Protection of Freedoms Bill
James Brokenshire Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 17 and 18, and Government motions to disagree.
James Brokenshire
The amendments would provide that powers of entry may be exercised only with the agreement of the occupier of the premises in question or on the authority of a warrant, unless the authority using the power
“can demonstrate that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought.”
That restriction would be disapplied where the power of entry is being exercised by a trading standards officer, a constable or a member of the Security Service, or in pursuance of the protection of a child or vulnerable adult.
We are sympathetic to the objective underpinning the amendments. We all agree that powers of entry, particularly as they relate to peoples’ homes, should be subject to proper safeguards, but we believe that the blanket approach taken by the amendments is misconceived and, as such, could hamper legitimate enforcement activities and put lives at risk. The amendments are predicated on the basis that there has been an unacceptable proliferation in the number of powers of entry—some 600 such powers were created by the previous Government—and that in many cases there are insufficient safeguards attached to such powers. The Government share that analysis, which is why we have included the provisions in chapter 1 of part 3 of the Bill. The problem we have with the amendments is not their objective, but the blanket approach they adopt, even if it provides exemptions for a small number of specific bodies. We judge that such an approach would simply not work. One size, in this case, does not fit all, and the fact that the amendments include limited exemptions serves only to demonstrate that the approach taken, while it might appear superficially attractive, is incapable of withstanding close scrutiny.
In adopting the blanket approach of requiring in all cases the consent of the occupier or a warrant, the amendments fail to differentiate between powers of entry that support routine enforcement activity and those powers that protect the public from serious crime or from threats to life and limb.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Does the Home Office have any statistics on the number of times that police officers have entered using the powers that they already have?
James Brokenshire
What I can point the right hon. Gentleman to is the published list of the various powers of entry that we analysed, as it indicates that the total number of powers for all agencies is between about 1,300 and 1,400. That is obviously quite a significant number, hence the reason why in our judgment the analysis, the review and the measures in the Bill are appropriate, given that the proliferation has expanded considerably over the past few years. As I indicated, about 100 new powers of entry were created under the previous Government, hence the reasons for the measures in the Bill and why we feel that the mechanism contemplated by the Lords amendments does not quite fit or work in terms of what is required.
There will undoubtedly be other circumstances, not contemplated by the Lords in their amendments, in which an exception to the general rule should apply. The key point is that without examining each power individually we simply have no way of knowing whether the amendments add necessary safeguards to the overbearing powers of a state official or stymie the operation of a vital tool designed to protect the public.
Given the acceptance of the need for exemptions, it might be tempting simply to add to the list of those officials who are exempt from the requirement to obtain a warrant or the consent of the occupier, but that approach is mistaken. In recognising the need for exemptions, we should not then rush to apply blanket exemptions. Naming specific officials, in the manner of the amendments, grants such persons free rein to operate without the need to consider a warrant or the occupier’s consent, regardless of the purpose for which the officials are seeking to gain entry. That is too broad an exemption.
Interestingly, in the other place the Opposition supported the amendments, but are they really arguing that trading standards officers should, in all circumstances, be able to exercise their powers of entry without the consent of the occupier, or on the authority of a warrant? We shall have to wait and see what the official Opposition say in response to those points, reflecting on the debate that took place in the other place.
Such an exemption might also give that person immunity from the review we intend to undertake, and that simply is not desirable. We want to review all powers of entry, including powers exercised by constables and by trading standards officers, but the presence of such people in the situation under discussion proves unequivocally that the amendments do not work.
It has been suggested that amendment 17 offers the necessary flexibility by authorising entry without consent or a warrant
“where the authority using the power can demonstrate that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought”.
But such a provision would simply create confusion and uncertainty, as it would open up the exercise of a power of entry to legal challenge by an aggrieved occupier who might argue that the requirement to enter the premises in question would not have been frustrated if he had been asked to consent or if a warrant had been applied for.
I hope that my remarks make it clear that the Government are not simply inviting this House to disagree with the amendments and then leave it at that. As I have said, we support the principle that in the great majority of cases powers of entry in respect of domestic premises should indeed be exercised only with consent or on the authority of a warrant, but the way to achieve that is through the existing provisions in this part of the Bill. Clause 40, for example, allows us to add safeguards to powers of entry such as a requirement to obtain an occupier’s consent, providing reasonable notice, or getting a warrant before entering a person’s house. The new code of practice under clause 47 will govern the exercise of powers of entry and set out further safeguards to protect the rights of individuals and businesses.
The duty to review powers of entry under clause 42 will require Ministers to examine all the powers for which they are responsible and report to Parliament on the outcome of that review. The reports of these reviews will indicate whether individual powers are no longer justified and should therefore be repealed or retained but with the addition of better safeguards.
James Brokenshire
If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Bill, he will see that the time period contemplated is two years, in order to allow proper consideration of all the relevant 1,300 to 1,400 powers of entry. This is not something that will simply lie in abeyance. The review of all powers must be completed within two years of Royal Assent, and we have said that we will report back to Parliament every six months to provide an update on progress, so there will be a steady updating process. I hope that that gives him comfort. I also highlight to him the Home Office gateway, which provides an ongoing check and balance in relation to new powers of entry, as well as the ability to review existing powers of entry that may be triggered as a consequence.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
What ultimate sanctions are in place in the event that the two-year review is not completed by any Department?
James Brokenshire
The review is a specific statutory requirement, and we are focused on ensuring that it is undertaken with all due expedition. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the requirements of the ministerial code and other requirements on Departments and Ministers to abide by the law. In addition, the ongoing six-monthly review that I mentioned will enable the House to maintain pressure on Departments to ensure that the provision is being properly adhered to and followed through with the intent and spirit of the Bill.
I point out to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that we have made significant progress through the Home Office gateway, which considers all applications by Departments for new powers of entry. To date, 19 applications to create or amend powers of entry have been considered, and we have added greater safeguards in every case. Every power of entry in respect of domestic dwellings that has been approved through the gateway process has included a requirement that entry is obtained either with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. We have also taken the opportunity to scrap a number of powers.
I hope that that reassures right hon. and hon. Members that we are serious about ensuring that powers of entry are subject to appropriate safeguards and that we are committed to rolling back intrusive state powers and strengthening the privacy of home owners and businesses.
When taken together, the gateway process and the measures that I have outlined add up to a significant commitment to tackle what we have recognised to be a significant infringement of the rights of home owners. I have also made it clear that we cannot, in every case, demand that entry is effected only with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. I put it to the House that our approach will ensure that the necessary safeguards are put in place to protect home owners, while providing greater legal certainty and ensuring that the police and others can act swiftly to protect the public. I therefore have no hesitation in inviting the House to disagree with the Lords amendments.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this short debate.
Lords amendments 16 and 17 were supported in another place by Lord Selsdon. I welcome the debate about powers of entry and look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that I will put to him. When both I and Lord West were Ministers in the Home Office, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), commissioned him to write a review of entry powers. The report that Lord West produced was overtaken by events with the general election, but I will refer to it with regard to the matters before the House.
The genesis of the Protection of Freedoms Bill lies in a document published in 2010 called “Modern Conservatism: Our Quality of Life Agenda”. I hope that the Minister will not think this too harsh, but I thought that, on balance, it was a rather tawdry document and I disagreed with almost every word of it. I do not say that very often or very lightly. The Lords amendments, which were passed with the support of the Opposition in another place, as the Minister said, would hold the Government to account for what they said they would do in that document. It stated that a Conservative Government, who I accept are upon us, would
“cut back the intrusive powers of entry into homes. Public bodies (other than the police and emergency services) will require a magistrates’ warrant, and approval for such a warrant will be restricted to tackling serious criminal offences or protecting public safety.”
This is an area of private grief between Government Back Benchers in another place and the Government. The Lords amendments would allow the Government to deliver on one of their major promises. That is something that the Government have failed to do on many occasions.
Steve Baker
When I look at Lords amendments 16 to 18, my instinct is certainly to support them, but after many, many hours in Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister, I know that he has a thoroughgoing commitment to progress towards liberty, so I assure him of my future support for simplifying powers of entry. As I have said previously to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is in her place, when the knock comes on the door, householders should be able to know whether the person knocking has a right to enter, or whether they are permitted to refuse entry. However, having sat through both the Public Bill Committee’s evidence sessions and heard contributions from Opposition Members, I know that the Minister has met the forces of reaction. I encourage him not to succumb to reactionary opposition or to the notion that certain powers should be elevated over liberty in the interests of security or expediency. I am confident that he will be steadfast in the cause of liberty, so I will support the Government.
