:19:07. > :19:12.doing ever more, just when demand is growing. Coming to the honourable

:19:13. > :19:16.gentleman point, the right honourable gentlemen point, is

:19:17. > :19:20.crucial in this respect, the context in which the Government have

:19:21. > :19:26.introduced this bill and White our amendment town with block proposals

:19:27. > :19:29.to drive additional police powers to volunteers until the Government has

:19:30. > :19:36.passed a police funding settlement that guarantees funding to police

:19:37. > :19:41.forces will be Pomfret this in them -- will be protected in real terms.

:19:42. > :19:44.We now ask that will be the case. Not before the promise of last

:19:45. > :19:53.November we heard from the Chancellor. -- the phoney promise. I

:19:54. > :20:01.am aware of his experience of South Wales and the cuts to the police

:20:02. > :20:05.there. If you looks at Cheshire he will see in my constituency that

:20:06. > :20:08.increases in the front line where there is a conservative Police and

:20:09. > :20:12.Crime Commissioner, and if he goes to make Wales he will again see

:20:13. > :20:15.increases on the front line where there is a conservative Police and

:20:16. > :20:21.Crime Commissioner. So surely the two are not linked? What is very

:20:22. > :20:25.interesting about what the honourable lady says that if you

:20:26. > :20:31.look at the current police funding formula, to be frank, excuse funding

:20:32. > :20:38.away from the metropolitan areas towards leave the Tory shires. Why

:20:39. > :20:42.is the West Midlands had twice as hard as Saudi? If you ask the Police

:20:43. > :20:47.and Crime Commissioner for sorry, he agrees with that. -- for sorry.

:20:48. > :20:56.Sorry. We then see the situation before

:20:57. > :21:02.Christmas where they had to abandon proposed changes to the formula. I

:21:03. > :21:07.have been listening with the fascination to the honourable

:21:08. > :21:12.gentleman, but he has yet to come onto amendment 11, 12 or 13. Art

:21:13. > :21:24.their arguments in support of those? Absolutely. Coming back to exactly

:21:25. > :21:29.that, if we look at the current arrangements in the police service

:21:30. > :21:33.there is an agreement between the Home Office, the National police

:21:34. > :21:37.chief 's counsel, the College of policing and the police staff unions

:21:38. > :21:42.that police support volunteers should bring additionality to the

:21:43. > :21:48.workforce but should under no circumstances replace or substitute

:21:49. > :21:52.for paid police staff. This Government claimed they protected

:21:53. > :21:56.police funding and they are not using the provisions to plug holes

:21:57. > :22:02.left in the workforce from funding reductions. If plugging gaps in our

:22:03. > :22:07.hollowed out police service is not the Government's aim in these ill

:22:08. > :22:10.thought out proposals then there should be no reason whatsoever why

:22:11. > :22:22.they would not support our amendments ten. I think he just had

:22:23. > :22:27.to realise he is walking into a cul-de-sac which may be a of his own

:22:28. > :22:31.making. For example, we have independent custody visitors who are

:22:32. > :22:35.essentially political boss volunteers. There is a case who

:22:36. > :22:40.could be put by a smart lawyer that they are substituting for custody

:22:41. > :22:44.officers. Our update the kind of people who ought, he wants to get

:22:45. > :22:49.rid of what this legislation? I would urge him to listen to the

:22:50. > :22:58.right honourable member. We have a duty in this house not to create...

:22:59. > :23:02.Amendment 11, 12, 13 and then seemed to me an extraordinary round about

:23:03. > :23:06.way to basically disagree with what the Government is trying to do in

:23:07. > :23:11.the previous amendments. Surely you should put down in the amendment, or

:23:12. > :23:14.vote against the amendment rather than creating that rather buys an

:23:15. > :23:19.instruction to negate what the Government is trying to do. It is

:23:20. > :23:24.quite right those amendments are down, for reasons I will come onto.

