Getty Images
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Jeremy Corbyn exposes Theresa May’s police cuts as crime rises

The Labour leader turned Mays record against her as he warned that 21,000 officers had been lost. 

At the general election, Jeremy Corbyn performed an act of political jiu-jitsu when he used Theresa May’s apparent strength (her record on law and order) against her. By exposing May’s record of police cuts as home secretary, Corbyn left the Conservatives with no hiding place (and defied expectations of his party). 

With crime now officially rising (by 14 per cent in the most recent figures), the Labour leader reprised this theme at today’s PMQs. “Does the Prime Minister regret cutting 21,000 police officers?” Corbyn succinctly began.

May insisted that police budgets were now protected, but the figures are unambiguous: police budgets were cut in real-terms by £2.3bn from 2010-15 and have been cut by another £500m since 2015.

Corbyn drew on some unlikely sources to strengthen his case. Conservative MP Philip Davies, he noted, had warned: "The first duty of the government is to protect the public and keep them safe and I have to say to the government they are not putting enough focus on police resources” (Davies greeted the quote with a thumbs-up from the Tory backbenches).

Having struggled to defend her own record, May moved to denounce Corbyn’s. The Labour leader, she said, “doesn't have that good a record when it comes to increasing the powers of the police to do their job”. She cited his vote against making custodial sentences compulsory for those twice caught carrying a knife.

“I am very clear that crime is of course wrong,” was Corbyn’s somewhat unfortunate reply (as if he could plausibly believe that it is right). But he returned to his winning theme: “After seven years of cuts, will the Prime Minister today admit that her government's relentless cuts to police, probation services and social services have left us less safe? The reality is you can't have public safety on the cheap.”

That May resorted to citing former shadow home secretary Andy Burnham's past support for police cuts (Labour has since pledged to fund an additional 10,000 officers) was a mark of her wakness. Once so confident on law and order, the Prime Minister had no definitive riposte to Corbyn today. 

The Labour leader’s decision to ignore the subject of Brexit (as May’s inner cabinet prepares to meet) stunned some. But Corbyn has little interest in exposing his party’s own divisions on the subject. And in the May local elections, the issue of crime will weigh far more heavily on voters’ minds than that of the customs union.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Can Britain’s new powers to investigate unexplained wealth prevent real-life McMafias?

The government is waking up to the fact that global criminals are fond of London. 

The BBC’s McMafia, a story of high-flying Russian mobsters and international money launderers woven into the fabric of London, ended this month. Despite the dramatic TV twists, the subject matter has its basis in reality. As a barrister dealing with cases that involve Russia and former Soviet states, my experience is that politicians and business people use the apparatus of the state to put rivals out of business by any means possible.

In McMafia, previously straight-laced fund manager Alex Godman (played by James Norton) begins transferring money under the cover of a new investment fund. With a click of a button, he can transfer a shady partner’s money around the world. As the Paradise Papers underlined, money can indeed be hidden through the use of complex company structures registered in different countries, many of which do not easily disclose the names of owners and beneficiaries. One company can be owned by another, so the owner of Company A (in Panama) might be Company B (in the Cayman Islands) which is owned by Company C (in the Seychelles) which owns property in London. To find out who owns the property, at least three separate jurisdictions must be contacted and international co-operation arranged – and that’s a simple structure. Many companies will have multiple owners, making it even more difficult to work out who the actual beneficiary is.

I represent individuals before the UK extradition and immigration courts. They are bankers, business people and politicians who have fled persecution in Russia and Ukraine or face fabricated charges in their home country and face extradition or deportation and will often be tortured or put on show trial if we lose. Their opponents will deploy spies, who may pay visits to co-defendants in Russia for “psychological work” (aka torture). Sometimes the threat of torture or ruin against a person’s family is enough to make them confess to crimes they didn’t commit. I have seen family members of my clients issued with threats of explicit violence and the implicit destruction of their life. Outside their close relatives’ homes in Russia, cars have been set on fire. Violence and intimidation are part of the creed that permeates the country’s business and political rivalries.

As in McMafia, London has long played a bit part in these rivalries, but the UK government has been slow to act. In 2006, Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian security agent turned defector, was killed in London using Polonium 210 – a radioactive substance put into a cup of tea. Although Russian state involvement was suspected from the beginning, the UK government tried to block certain material being released into the public domain, leading his family to complain that the UK’s relations with Russia were being put before the truth. In 2016, a decade after his death, the inquiry finally delivered its verdict: there was a “strong probability” Litvinenko was murdered on the personal orders of Vladimir Putin. Yet in the same breath as condemning the act, David Cameron’s spokeswoman said the UK would have to “weigh carefully” the incident against “the broader need to work with Russia on certain issues”.

The government of Cameron’s successor has however been quick to use McMafia as a spring-board to publicise its new Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWO). These new investigatory powers are purportedly to be used to stop the likes of Alex from hiding money from the authorities. Anyone with over £50,000 of property who is politically exposed or suspected of a serious crime, will be forced to disclose the source of their wealth on request. While most British homeowners would own more than £50,000, the individuals are likely to be high profile politicians or under investigation already by the authorities. If they fail to respond punctually, they risk forfeiting their property.

The anti-corruption organisation Transparency International has long campaigned for such measures, highlighting cases such as the first family of Azerbaijan owning property in Hampstead or senior Russian politicians believed to own flats in Whitehall. Previously, confiscating hidden assets has been a lengthy and complex process: when the High Court confiscated an £11m London house belonging to a Kazakh dissident, the legal process took seven years.

The new Unexplained Wealth Orders mean that the onus is shifted to the owner of the property to prove legitimacy and the origin of the wealth. The authorities will have much greater power to investigate where finance and investment originated. But in order for them to work effectively, they will have to be backed up by expert prosecutors. The government still has a long way to go before it makes London a less attractive place to hide money.

Ben Keith is a barrister at 5 St Andrew’s Hill specialising in extradition, immigration, serious fraud, human rights and public law.