James Brokenshire
I rise to respond briefly to a number of the points raised. Let me assure my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Wycombe (Steve Baker) of this Government’s commitment and resolve to roll back the arms of the state that may seek to intrude into private life.
The measures before the House this afternoon are important. They underpin our focus on ensuring that powers of entry are proportionate, appropriate and respect the right to be able to enjoy one’s home without undue interference. The House will also recognise, however, that there are certain circumstances in which such intervention might be appropriate—to protect health, to prevent harm or to ensure that criminals are legitimately brought to justice. That is why we are undertaking the review that I have outlined this afternoon.
I assure the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that I understand his desire to get on with this. We have said that we will report back to the House on a six-monthly basis, and I anticipate that that will involve a joint report on behalf of all the relevant parts of the Government Departments undertaking the review, to provide an update on the progress and the steps that are being taken. We intend the review to be Home Office-led and it will be undertaken in large measure by officials, but they will be responsible to Ministers, and I assure the House that Ministers will be driving the process forward, recognising the House’s strong feelings about the importance of liberty.
It was a bit rich of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to suggest that we were trying to kick this matter into the long grass and to defer or delay it. On the contrary, we are legislating through the Bill, we are taking action and we are setting out a clear process to roll back powers of entry, which grew enormously under the last Government. The fact that 600 new powers of entry were created during their period in office underlines the fact that due regard was not given to the implications of those measures. I am proud that this Government are introducing a clear mechanism to review the impact of powers of entry and the necessity of their remaining on the statute book or being made subject to further safeguards. The measures in the Bill will allow that to be done.
I very much welcome the support that has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon. I know that the right hon. Member for Delyn will want to ask what target we have set, but I hope he has realised that we are not a Government who arbitrarily set targets. We will look at this matter in a measured, considered way and decide what is in the best interests of liberty and the protection of freedoms in relation to safety and security, as well as of the freedom from the intrusion of an overbearing state.
James Brokenshire
I will give way, having made a challenge to the shadow Policing Minister.
Mr Hanson
I sense that the Minister is about to finish his speech. Before he does so, will he try to answer the question that I put to him earlier? In the event of a Secretary of State not meeting the duty set out in clause 42, what sanctions would be available to address their failure to meet that target?
James Brokenshire
I think I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman’s questions fairly and squarely in terms of the statutory requirement on which I hope the House will legislate. I hope that that measure will go on to the statute book. The Bill represents a significant step forward—one that the previous Government failed to take during the 13 years in which they were creating 600 additional powers of entry. I note that he is seeking to push and challenge us on this, but I must point out that the Bill represents a significant step forward. Ministers will be bound by the provisions, and they will take the new responsibility extremely seriously.
I hope that the House is minded to disagree with the Lords in their amendments this afternoon. That in no way implies a lack of commitment, resolve or focus on the Government’s part to ensure that powers of entry are properly examined and, as appropriate, scaled back to ensure that they properly protect without intruding, and that they are not retained on the statute book if they are not necessary.
Lords amendment 16 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 17 and 18 disagreed to.
A New Clause
Stalking
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment (b) to Lords amendment 51.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2.
Lords amendment 3, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 4 to 8.
Lords amendment 9, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 10 to 15, 19 to 29, 56, 62, 64 to 66, 70 to 101, 114 to 116 and 134 to 137.
James Brokenshire
The amendments relate to the provisions in parts 1 to 4 of the Bill. Some are of a minor and technical nature, but some are of more substance; given the number of amendments in the group, I propose to focus my comments on the more substantive amendments. We are returning to themes and issues that have been debated at length in the House. Obviously, we judge that improvements have been made in the other place. We very much look forward to debating those issues, as well as the amendments to the Lords amendments proposed by the Opposition.
Amendment 1 takes account of the change in part 5 of the Bill to the definition of “vulnerability”. The new definition is intended to be more straightforward for the police to understand and apply. It relates to the ability of the police to retain the DNA profile of someone who has been arrested but not necessarily charged, and to a measure built in to provide certain safeguards where there was some proximity between the person arrested and the possible victim of a crime. Part of that relies on the definition of “vulnerable adult”. The definition originally applied in clause 3 was taken from the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. As that Act and definition are amended by the Bill, the 2006 Act definition is no longer suitable because it focuses on the care or treatment being provided to the individual, rather than on the characteristics of the person themselves. For the purposes of clause 3, a different definition is needed, which is why we have imported the definition from the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which links vulnerability to the ability of an individual to protect themselves from violence, abuse or neglect, and which we feel fits more neatly the purposes of clause 3. As I have said, the provision is intended to provide a further safeguard where the police arrest someone for a violent or sexual offence, if there is proximity to the victim.
Amendment 2 introduces a limited exception to the general rule, brought forward from the previous Government’s Crime and Security Act 2010, that all samples will be destroyed within six months of being taken. I think both sides of the House agree that DNA samples should be destroyed as soon as practicable, and a six-month window was felt to be appropriate. However, the Government tabled amendment 2 in the other place in response to representations from prosecutors at the Crown Prosecution Service. They told us that, in a limited number of cases each year, it would be necessary to retain individual samples in order to deal with any subsequent challenge by the defence to the comparison made between the DNA of the individual and that found at the crime scene—in other words, to provide reassurance in relation to criminal prosecution. Prosecutors expressed concerns that if they could not retain samples in these cases, they might unable to withstand such a challenge and that acquittals on technical grounds might result.
It might assist right hon. and hon. Members if I give an example of the type of case where such an issue might arise. A crime scene stain could well contain a mixture of the blood of both a stabbing victim and their attacker, and perhaps a third person such as an innocent house-mate of the victim. In such case, the quantity of material from the victim is likely to exceed significantly that from the attacker and the innocent third party. Without retaining the reference samples from all three individuals, the chemistry and analysis used to derive the three individual profiles, and thus make a match to the suspect, might be open to challenge in court.
Lords amendment 2 therefore creates a safeguard by inserting a mechanism into clause 14 to enable the police to decide very early in a case, before any samples have been destroyed, to make an application to the local magistrates court to retain all the individual samples in the case for 12 months. In the majority of cases, 12 months should be long enough to identify a suspect and complete the pre-trial disclosure process, as part of which it would be established whether the defence intended to mount a challenge to the derivation of the DNA profiles and/or the matches that may have arisen; if not, the material would be destroyed at that point. If the derivation of the profiles remained at issue, a further application could be made to the trial judge to retain the material for an additional 12 months.
Lords amendment 3 updates the existing exclusions from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to ensure that the new regime in part 1 of the Bill does not apply to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 or the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, both of which have bespoke retention and destruction regimes in schedule 1 to the Bill. In case the shadow Policing Minister is wondering, I will come to the Opposition’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 3, but I will go through the Government’s amendments before dealing with the Opposition amendments.
Lords amendments 73 to 83 to part 3 of schedule 1, relate to the retention of DNA profiles and fingerprints as set out in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, as opposed to those that fall under standard PACE regimes. Specifically, amendment 73 ensures that new section 18 of the Counter-Terrorism Act applies only to biometric material that is held by a law enforcement authority under the law of England, Wales or Northern Ireland, that is not subject to existing statutory restrictions, and that is held for the purposes of national security. The remaining amendments also clarify the scope of the application of the provisions amending the retention regime under section 18 of the 2008 Act. They extend the list of existing statutory restrictions set out in the Act and permit law enforcement authorities to retain anonymous material indefinitely. The amendments would essentially prevent the premature deletion of profiles, before a proper investigation into who the sample belongs to has taken place.
The separate issue of biometrics in schools is dealt with by Lords amendments 7 to 14. The Government consider a child’s biometric information to be highly personal and sensitive, and as such, it should be afforded greater protection. We debated these issues at length in Committee during the Bill’s earlier passage through this House. There is general agreement in both Houses that schools and colleges should be required to obtain the consent of a child’s parents if they wish to take and process a child’s biometric information. We listened carefully to the concerns raised about how the proposal to seek the written consent of each parent would impose an unreasonable additional burden on schools and colleges, and that it could discourage schools and colleges from using biometric recognition technology. Lords amendments 7 to 14 would remove the requirement for both parents to give consent, and provide instead for schools and colleges to be required to notify both parents that they intend to take and process the child’s biometric information. As long as no parent objects in writing, the written consent of only one parent will suffice.