:23:25. > :23:28.The one we are pushing to a vote is amendment town because as I just

:23:29. > :23:33.said, the Government should not plug gaping gaps in the police service

:23:34. > :23:40.with volunteers, we should have a properly funded police service in

:23:41. > :23:43.real terms, and not until that happens should the Government

:23:44. > :23:48.proceeds with their proposals in terms of a new generation of

:23:49. > :23:55.volunteers. As I put on to say, without any constraint but bar on

:23:56. > :24:00.what they might be able to do. -- any constraint thus far. Can I now

:24:01. > :24:03.turn to exactly this point, the extraordinary proposal there should

:24:04. > :24:09.be no limits to where they can be placed by the Chief Constable in

:24:10. > :24:15.law. No limits to their operational roles that volunteers might play.

:24:16. > :24:21.Including some of the most vital and sensitive and demanding areas. Madam

:24:22. > :24:26.Deputy Speaker, the public will be rightly dismayed that the Government

:24:27. > :24:31.refuses to roll out the use of volunteers in tackling child sex

:24:32. > :24:36.exploitation, terrorism and serious crime. There has been no clarity in

:24:37. > :24:40.the Government's proposals bus far as to the role volunteers should

:24:41. > :24:46.play in those areas will stop we have asked for clarity and none has

:24:47. > :24:50.been forthcoming. Sony now to the accountability of volunteers. Under

:24:51. > :24:54.the provisions in the bill were police officers and special

:24:55. > :24:57.constables have been dismissed following a disciplinary

:24:58. > :25:00.proceedings, the details would be added to the bar list helped by the

:25:01. > :25:06.College of policing. Chief officers would then be barred from appointing

:25:07. > :25:10.anyone on that list as an officer, a member of police staff or special

:25:11. > :25:15.constable. However, the bill does not provide for volunteers dismissed

:25:16. > :25:21.for misconduct to be added to the barred list and that is why we

:25:22. > :25:25.sought to amend the bill in committee. Perhaps the police

:25:26. > :25:28.Minister can explain what mechanisms are in place them to ensure

:25:29. > :25:36.volunteers who abuse their powers cannot serve again. We still have

:25:37. > :25:40.little clarity on the accountability mechanisms that are in place for

:25:41. > :25:46.these new warranted volunteers. This issue of accountability is key. Not

:25:47. > :25:52.least because there are a glass, deputy chair of the IP CC, said, we

:25:53. > :25:57.believe it is vital for public confidence that all those who

:25:58. > :26:01.perform police like functions and powers are subject to independent

:26:02. > :26:05.oversight. We wholeheartedly agree but the Government does not seem to

:26:06. > :26:09.take that view in respect of this new breed of volunteers.

:26:10. > :26:17.We also tabled an amendment to provide for centlised guidance for

:26:18. > :26:20.disciplinary proceedings to be issuedp against volunteers as well

:26:21. > :26:24.as officers, specials and staff. Again, the Government did not

:26:25. > :26:29.support this. We are no clearer how exactly they would hope to ensure

:26:30. > :26:34.that the necessary professional standards, quality of service and

:26:35. > :26:41.proper accountability are upheld for volunteers. Turning now to one of

:26:42. > :26:47.the most extraordinary proposals in the Bill, a colleague of mine

:26:48. > :26:52.nicknamed it the other day the on-Mcen-Roy proposal, the you cannot

:26:53. > :26:58.be serious proposal! I was in Brighton talking to PCSOs and

:26:59. > :27:03.members of the public yesterday with the honourable member for Hove. They

:27:04. > :27:07.could not believe volunteers would be able to use CS and Pava spray.

:27:08. > :27:14.What fool came up with that idea, said one. Good question, perhaps the

:27:15. > :27:20.Police Minister can enlighten us. It is our strong view the use of CS gas

:27:21. > :27:24.and Pava spray should only be undertaken by officers who are

:27:25. > :27:32.regularly trained on their usage and, importantly, in the law

:27:33. > :27:38.surrounding their use. I'm grateful, but doesn't he also suspect that,

:27:39. > :27:46.the perhaps unintented consequence of this, is will place potentially

:27:47. > :27:51.volunteers in very risky situations? I think that's absolutely right. I

:27:52. > :27:58.will refer to something similar in just one moment. If you have

:27:59. > :28:01.volunteers, I stress again, there's a long and honourable tradition of

:28:02. > :28:07.volunteers working with our police service. If you have volunteers have

:28:08. > :28:12.to to go that extra mile to ensure she are not subject to risk and

:28:13. > :28:16.harm. The idea you issue them with CS gas, I will-trained, no framework

:28:17. > :28:23.of accountability, and then leave them to get on with it, in terms of

:28:24. > :28:29.the consequences that may flow from that could be very serious indeed.