We believe that Lords amendments 7 to 14 strike a sensible balance between ensuring that the views of both parents continue to be taken into account and preserving their right to object, as well as ensuring that the administrative burden on schools and colleges is not too great. The amendments also bring the consent requirements in the Bill more in line with all the other forms of consent that schools and colleges are required to have. The main difference in this instance is the express provision to notify both parents of a child, and the stipulation that if any parent objects, the processing of their child’s biometric information cannot take place. The amendments in no way lessen the key purpose of this part of the Bill, which is to ensure that children’s personal and sensitive data are properly protected.
The amendments to part 4 of the Bill relate to pre-charge detention. Lords amendment 27, which is a response to a further recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, relates to clause 58, which contains a power for the Secretary of State to increase the maximum limit of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 28 days for a three-month period in circumstances where Parliament is dissolved or in the period before the first Queen’s Speech of the new Parliament. The Committee previously considered a similar order-making power in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. That Act contains a duty for an order made when Parliament is not sitting to be laid as soon as practicable afterwards. To ensure consistency across these two pieces of legislation, and in keeping with the Committee’s recommendation, Lords amendment 27 requires a draft of a clause 58 order to be laid before Parliament once it has reassembled following a general election.
Lords amendment 28 is designed also to respond to an observation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee by removing any requirement for an order that revokes a 28-day pre-charge detention extension to be approved by Parliament. The extension by order of pre-charge detention to 28 days would be exceptional, as we have said previously; therefore revoking the order would simply return the pre-charge detention arrangements to the status quo.
Lords amendments 29 and 101 are a response to a recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on stop-and-search powers. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the police officer who is considering whether to authorise the use of stop-and-search powers under section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000 is reasonable in his or her consideration of the necessity of using the powers, as well as in his or her suspicion that an act of terrorism will take place. The Government believe that the amendments made in the other place have improved the relevant provisions of the Bill, and I commend them to the House.
Let me turn to the Opposition amendments in the group, starting with amendment (a) to Lords amendment 3. On our reading, it would effectively disapply all the substantive provisions of chapter 1 of part 1 of the Bill in cases of an alleged offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In practice, if a person was arrested for, or charged with, any offence under the 2003 Act, there would be no requirement to destroy DNA samples and no time limit on the retention of DNA profiles or fingerprints. It is interesting that, with amendment (a), Labour appears to be changing the position it held in government, when Ministers appeared to argue that a six-year limit was appropriate. They also said that they acknowledged the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the S and Marper case, and their proposals in the Crime and Security Act 2010 were intended to follow through on that.
When the Bill was last before this House, we discussed at some length whether it was appropriate to retain such material for three or six years. Now the Opposition apparently wish to ignore even their own previous analysis, and instead go back to keeping everything for ever in cases involving offences under the 2003 Act. Before, when we challenged the Opposition on this, they said, “No, no, it is not our intention to keep DNA profiles for ever. We wish to stick rigidly to the six-year rule,” so it is interesting—and notable, given their statements that they are now moving more in the direction of protecting individual liberty—that they are now reverting to type and seeking to retain indefinitely the DNA profile of people who might be innocent of any crime.
James Brokenshire
I will give way to the hon. Lady, and as I have said, I look forward to hearing the Opposition’s clarification on the amendment.
Diana Johnson
Will the Minister clarify what would happen if one or both parents have refused permission for biometric data to be taken from their child, but the child wishes to consent? Would the child have the right to have their biometric information taken?
James Brokenshire
As the hon. Lady will be aware, the provisions relate to the consent of the parents. They say that the consent of one parent is required, but it is left open to the other parent to object, and such an objection would stand. If need be, in the light of the arguments that the right hon. Member for Delyn makes for his amendment, I will provide further clarification.
Finally, I turn to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 28. The amendment is a response to an observation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that questioned the necessity of an affirmative procedure for an order revoking a temporary extension order. In the Government’s response to the Committee, we concluded that it was not necessary to subject a revocation order to parliamentary scrutiny, given that it would be neither appropriate nor meaningful. The Committee did not take issue with that conclusion. It would be perverse if Parliament were in the position of debating and voting on a revocation order when it had not had the opportunity to approve the original temporary extension order, given that the order had been revoked before it had been approved. Any such debate would be likely to be academic because a temporary extension order lasts for only three months, and there is therefore a strong possibility that an order would have expired before any debate had taken place. Furthermore, a revocation order will simply return the maximum period of detention to 14 days, the maximum period already approved by Parliament, which negates the need for parliamentary approval of a revocation order. That remains the Government’s view, and I hope that the House will not support the Opposition’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.
Mr Hanson
As the Minister has said, we are indeed traversing old ground that is familiar to me, to him and to his officials. The initial discussion on DNA retention had its genesis in the debates on what became the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was produced during what I shall have to call the dying days of the last Labour Government. At that time, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and I, the then Policing Minister, wrestled with the issues on DNA retention. We looked at them in great detail, and made an assessment of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on these matters.
We also considered how we could maximise the envelope that was available for the retention of DNA. That was a matter of judgment. We wished to ensure that we had the greatest possible ability under the legal requirements set down under those European Court judgments to maintain the retention of DNA so that we could use it to catch criminals who had committed crimes or who could potentially commit further crimes. We made the assessment—rightly or wrongly; we believe rightly—that there were between 20,000 and 23,000 individuals who might well have committed crimes during the six years. With the shorter period that the Minister is proposing in the Bill, such people will not now have to face that judgment. The police might not be able to use the DNA samples any more when the Bill comes into force, as the DNA profiles will no longer be in place. This is indeed old ground.
The 2010 Act was the subject of a difference of opinion between me and the then shadow Minister, and that difference has not changed in the subsequent two years. Happily in many ways, I was not party to the Bill’s initial consideration in Committee, as I was at that time shadowing Treasury Ministers. I returned in October, however, to find that the Government were intent on progressing the change in the DNA regime. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who was a Home Office Minister at the time. Let me say that as a name for a Bill, the Protection of Freedoms Bill is one of the greatest misnomers ever in my near 20-year career in this House. It unpicks the impact of Labour’s 2010 Act. In so doing, I believe it puts at risk individuals in our communities who could have been helped and supported and could have been protected from becoming victims by the provisions of the 2010 Act.
Our amendment (a), to which the Minister has referred, is meant to provide a device to allow us to debate some of the serious offences that would be impacted by the Government’s proposed changes to the DNA regime. We have argued strongly—it is a matter of judgment—that the Crime and Security Act 2010 was the best way to meet our European obligations at the same time as trying to protect civil liberties and ensuring also that the British people would be free of murder, rape and crime. There are balances to be struck in ministerial life, which is always about balances. When I was in government with my fellow Ministers in the Home Office—the Department that the present Minister is now privileged to serve—we felt that under European law and paying respect to the protection of liberties, we should try to extend the window of opportunity to protect as many people as possible by ensuring that DNA samples were collected.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I wish to raise one specific issue in relation to Lords amendment 3, and I put on the record my interest as a life member of the Magistrates Association. Ministers propose that the possible holding of DNA on the database beyond the period covered by the legislation could be agreed on application to a district judge. My understanding is that they have drawn on the experience in Scotland, where agreement from the sheriff and the sheriff courts is required. Has consideration been given to extending that provision to cover justices of the peace who are members of the lay magistracy? Unlike in Scotland, the magistrates court works as a single bench; there is no hierarchical difference or difference in terms of courts between district judges and lay magistrates.
James Brokenshire
We have carefully considered the issue of the balance between the lay magistracy and the more professional judiciary. On the specific issues in question, we judge that because of the likely number of cases and the role required, the current measures are the right ones. However, we will continue to keep this under review as the legislation comes into effect and is applied.
Kate Green
I thank the Minister for that assurance, and I certainly hope the situation will be kept under review. District judges are paid members of the magistracy, and I am sure the Minister is not suggesting that there is less professionalism in the quality of judgments of the lay magistracy.
James Brokenshire
In many respects, I am speaking on behalf of the Minister for Equalities, who is also responsible for criminal information; she would wish to be here if it were not for a family emergency.
This group of amendments relates to parts 5 and 7 of the Bill. Part 5 will implement our reforms to the disclosure and barring arrangements, which will scale them back to common-sense levels. The Lords amendments to part 5 address a number of concerns raised by hon. Members in our earlier deliberations on its important provisions. We have had useful debates on the issues in this House and the other place, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) welcomes Lords amendments 33 to 36, which amend clause 67 and relate to the criteria for automatic barring by the Independent Safeguarding Authority.
Our review of the disclosure and barring scheme concluded that it did not make sense to bar somebody if they had never worked, and are unlikely ever to work, in regulated activity. We recognise that this change to the barring arrangements was a matter of concern to hon. Members in this House and in another place, and to partner organisations. We therefore brought forward the amendments, so that people convicted of the most serious offences, such as the rape of a child—in such cases, representations are not allowed—are barred automatically, whether or not they have any link to regulated activity. In all other cases, a person will be barred only if they have been, are, or might in the future be involved in regulated activity. Should they ever apply to work in regulated activity, their details will be passed to the Independent Safeguarding Authority or the disclosure and barring service, which will consider them for barring at that point. I welcome what the hon. Lady said in that regard.
On amendments 30 and 31, obviously there continues to be a genuine difference between the two sides of the House. I listened carefully and intently to what the hon. Lady said. Amendments 30 and 31 amend clause 64, which amends the definition of “regulated activity” and introduces the concept of regular and day-to-day supervision of individuals whose work would be regulated activity if unsupervised. We previously debated at length the appropriate level of supervision; the Opposition suggested that it should be “close” and “constant”; notwithstanding what the hon. Lady has said, we still believe that that formula is unworkable in practice.
When the Bill left this House, it already made provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the meaning of “day to day supervision”. Amendments 30 and 31 require the level of supervision to be reasonable in all the circumstances for protecting children. That qualitative threshold, coupled with the statutory guidance, will assist employers and voluntary organisations in making appropriate judgments as to which of their supervised staff or volunteers fall within or outside the scope of regulated activity. The hon. Lady’s amendments to Lords amendments 30 and 31 would remove the definition of “day to day supervision” in clause 64 and replace it with:
“constant monitoring by an individual engaged in a regulated activity who is on the same site and able to maintain close visual and audio contact with the individual who is under supervision.”
Such constant monitoring is, in our judgment, likely to be impossible in practice. A trip away from a classroom, perhaps for a comfort break or something like that, would be enough to cause someone to fall foul of the amendments. The effect of the amendments would be to reinstate all supervised people within regulated activity.
I appreciate that this is a point of difference between us, and I know that the hon. Lady has considered the issue carefully, but as we have said, we believe that although it is right that all paid staff and unsupervised volunteers in specified places such as schools, and unsupervised staff in other places who carry out activities such as teaching and training, should be within regulated activity, it is not proportionate to include other staff in those areas within regulated activity. Lords amendments 30 and 31 make it clear that the test of supervision is whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances for child protection, so if supervision is not reasonable, the person falls within regulated activity, but if it is reasonable, there is no need for them to do so. Our judgment is that that is right, in order to empower employers to make decisions, to reduce unnecessary burdens on employers, and to remove barriers to volunteering. If a grandparent whom a head teacher has known for years wants to help out with reading at their local school, why should the head teacher have to check their barred status, if he or she knows that they present no risk?
However, I repeat the assurances given by my ministerial colleague, Lord Henley in another place: supervised people who work regularly and closely with children will remain eligible for enhanced criminal record certificates, and our guidance on supervision will make it clear that it is best practice to request such a certificate when employees or volunteers are unknown to the organisation, or if checks are needed for new posts or staff moves.
It might make sense for me to talk about the Opposition’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 48, because there is a strong link between that amendment and their amendments to Lords amendments 30 and 31. The effect of the amendment to Lords amendment 48 would be that the definition of “conviction” in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 included a person’s inclusion on an ISA barred list. I presume that the intention is that the information should then be included on criminal record certificates.
We have debated the issue of barred list information before. The Government do not think it right to include barred list information on enhanced criminal record certificates, except for posts falling within regulated activity, and a few compelling exceptions, such as when people are applying to foster or adopt a child.
Employers in regulated activity must know about a bar because of its legal effect; otherwise, there is no need to know because it relates to a different area of work and in practice would lead to individuals being excluded from areas of work to which their bar does not apply. In most cases, the information which led to the bar will be available on an enhanced criminal record certificate. When it is not, as Lord Henley also confirmed last week in another place, we will use secondary legislation to allow the ISA to give the police the information which led to a bar so that they can disclose it on an enhanced certificate, if it is relevant to the post applied for.
Bars may apply, for example, because there is a criminal conviction, but equally a bar may apply because someone has been dismissed by their employer in respect of a particular case. In those circumstances the ISA would be able to give the police the relevant information. The police would then be able to determine, through an enhanced check, whether its disclosure was appropriate. We think that that provides an important safeguard.
Diana Johnson
With the experts at the ISA making a judgment about whether someone should have barred status, why is another layer of bureaucracy introduced by giving that information to the police to allow them to make a further judgment about whether that should be disclosed to a school, for example? Why do we not trust the ISA to make the right decision and disclose that?
James Brokenshire
This is where we differ on the appropriate way to treat the bar. We believe that if there are circumstances which would otherwise not necessarily have been disclosed for the ISA to make that judgment, it is appropriate to allow that information to be disclosed to the police and for the police to consider the application that they have received on an enhanced check and to judge whether the disclosure of those facts and circumstances is right in that case.
I appreciate that a difference exists between us. We do not see that as bureaucratic. It is about respecting the purpose of the bar and ensuring that on an enhanced check, if the ISA holds relevant information, it can be provided to the police. We have made that clear through our assurances in another place. I hope that that gives greater reassurance on a matter about which I know the hon. Lady feels strongly.
Meg Munn
I am concerned that the measure is becoming bureaucratic. We know that when systems are not clear, there is a greater likelihood that people will not follow them properly. Although the Minister may be certain in his own mind that the theoretical operation of the process is justified, is he equally certain that it will be operated in a way that does not allow information that should be shared to fall through the gaps?
James Brokenshire
We intend that the ISA should provide that information to the police, as I explained. We will be very focused on the way in which the measure is implemented to ensure that that reflects our intentions and that the police have the relevant information for an enhanced check. I recognise that there is a potential point of difference between us on this, but I hope I have explained some of the additional safeguards that we are putting in place.
From what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said, I do not think the other amendments are contentious. Amendments 37 and 38 to clause 77 would make it clear that the new duty on the ISA—and, in future, the disclosure and barring service—to pass barring information to the police will include passing the whole of the children’s and adults’ barred lists, as well as information about a particular person. This will ensure that the police can obtain real-time access to barring information for safeguarding purposes.
Amendment 40 to clause 79 would make changes to the proposed arrangements for the issue of a single criminal record certificate under that clause. Amendment 40 provides a facility for the Secretary of State to send to a registered body a copy of a criminal record certificate only where the registered body uses the new updating service, as introduced by clause 82, and is informed that a new certificate should be applied for—in other words, that there has been new information since the most recent certificate. If, once that new certificate has been sought, the registered body informs the Secretary of State that the individual has not sent it a copy of the new certificate within a prescribed period and requests a copy of the new certificate, the Secretary of State must comply with that request.
However, a copy of the certificate will not be sent if prescribed circumstances apply. Principally, these will be when the individual has challenged the information on the new certificate. This change will be particularly relevant to large organisations that consider certificates centrally, which will be able to advise their local branches of any issues arising.
Amendment 41 would insert a new clause into the Bill which will strengthen the current powers of the Criminal Records Bureau to refuse to register an individual or organisation as a registered body. Amendment 48 inserts a new clause that will ensure that cautions, reprimands and warnings are recorded on the police national computer in exactly the same way as convictions.
James Brokenshire
With the leave of the House, I shall briefly respond to the hon. Lady’s two points about trafficking.
On the first point, about the requirement for a rapporteur under article 19 of the EU directive, we still take the view that the requirement can be met through the inter-departmental ministerial group, but we recognise that the group needs to be reviewed to ensure that it can perform the rapporteur function effectively, and its next meeting, in April, will do just that.
It is also important for me to make it clear that the directive does not stipulate that the national rapporteur or equivalent mechanism be independent of government, but the Government fully recognise that in signing up to the EU directive we must comply with the requirements therein.
In response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I can confirm that it is intended that there will be an annual report on the group’s activities in that regard. I hope that that is helpful to him.
James Brokenshire
Unfortunately, the second point is outside my gift and within that of the business managers, but I certainly assure my hon. Friend about the publication of the report, and I hope that my comments on the rapporteur function are helpful.