:28:30. > :28:34.My experience is not with the police but I know very well that the police

:28:35. > :28:40.service just like the armed services will not be issuing CS gas or the

:28:41. > :28:45.like without actually very strict controls and very strict training.

:28:46. > :28:51.They will not, volunteers, I'm quite sure, will not have any less

:28:52. > :28:56.training in the use of such chemicals in pursuit of their duty.

:28:57. > :29:00.As the honourable gentleman knows, I used to be chair of the defence

:29:01. > :29:04.unions. I'm proud of my long historic association with our Armed

:29:05. > :29:09.Forces. He was an admirable example of that. What is extraordinary, some

:29:10. > :29:18.of the reasons I've given, but some that I'll come on to, is there just

:29:19. > :29:24.has not been clarity as to training and accountability but simply

:29:25. > :29:30.inserted in the Bill a proposal that you can issue volunteer PCSOs with

:29:31. > :29:35.CS gas and Pava spray. It raises fundamental issues of concern. I

:29:36. > :29:39.suspect in the honourable gentleman's constituency, you raise

:29:40. > :29:46.that with members of the public and they say what planet do they live

:29:47. > :29:51.on? To bring the discussion back to this planet. I accept the Labour

:29:52. > :29:55.Party doesn't want to see volunteers coming into our police system. We

:29:56. > :29:59.can accept that in the way described in the Bill. Where on earth does he

:30:00. > :30:06.get the idea, I hope he's making this up as he's going along, if he

:30:07. > :30:13.thought about these arguments, I'd be more worried, where does it say

:30:14. > :30:17.in the Bill anyone would be handed a knocks substance like CS gas or the

:30:18. > :30:24.other spray without adequate training? It defies belief that

:30:25. > :30:28.anyone with common-sense would advance that argument, still less

:30:29. > :30:31.that it would be a requirement or a likely consequence of their coming

:30:32. > :30:40.into existence that they don't have that training. It is just bananas. I

:30:41. > :30:46.take that to be a question he should take to his front bench. Those

:30:47. > :30:49.concerns are alaid. In detailed scrutiny in the Bill committee, the

:30:50. > :30:55.concerns raised were heard but not acted on. That's precisely why we're

:30:56. > :31:00.having this debate here today. On this issue of the principle of

:31:01. > :31:04.volunteers in the police service, I went out of my way to say at the

:31:05. > :31:09.beginning of this debate there's a long and honourable tradition,

:31:10. > :31:14.excellent men and women i special constables, Neighbourhood Watch, the

:31:15. > :31:18.plans we had, had we won the election in May last year, enhanged

:31:19. > :31:22.roles for people to have a say over the policing of their local

:31:23. > :31:24.communities, including greater volunteering and co-operation with

:31:25. > :31:29.the police. It's where you draw the line as to what is and what is not

:31:30. > :31:34.appropriate. Perhaps I will come with the right honourable gentleman

:31:35. > :31:39.to his constituency and ask the first 100 people what do you think

:31:40. > :31:44.of volunteer PCSOs being able to carry CS gas. I suspect I know the

:31:45. > :31:49.answer we would get. That, if I may respectfully suggest, not a very

:31:50. > :31:53.clever question. It's loaded to produce the answer that the on Habel

:31:54. > :32:00.gentleman wishes to see. He doesn't like clause 35 volunteers. Very

:32:01. > :32:04.found of other volunteers. If I went up to anybody in his constituency

:32:05. > :32:09.and mine, what do you think about people without training carrying

:32:10. > :32:14.shotguns, police weapons or CS gas, of course they'd say that's not

:32:15. > :32:21.Spencible. That is to remove the reality from the practical

:32:22. > :32:27.application of this Bill. No volunteer within the ambit of clause

:32:28. > :32:30.35 will walk around any constituency without having been properly trained

:32:31. > :32:36.in the use of the materials or weapons or instruments to which they

:32:37. > :32:42.will be begin access. It's just plain silly. I wish he'd just move

:32:43. > :32:46.on to something rather better. I agree it's plain silly that his

:32:47. > :32:52.front bench have not answered those questions. No doubt, when his front

:32:53. > :32:56.bench is speaking today and at subsequent stages of the this Bill

:32:57. > :33:01.he will pose those questions and to say quite rightly, it will indeed be

:33:02. > :33:06.silly for this to happen without proper training and account abimity.