Secondly, on the hon. Lady’s point about the assurance made by my noble Friend Lord Henley in the other place, the Government intend that we should ask the Children’s Commissioner for England to help to identify where improvements can be made to the practical care arrangements for trafficked children in the way that the hon. Lady highlighted.
I pay tribute to the work of the Children’s Commissioner. The hon. Lady highlighted the work on sexual exploitation, and I know about the very important review that the commissioner is undertaking. I had the privilege to discuss the issue with her at the start of her report, when I had ministerial responsibility for policy on the sexual exploitation of children, and I for one underline her comments on what I am sure will be an extremely important and valuable report. In the context of my noble Friend’s assurance in the other place, therefore, what I can say is that the issue is being considered extremely carefully, and discussions are under way on the scope and time scale of the review, but at this stage I am unable to give the hon. Lady the complete assurance that she looks for in the second of her two amendments. The matter is being looked at extremely carefully and closely in order to give effect to the statements that my noble Friend made in recognising the importance that we attach to receiving such input from the Children’s Commissioner.
Keith Vaz
Will the Minister respond to my hon. Friend’s excellent point about the appointment of guardians? It was an excellent point that reflects the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee when we produced our major report two years ago on human trafficking. The appointment of a guardian would provide the best possible protection for such children in care.
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and for the reason he cites we asked the Children’s Commissioner to review the practical care arrangements for trafficked children. We said that the right step at this stage was to seek that input, rather than to seek to legislate, recognising equally that several local authorities are already undertaking some very good practice.
I recognise that, in respect of the hon. Lady’s amendments, that might not be sufficient, but it was important that I respond and set out those points to the House this evening.
Question put, That amendment (a) to Lords amendment 30 be made.
Opt-in Decision (Parliamentary Scrutiny)
James Brokenshire Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
In his written ministerial statement on 20 January 2011, Official Report, column 51WS, the Minister for Europe outlined the coalition Government’s commitment to further strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of JHA opt-in decisions. This included a commitment, where there is strong parliamentary interest, to set aside Government time for a debate in both Houses on its proposed approach.
The Government have decided to offer debates in Government time on the following proposals, which it is anticipated will be published in 2012:
Home Office dossiers
A draft directive establishing minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking (with a proposal on information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances, if published as a part of the package);
A draft regulation to reform Eurojust’s structure; and
Draft directives creating minimum rules for the confiscation of criminal assets and arrangements for the mutual recognition of confiscation orders.
Ministry of Justice dossiers
A draft directive on data protection in policing and criminal justice;
Measure E on the road map on criminal procedural rights—a draft directive on special safeguards in criminal procedures for suspected or accused persons; and
A draft directive proposal on the compensation of crime victims.
Measures may be added to or removed from this list depending on the level of parliamentary interest which is generated by the published proposal. It is also not always possible to predict, ahead of analysis of the final proposal, whether the opt-in will apply. The Commission’s timetable may also change. Parliament will be kept informed of any changes, which will be discussed with the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and the House of Lords European Union Committee.
It should be noted that this is a list of proposals that are offered for debate in Government time. It does not rule out the possibility that the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee or the House of Lords European Union Committee may call for debates on other proposals.
European Union Justice and Home Affairs Measures
James Brokenshire Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
We believe that European Union measures that impose justice and home affairs (JHA) obligations only apply to the UK if we choose to opt in to them. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, there have been a number of JHA proposals that repeal measures that we are currently bound by, and replace them with new ones. We have not opted in to all of the replacement proposals and there has been a question as to whether the measures that we currently do take part in (the “underlying measures”) would still bind us once the replacement has entered into force.
The policy we inherited from the previous Government was that the UK was not bound by an underlying measure when we did not opt in to a measure repealing and replacing that underlying measure. Following a review of this policy, the position of the Government is that:
the UK considers itself bound by an underlying measure when we do not opt in to a
new measure that repeals and replaces it; and
article 4a of the title V opt-in protocol (protocol 21 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union) should be interpreted as applying not only to amending measures but also to repeal and replace measures.
Our position has been reinforced by the fact that the Commission has started to introduce express wording in repeal and replace measures which makes it clear that the underlying measures will continue to bind us if we do not opt in. It is highly likely that the Commission will in future routinely insert such language into new measures.
We acknowledge that this new policy carries a small risk of the UK being bound by arrangements which no longer operate in relation to the EU as a whole but continue to apply as between the UK and Denmark (and sometimes Ireland). This would happen when only the UK and Denmark (and sometimes Ireland) remain bound by an underlying measure following a “repeal and replace” proposal. However, we already accept this position in relation to amending measures as a consequence of article 4a of the title V opt-in protocol. Article 4a of the title V opt-in protocol provides that the UK remains bound by an underlying measure where a new measure amends it unless
“the non participation of the UK and Ireland in the amended version of an existing measure makes the application of that measure inoperable for other Member States of the Union...”
In such cases, the measure would cease to apply to the UK.
Our decision to accept that we continue to be bound by an underlying measure where it has been repealed and replaced has a direct read across to the interpretation of article 4a of the title V opt-in protocol. Our view is that a broad interpretation of article 4a is the correct one and that repeal and replace measures should be considered to be a type of amending measure for the purposes of article 4a. In practical terms, if we accept that the UK continues to be bound by the underlying measure where we do not participate in the new ‘repeal and replace’ measure, we believe that we must also accept that, in such cases, the UK would cease to be bound by the underlying measure where it was deemed to be ‘inoperable’.
Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Amendments)
James Brokenshire Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The Home Office is today introducing tough new measures in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 which will extend and strengthen the system of notification requirements placed on registered sex offenders (commonly referred to as the sex offenders’ register). We have also brought forward the draft Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2012, which will ensure that strict rules are put in place and a robust review is carried out on a case-by-case basis before any sex offender placed on the register for life can be removed. This will remove the legislative incompatibility identified by the Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of F and Angus Aubrey Thompson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 17. In this case, the Supreme Court made a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to the notification requirements for an indefinite period under section 82(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Government’s response [Cm 8293] to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ (JCHR) report: Nineteenth Report of Session 2010—12 HC 1549 Proposal for the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2011, published in October 2011, has today been laid before the House.
Protecting the public is a priority and to this end, the Home Office continues to engage with public protection agencies to ensure that the risk posed to the public by sexual offenders is managed effectively. New measures will make it compulsory for all offenders subject to the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to: notify the police of all foreign travel (including travel outside of the UK of less than three days); notify weekly where they are not registered as regularly residing or staying at one place (i.e. where a registered sex offender has no sole or main residence and instead must notify the police of the place where he can regularly be found); notify where they are living in a household with a child under the age of 18; notify bank account and credit card details and notify information about their passports or other identity documents at each notification, tightening the rules so that sex offenders can no longer seek to avoid being on the register when they change their name. A summary of the responses received to the Home Office consultation on these changes is available on the Home Office website and will be placed in the House Library.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) Order 2012 will give offenders the ability to seek a review of their indefinite notification requirements only once they have completed a fixed period of time subject to those requirements (typically 15 years from the time of first notification following release from custody for adults, and eight years for juveniles). The review will be carried out by the police and will take into account a range of factors, including any information provided from agencies which operate within the multi-agency public protection arrangements framework. This will ensure that there is an individual assessment of risk before any offender is considered for removal from the notification requirements. A route of appeal to a magistrates court has also been included. We are clear that we have developed a process that is robust, workable and makes public protection a central factor, while at the same time preventing sex offenders being able to waste taxpayers’ money by repeatedly challenging our laws. Sex offenders who continue to pose a risk will remain on the register and will do so for life if necessary.
The final impact assessments for these proposals can also be found on the Home Office website.
Forensic Science Service
James Brokenshire Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I welcome the opportunity to wind up this debate and I welcome the introduction to it by the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller).
This has been a wide-ranging debate on a number of issues. Clearly, there is not agreement across the House on some aspects, but one note that we can agree on is that forensic science is an indispensible tool in fighting crime. It is the means by which physical evidence finds a voice. In some cases, forensic science is the only source of information on which a court can rely to ascertain guilt or innocence.
At the outset, and in the context of a number of points that were made, I should say that the Government are absolutely committed to safeguarding that central pillar of our criminal justice system. I underline that clearly, and I want to put on the record, in response to a point that was made, that we fully recognise the importance of a healthy forensics situation for the criminal justice system, which is not limited to the police.
Michael Ellis
Does my hon. Friend agree that forensic science is important because it can exonerate the innocent as well as prove the guilt of the accused?
James Brokenshire
Learned Members of the House have made various contributions on the relevance and significance of forensic evidence. Each has underlined that forensic science is an important and effective tool in seeking to prosecute and convict, but that it is equally important in analysing evidence to ensure that those who are not guilty of crimes are exonerated. That is an important part of the Government’s approach in ensuring that there are clear safeguards and quality thresholds, which I will come to in a moment.
I was struck by a number of hon. Members’ contributions because they almost implied that there had been no competitive market in forensics prior to this Government’s decision. To be clear, there has been a competitive market in forensic science for a number of years. In some ways, the creation of the forensic science market has been a success. Turnaround times have been faster, prices have been lower and quality standards have increased, I believe because of the competitive tensions that have been created, which some hon. Members sought to highlight.
I hope I can say with confidence that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that there is an important role in forensics for private sector providers, although there has been a debate on the role and function of such providers. However, it is fair to say that the creation of a market created problems for the FSS. The Committee recognised in its comments that the problems for the FSS did not suddenly appear on the horizon on the arrival of this Government.
In recognising why the Government had to act as they did, it is important to understand the context. Several hon. Members referred to the McFarland review, which recommended that the FSS should become a Government-owned, contractor-operated company, as a staging point to becoming a public-private partnership. The previous Government accepted the McFarland review and sought to establish the FSS as a Government-owned company as part of a transition towards a more fully commercialised situation. Even the previous Government, in accepting the review, did not see the GovCo arrangement as an end in itself.
The plan was to take the FSS down the path to being a GovCo with the intent to take it to a more commercialised basis. In many ways, the decision in November 2005 not to proceed and, in essence, to say, “So far but no further,” led to the fundamental problems and challenges that the FSS has faced. It was left in a halfway house, having been taken down a path to market but then stopped in its tracks and left in an extraordinarily difficult situation. I respect the contribution from the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell). He and I have debated this issue before, and I remember the Westminster Hall debate to which he referred and from which he still, I think, nurses a few scars on his back. However, the investment made was never going to fulfil the FSS’s full potential because it was stuck in this stasis.
When the FSS was transformed into a Government company in 2005, it was left with higher costs than its competitors as a legacy of its previous status as a Government agency. Clearly, as a result, the company’s ability to compete was hampered. It is important to note that the FSS’s share of the market reduced with every tender held to provide forensic science services to the police. The previous Government were tendering out these services as part of a continuing process, but the FSS was, in essence, left at a competitive disadvantage as a consequence of its structure.
Michael Ellis
Is it the Minister’s understanding that anywhere between 35% and 50% of forensics is now outside the control of the FSS?
James Brokenshire
I will update the House on the situation relating to transition, but when the decision was made in December 2010 about one third of the forensics market was in the private sector, and about 60%—[Interruption.] The Select Committee Chairman, I think, is querying those figures, but my clear recollection is that, when we were considering the matter, the figure was about 30% to 35%—unless he would like to correct me.
Andrew Miller
When the decision was made in December 2010, the FSS had about 60% of the market. There is no dispute about that.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that confirmation.
I hear some of the points that have been made about whether there has been a reduction in the overall forensics market as a consequence of police in-sourcing. Indeed, I remember the Westminster Hall debate in which the hon. Member for Tynemouth was clear that there was no evidence of a vast swathe of police in-sourcing. Even at that time it was being postulated that it was the cause of some of the challenges facing the FSS.
Mr Alan Campbell
Does the Minister not accept that since that debate—of which we both have memories, and certainly not fond ones—the context has changed? We were talking about the police making decisions when they had budgets that were rising year on year. How much does he believe the decisions that the police are now making about forensics are driven by the cuts they see coming down the line?
James Brokenshire
The police have been looking carefully at their forensics spend and how to ensure that it is used effectively. Indeed, I congratulate ACPO and a number of police forces up and down the country on how they have approached this issue, which in many ways is about the ability to focus on the delivery of forensics spend. It is also worth highlighting the fact that, I would argue, the market was stimulated to a huge extent by the DNA expansion programme and how it unwound over that period. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the impact that that had on the market was not sustainable. Indeed, the development of DNA technology has moved on further, and I am sure that it will continue to do so, with innovations such as the concept, even, of “DNA in a box”, as it is sometimes described, which enables people to undertake DNA testing immediately, at scene.
By December 2010 the FSS was in serious financial difficulty, with significant operating losses and the prospect of further shrinkage in demand for forensics services, as the police continued to drive efficiencies in their use of forensic services. We judged it vital to take clear and decisive action to protect the supply of forensic science services to the criminal justice system. Without funding from the Government, the FSS would have entered administration in early 2011—that was the clear statement that the company was making to us at the time, and that was the situation with which we were presented. That would have seriously damaged the forensics capability available to the criminal justice system. We were not prepared to expose the criminal justice system to that level of risk. I note that the Select Committee, while critical in other ways, agreed with the analysis that simply letting the FSS go into administration would not have been the right thing to do.
We maintain that the managed wind-down of the FSS was the right choice, both financially and for the criminal justice system. The orderly wind-down of the company ensures that the police and the criminal justice system as a whole continue to have the forensics capability that they need to protect the public and bring criminals to justice. The transition process has underlined how that has been achieved. The costs of closure are being carefully managed, and obviously this estimates day debate underlines the costs that have been provided for. We are clear, and we maintain, that costs are not escalating and will be delivered within the provision that has been made. The National Audit Office has reviewed the calculation of the Home Office’s provision and is content that it is reasonable.
Mr Slaughter
Will the Minister tell the House what he believes the total cost of the closure of the Forensic Science Service will be, including costs arising from any obligations for redundancies, pensions or other matters? If he cannot give a ballpark figure now, will he write to Members who have taken part in this debate to give them the figure?
James Brokenshire
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the provisions made in the estimates. As we reported previously to the Science and Technology Committee, the likely total cost in cash terms is about £100 million, and this remains the position. In 2010-11, £28.7 million was provided to allow the FSS to continue to operate while the transition was managed, and for staff redundancies. Provision has been made subsequently for a further £71 million of costs. That has been clearly stated on the record.
Mr Slaughter
If that is right and the cost is £100 million, while I acknowledge that the Minister might not accept the FSS figure that the “lost losses”—to put in those terms—were about £11 million last year, does he accept that the £100 million would cover the current deficit for a number of years in the future, before the effect of other cost savings and contractions have been made? That being the case, does he still think that this is a sensible use of public money?
James Brokenshire
Yes, I do, for this reason. We considered the options carefully, and determined that allowing the FSS to go into administration was simply not acceptable. We considered the prospect of making a further capital injection to follow on from the £50 million injected a few years previously. Against the backdrop of the structure and the situation that we saw, however, we were not convinced that such an injection would prevent the FSS from being in the same situation 12 months, 18 months or two years later. We thought it was better to provide certainty for the criminal justice system, and to take the action that we did.
It is notable that although the Select Committee report made comments about process and timing, it did not criticise the decision itself or postulate that we should have made a different decision. I thought it was interesting to note that from the Select Committee report. I see that the Chairman of that Committee is seeking to catch my eye.
Andrew Miller
What concerns me about what the Minister says is that some of these costs are going to be borne by the public purse for some considerable time. Contrary to what was said earlier, the Crown Prosecution Service was not 100% happy with the situation. What it said was:
“None of the suppliers are…accredited in all forensic disciplines, and thus can only take on a limited range of forensic work”—
until, of course, they are accredited. The CPS went on to say:
“Gaining accreditation in these fields is a time consuming and potentially expensive process and the appetite of the suppliers”—
including the police—
“to undertake this exercise is not yet known.”
The regulators are going to have to make that happen. The point I am making to the Minister is that we need to keep an eye on those burgeoning costs, including in police forces, because we do not want money spent on this that could otherwise have been spent on front-line policing.
James Brokenshire
I do not accept the analysis relating to burgeoning costs. If the hon. Gentleman talked to ACPO about how the transition and retendering processes have been created, he would find that savings have been delivered through a real focus on the manner in which forensics are used. It is important to view the concept of further burgeoning costs in that light—by recognising that forensic providers are already accredited and by looking at the process undertaken by the police and at the clear statements made at the time that there would be no transfer of services to a non-accredited environment.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) talked about the Metropolitan Police Service handing back its accreditation. I tell her that this would happen to a commercial provider in that situation as well. It is not a reflection of any delinquency or limitation in the Metropolitan police’s standards, quality or approach; it is simply the fact that if new personnel and new arrangements are taken on, a process of re-accreditation has to be gone through, following on from all the processes and procedures that have previously been accredited. I wanted to give the hon. Lady that reassurance.