:33:07. > :33:13.At the moment, in the Bill, for the reasons I've spelt out, it just is

:33:14. > :33:16.not there. I'm grateful for the honourable member giving way.

:33:17. > :33:19.Matters such a training traditionally are not put in

:33:20. > :33:22.legislation. It doesn't mean they don't happen. There's not a

:33:23. > :33:29.requirement to put it on the face of the Bill. The training still goes

:33:30. > :33:33.on. With respect to the honourable lady, I disagree with that. If you

:33:34. > :33:41.look elsewhere in terms of the training of the police, PCSOs, of

:33:42. > :33:45.police staff, there is guidance there is agreement that's been

:33:46. > :33:50.reached on that. It is very helpful, the framework that exists, but it

:33:51. > :33:54.does not exist as The Bill stands at the moment for the new breed of

:33:55. > :33:58.volunteers that the Government seeks to introduce. Again, I think she

:33:59. > :34:05.might well put that question to her own front bench at the next stages.

:34:06. > :34:10.Madam Deputy Speaker, it's our very strong view that the use of CS gas

:34:11. > :34:14.and Pava spray is something that should only be understake enby

:34:15. > :34:19.officers who are regularly trained on their usage and importantly in

:34:20. > :34:28.the law surrounding their use. In the words, once again of Vera bared,

:34:29. > :34:30.we've lost 861 officers and 941 police staff since 2,00010 through

:34:31. > :34:34.Government cuts. Many volunteers want to support the work of police

:34:35. > :34:40.officers, she said, not to do their jobs for them. The use of CS gas and

:34:41. > :34:44.Pava spray is something that should only be undertaken by sworn officers

:34:45. > :34:48.who are regularly trained on their usage and, importantly, in the law

:34:49. > :34:53.surrounding their use. She's absolutely right. She went on to say

:34:54. > :34:57.rather than extendings the role of volunteers, the Government needs to

:34:58. > :35:07.start funding police forces properly to allow clove stop tabs and --

:35:08. > :35:10.constables to recute more police officers and PCSOs who can support

:35:11. > :35:13.and serve their communities. The Government needs to have a proper

:35:14. > :35:19.conversation with the police and public on what they see as the

:35:20. > :35:23.acceptable use of force by volunteers in a context where

:35:24. > :35:27.institutions like the IPC C have already raised serious issues around

:35:28. > :35:32.the use of force by fully trained warranted officers. Indeed, only

:35:33. > :35:37.today, we've received a brief on this issue of a proper conversation

:35:38. > :35:42.from the national council for voluntary organisations. They've

:35:43. > :35:46.said in relation to these proposals, the development of volunteering in

:35:47. > :35:50.policing needs to be driven by a clear vision and strategic

:35:51. > :35:54.direction, what role the reforms will play in moving towards a

:35:55. > :35:57.different and improved model of policing has not been fully

:35:58. > :36:04.articulated by the Government beyond how it may offer forces greater

:36:05. > :36:10.flexibility and reduced costs. So, returning to the proposal on CS and

:36:11. > :36:14.Pava, our police service has and needs the power to use force where

:36:15. > :36:19.necessary when carrying out its duty to protect the public. It is clear

:36:20. > :36:25.that the public understand and expect and rely upon this. However,

:36:26. > :36:29.under the UK's tradition of policing by consent, they also expect those

:36:30. > :36:33.who use force will be properly trained and qualified and there will

:36:34. > :36:38.be proper accountability. The Government simply have not made out

:36:39. > :36:43.the case and therefore we will be voting against the Government's

:36:44. > :36:48.proposals in this respect. I hope that the Government even at this

:36:49. > :36:52.late stage listens to, for example, Winston Roddick, the chair of

:36:53. > :36:55.association of police and crime commissioners who said when asked