We have been working closely with key partners throughout the criminal justice system during the transition. A forensics transition board has been overseeing the process, and includes representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Policing Improvement Agency, with a wider advisory group whose members include the forensic science regulator and the Ministry of Justice. The regulator has attended a number of meetings to offer his input.
I believe that, thanks to the hard work and commitment of FSS staff and partners across the criminal justice system, the transition has been successful. It has ensured the continued supply of effective forensic science services to the criminal justice system, and has created a stable and competitive market for forensics that will provide cost-effective and innovative forensic services to support the criminal justice system.
Over the past 12 months there has been a significant amount of work and operational planning to manage the transition of services from the FSS to alternative providers in a controlled way, in order to reduce risk and ensure continuity of service. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the National Policing Improvement Agency have re-procured forensic supply across the midlands and the south-east, and for the 14 forces making up the west coast consortium. The transfer of evidence recovery, interpretation and reporting of forensic science examinations from the FSS to the Metropolitan Police Service has been successfully completed, and in parallel the MPS has also re-procured its analytical forensics services.
It was suggested earlier that appropriate arrangements had not been made for the north-east. I think that that is partly because continuing contractual negotiations at the time of the publication of the report did not allow us to be entirely open. What I can say, however, is that there is a separate transition process in the north-east. Negotiations were concluded in December for a managed transfer of work to a new supplier for the north-east and Yorkshire. That followed close working between the FSS and the north-east forces. In the interim, the FSS has continued to provide forensic science services for the north-east forces to ensure that continuity of supply is maintained. The last new cases will be taken by the FSS on 1 March. That is the final part of the transition of its services to other providers.
Guy Opperman
Can my hon. Friend assure us that there is no fundamental difference between the situation facing the north-east and the situation facing the rest of the country?
James Brokenshire
I can say that one of the fundamental parts of the process, and one of the things on which I was absolutely clear throughout, was the need to ensure that there was continuity of supply of forensic services to the police and the criminal justice system, and I believe that that has been maintained throughout the process. I am hugely grateful for the considerable contribution of ACPO, the NPIA and the FSS to the reaching of these milestones, and for the way in which the process has been managed at national and local level. This has been a challenging time for FSS staff, who I believe have behaved with complete professionalism throughout. I want to record my, and the Government’s, appreciation for and recognition of their dedication and commitment throughout this difficult process.
The Government continue to support the orderly transition of work from the FSS. As part of that process, some of the current staff are moving to a range of other forensic services in the private and public sectors. We have pursued options to transfer elements of FSS business, including staff whenever possible. I have committed myself to providing an update for the Select Committee in June, following the completion of the process. We intend to conduct a survey of the private sector forensic service providers so that we can give a clear indication to the Committee, and therefore more publicly, in relation to the transfer of FSS staff from the FSS to other positions.
Andrew Miller
Will the Minister add to his list of commitments for that period the making of a clear statement on how the dialogue with the research councils and the Technology Strategy Board is progressing? We must ensure that the science base is protected so that we avoid the negative consequences that I described earlier.
James Brokenshire
I gave evidence before Christmas in conjunction with the Forensic Science Regulator and the chief scientific adviser at the Home Office, Bernard Silverman. He is an excellent CSA. He and I have regular meetings, not only about the FSS but on Home Office science issues in general. I want to put on record my appreciation for his work and expert input.
There are various recommendations on research and development in Professor Silverman’s report, one of which addresses questions to do with the various funding councils and the different available options. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) highlighted interdisciplinary issues, and there might be a conference to address some of them. I will take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about providing updates and following through on Professor Silverman’s report. I will consider how best to do that for his Select Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) highlighted a constituency case. I do not necessarily think there is a direct role for the Home Office in that, but I have no doubt that colleagues at the Foreign Office will have noted his comments.
Forensic findings can mean the difference between guilt and innocence. It is vital that forensic conclusions are reliable, error-free and beyond doubt. Forensic scientists must work to rigorous and robust scientific principles, methods and evaluations. That is why we have made sure that all new and transferred forensics work by commercial forensic service providers must be carried out by accredited laboratories.
Commercial forensic service providers have provided high-quality forensic science services for the criminal justice system for a number of years, and there is no reason why the closure of the FSS will reduce impartiality or affect the accuracy of their work. The extensive and detailed forensic work by LGC Forensics that formed the core of the evidence in the recent trial of Gary Dobson and David Norris for the murder of Stephen Lawrence is an example of the good work being carried out by commercial forensic service providers. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) made that point.
I have made it clear from the outset that any FSS work taken in-house by police forces must be carried out to the same high standards as the work of accredited private sector laboratories. I utterly reject any suggestion that the closure of the FSS will lead to miscarriages of justice.
James Brokenshire
I have two minutes left and I want to address a key point about fragmentation, which both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) raised. Dr Gary Pugh, head of forensics at the Metropolitan Police Service, and Chief Constable Sims of West Midlands Police said in their evidence to the Committee:
“it is not general police practice to send exhibits from the same crime scene to different providers. There are a very small number of exceptions in rare cases where a highly specialised piece of analysis is only offered by a niche provider. In such cases, care is taken to ensure continuity is maintained.”
Roger Coe-Salazar confirmed that if fragmentation were taking place,
“it is not creating an operational delivery problem”
from the CPS’s perspective. It is important to put that clearly on the record.
I also wish to highlight the work taking place on the archive. I have made clear all the way through this process, even before the publication of the report, the importance that I attach to the continued availability of the archive. That work is ongoing and is clearly being undertaken. We have made significant progress since the announcement in December 2010—
Oral Answers to Questions
James Brokenshire Excerpts(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
7. What recent assessment she has made of the level of cybercrime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
A report by Detica and the Office of Cyber Security and Information Assurance estimates that cybercrime could cost the UK as much as £27 billion a year. The Government published their cyber-security strategy in November, which sets out how we intend to tackle this threat.
James Morris
Tackling cybercrime requires a co-ordinated response across government, including liaison with the business community. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we get that level of cross-government co-ordination, and what is he doing to ensure that we get business involved in coming up with some of the solutions we need to tackle that growing problem?
James Brokenshire
I agree with my hon. Friend that this issue touches all sectors, whether it be Government, individuals, charities or the voluntary sector as well as business. We are working closely across government, including with the Office of Cyber-Security and Information Assurance, which co-ordinates the national programme. We said in the cyber-security strategy that we would create a forum, bringing together industry, law enforcement and Government. That is important, as we recognise that this is a broad and wide-ranging challenge. We shall take this forward in tandem with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Jessica Lee
Having recently dealt with an alleged victim of cyber-stalking in my Erewash constituency, I certainly welcome the specialist cybercrime units within the National Crime Agency, but does my hon. Friend agree that we must continue to work with Governments overseas to ensure that we continue to contain this threat?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend highlights a powerful and important point about the individual impact of these crimes. Although our legislation covers harassment—whether it happens on or offline—there is an international perspective to this challenge, with internet service providers potentially hosting material from overseas. We have recently been involved with a consultation on stalking, which closed yesterday, that asked for views on how to protect the victims of online stalking more effectively. We are now reviewing the submissions we have received; we will respond and publish the details of our response in due course.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will agree that cybercrime is quintessentially a transnational crime. Although his colleague the Minister for Immigration seems to think that the Lithuanian, Slovakian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Polish traffickers in British prisons are not from the European Union, will he inform the House what the Government’s position is on the European arrest warrant? This issue has been widely covered in the press. We brought Hussain Osman back from Rome after 7/7—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is always difficult to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman’s flow, but I am sure he is asking this question with specific reference to its potential to address the issue of cybercrime.
James Brokenshire
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do recognise the international perspective in respect of online criminality. That is why, unlike the previous Government, we ratified the Budapest convention—the Council of Europe convention on precisely this issue—to ensure that there is better co-ordination and greater focus on legislation relating to online crime. We drew attention to that approach at the London conference, and we continue to highlight this message.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
The Minister makes the point that cybercrime and cyber-attacks will be dealt with by more than one Department. What is the overlap between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence and how will the costs be shared between them?