:36:56. > :37:00.about this problem posal, I have serious reservations about it. He

:37:01. > :37:03.went on to say, I think the proposal raises points of principle about

:37:04. > :37:10.arming members of the public to do something by the use of arms which

:37:11. > :37:16.goes further than the common law principle of acting in reasonable

:37:17. > :37:21.self-defence. Both of the honourable gentleman who's a friend of mine,

:37:22. > :37:28.and I, know that we are members of the public in our reserve forces and

:37:29. > :37:33.they do exactly the same with training as any normal, regular

:37:34. > :37:41.soldier on operations. They are sent on operations into really dangerous

:37:42. > :37:45.positions. I'm very familiar with what the honourable gentleman said.

:37:46. > :37:50.I'm proud to have many friends who are reserves. They play a very

:37:51. > :37:54.important role in the Armed Forces. Crucially, they're properly trained

:37:55. > :37:58.and equipped. They work within a framework of accountability. What is

:37:59. > :38:03.not proposed or at least spelt out by the Government is exactly the

:38:04. > :38:07.same in relation to volunteer PCSOs. It is that which we are seeking to

:38:08. > :38:11.draw out. It is for that reason, we will be voting against the

:38:12. > :38:15.Government's proposals. One final thing on volunteering before moving

:38:16. > :38:19.on to other sections of the Bill. Returning to what the national

:38:20. > :38:23.council for voluntary organisations have today said, they've captured,

:38:24. > :38:31.to be Frank, our concern by saying the following. The proposed approach

:38:32. > :38:37.to volunteering through the creation of volunteer positions that are

:38:38. > :38:41.equivalent to or mirrored paid roles, risk misunderstanding, the

:38:42. > :38:46.nature of volunteering and the full contribution it can make. Rather of

:38:47. > :38:52.the language of equivalence they say, we hope the Government will

:38:53. > :38:56.recognise this and start to reflect a language of distinctiveness and

:38:57. > :38:58.this will help ensure a more successful police volunteering

:38:59. > :39:02.programme. They are absolutely right. But the Government have

:39:03. > :39:09.simply, in this respect, got it wrong. Can I turn now briefly to

:39:10. > :39:15.other issues dealt with during the committee stage by the formidable

:39:16. > :39:23.honourable member for West Ham. Our amendments in respect of clause 21,

:39:24. > :39:28.5, 7, 8 and 9. It is a crucial objective of the gun control

:39:29. > :39:32.network. It is a goal that the Government professes it wishes to

:39:33. > :39:37.achieve. During committee stage, we were told by ministers we are as one

:39:38. > :39:43.on the fact and that the taxpayer should not sub dies licensing. We

:39:44. > :39:49.will hold him to his words. We look for an assurance today as to when

:39:50. > :39:52.the Government will move to full cost recovery, noting that some

:39:53. > :40:00.forces are already moving in that direction. It cannot be right that

:40:01. > :40:05.an overstretched police service that's lost 18,000 police officers

:40:06. > :40:13.and PCSOs should have to subsidise gun licenses. We look forward to the

:40:14. > :40:19.minister responding on that. Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to the

:40:20. > :40:24.issue of moving to full cost recovery, just to add one additional

:40:25. > :40:27.point, we hope there will be clarity when the minister says the

:40:28. > :40:31.e-commerce scheme will deliver that. We will see fundamentally the

:40:32. > :40:37.assurance is are removing to full cost recovery and by when will it be

:40:38. > :40:42.achieved? I want to turn briefly to new clauses 7, 8 and 9 proposed by

:40:43. > :40:49.the honourable member for The Cotswolds.

:40:50. > :40:55.Clause eight will allow rifle and pistol club is to use more guns than

:40:56. > :41:01.presently a loud and clause nine will increase the number of people

:41:02. > :41:05.able to lend shotguns. These clauses are in line with the recommendations

:41:06. > :41:10.published by the countryside Alliance in March 20 16. We are not

:41:11. > :41:16.in favour of these amendments because we believe tough laws on

:41:17. > :41:25.gun-control are necessary and that they work. Finally, new clause one,

:41:26. > :41:29.which has been tabled by the member for Enfield. This new clause seeks