James Brokenshire
As my hon. Friend will be aware, this Government’s approach to cyber-security has included a commitment of £650 million to our cyber-security programme. We in the Home Office are focusing on the criminality aspects, for which £63 million has been identified. We also work with our colleagues across Government, including in the MOD, and the Cabinet Office co-ordinates the overall approach. There is a joined-up approach across Government, therefore, because we recognise that this issue must be addressed in that way.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
4. What steps she is taking to reduce alcohol-related crime.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
10. What steps she is taking to reduce alcohol-related crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
Alcohol should no longer be the driver of crime and disorder that it has been over the past decade. That is why we have legislated to give the police and local communities more powers to tackle late-night drinking problems and to crack down on those selling alcohol to children. We will set out further actions in our forthcoming alcohol strategy.
Chris Evans
The Gwent police “Town Safe” scheme has reduced violent alcohol-induced crime by 27% in the past year. Will the Minister meet me and a delegation from Gwent police to discuss how we might roll this scheme out?
James Brokenshire
I congratulate local initiatives and partnerships that make a significant difference in their communities. I remember travelling to Newquay to see a very effective partnership scheme addressing these problems in the south-west. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s community on taking the step he mentions, and I am certainly willing to consider a request to meet representatives of the scheme to hear more about it.
Paul Maynard
I welcome the launch of the public consultation on the regulation of late-night drinking venues. What powers does the Minister intend to place in the hands of my constituents so that they can minimise the disruption and harm caused by so much late-night drinking in town centres such as Blackpool’s?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend highlights a problem that we have identified: we must ensure that local communities have a proper say on licensing matters. That is why we have legislated to strengthen the powers of councils to clamp down on late-night drinking and sales after midnight, if they so choose. That is also why we are introducing the late-night levy to provide some element of cost reimbursement for dealing with the problems associated with late-night drinking. Equally importantly, on an individual basis we must ensure that people can make representations on licensing. These matters must not be subject to the over-restrictive requirements adopted by the previous Government.
Andrew Gwynne
Is the Minister aware of the Alcohol Health Alliance research suggesting that the Government’s proposed ban on the sale of alcohol at below the cost of duty plus VAT will increase the price of only one in every 4,000 drinks sold? What reduction in alcohol-related crime does the Minister expect to follow on from that?
James Brokenshire
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman seeks to criticise the fact that the Government have recognised that the availability of cheap alcohol is a significant issue that needs addressing, because the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) certainly suggested that the previous Government did not do that. He said:
“I regret not doing more to tackle the problems caused by binge drinking”.
The Government recognise those problems and we are actually acting to do something about them, unlike the previous Government.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
What estimate has the Minister made of the extent to which cheap alcohol is fuelling the rise in domestic violence?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend highlights the very relevant issue of the connection between alcohol and domestic violence and abuse in the home. Studies have drawn attention to that, which is why we are seeking to take the action that we have been taking, through controls on licensing and addressing the issue of pricing. We will be providing further details on the Government’s alcohol strategy shortly.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
As the Minister knows, alcohol-related crime costs £7.3 billion a year. Four years ago, the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended that a minimum price for alcohol be introduced. The Scottish Government have accepted that, but neither the previous Government nor this one have done so. Is it not time that we told the big supermarkets that the level of cheap alcohol in supermarkets is actually fuelling this crime?
James Brokenshire
I certainly recognise the problems linked to alcohol-fuelled crime; there were about 900,000 violent crimes linked to alcohol in 2010-11. I also know that this issue has been flagged up before by the right hon. Gentleman in debate and by the work of his Committee. The Government are committed to tackling the harms of alcohol, and we recognise that the availability of cheap alcohol is a significant issue that needs addressing. He will recognise that some complex issues are involved in terms of regulation and other aspects. We are continuing to examine this matter carefully and closely, recognising that price is a relevant and important factor in dealing with this problem.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
In an earlier answer the Minister referred to the success of the Newquay partnership in tackling alcohol-related disorder. That partnership would be hugely more successful if there were a specific offence of urinating in the street. Will the Government consider the introduction of that offence?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend has highlighted an issue of wanton antisocial behaviour, and I was struck by how the police are having to deal with some antisocial problems in his community. There are offences on the statute book that could be used to deal with the problem that he has identified, but if he is willing to write to me, I will certainly look into this matter in further detail.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
May I bring the Minister back to the issue of minimum pricing for alcohol? In Merseyside, the city region’s poverty and life chances commission has advocated a minimum price per unit of alcohol. Is that strategy, which is to cover six boroughs, one that he supports?
James Brokenshire
The Government believe that alcohol pricing and taxation are matters best handled at a national level, but where there are suitable local solutions we will welcome them. A number of challenges are involved in delivering local pricing policies, and we will work with local authorities and the trade to consider the legal and practical implications of this issue.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
5. When she last reviewed the operation of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
We are establishing the National Crime Agency to spearhead our response to serious, complex and organised crime. The director general of the NCA, Keith Bristow, is driving that work. Recent progress includes the establishment of a new organised crime co-ordination centre. We have also published the first genuinely cross-governmental strategy to tackle organised crime.
Mr Wilson
I congratulate Superintendent Stuart Greenfield and his team in Reading on their recent drugs bust in Orts road, which resulted in a drugs gang with a yearly turnover of £4 million being jailed for a total of 34 years. Will my hon. Friend join me in those congratulations? Does he agree that with focus, determination and resources directed at the front line, it is possible to tackle serious and organised crime and to clear up the fear in our local communities?
James Brokenshire
I am happy to congratulate the police on that work in Reading. My hon. Friend has highlighted the fact that serious and organised crime touches communities directly. The Government have recognised that in the organised crime strategy. Our focus on ensuring that organised crime is given a much higher priority has a significant effect on the crime that we see on our streets. Our work through the National Crime Agency will make an important difference and strengthen the response further.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Does the Minister expect the switch from the Serious Organised Crime Agency to the National Crime Agency to result in an increase in the level of reclaimed criminal assets? What proportion of those proceeds of crime will he demand is returned to the communities that are most directly affected by crime?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman highlights an important point on the proceeds of crime, about which I feel strongly as a Minister. We are already driving changes to ensure that there is a focus on this matter in policing. The Serious Organised Crime Agency already has responsibility for it. I am pleased to tell him that since we got rid of the previous Government’s target-driven approach, the performance has improved.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
T8. The internet can be a great tool for broadening horizons, but as the campaign led by the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) shows, it can also pose great dangers, especially for children. Tomorrow is safer internet day. What are the Government doing to ensure that children are kept safe online?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My hon. Friend rightly highlights safer internet day, which is an important opportunity to show what steps can be taken to prevent harm online. This year’s safer internet day is on the theme of connecting generations and highlighting the role of parents. It is also an opportunity for the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre to launch new resources for parents. The UK Council for Child Internet Safety is also launching new standardised and simple online safety guidance for use by all internet service providers.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Last year, the Police Federation surveyed all four police authorities in Wales on the state of morale and found that 99% of its members were suffering from low morale. Is the Minister or the Secretary of State as shocked as I am that 1% were not suffering low morale under this Government’s policies?
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Today’s report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the roots of violent radicalisation highlights the twin threats from Islamist fundamentalism and the far right. Much of the most successful work has been done by the Hope Not Hate campaign, which empowers communities —the moderate majority—to isolate those extremists. Such community action is vital. Does the Home Secretary therefore share my concern at the delay in the publication of the integration strategy, for which we have been waiting for 11 months?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Lady rightly highlights that communities play an essential role. The Government have recognised that extreme right-wing threats as well as Islamist-related threats need to be balanced equally within the Prevent strategy, which was why we took the decision on the change of emphasis. She mentions work on broader integration. Colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government will produce their strategy in that regard shortly.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
The police nationally have instructed local inspectors not to comply with routine requests from local authorities for checks on prospective tenants, which are an important tool in the battle against antisocial behaviour. Will my hon. Friend meet the Information Commissioner to see whether a solution to that problem can be found?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend highlights responsible tenancies. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government is doing further work on that to ensure that those who commit antisocial behaviour are not the beneficiaries of social housing in inappropriate circumstances. I note my hon. Friend’s comments and will draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
In the light of previous answers, what exactly is the relationship between police numbers and the level of crime?
Late Night Drinking (Late Night Levy and Early Morning Restriction Orders)
James Brokenshire Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Crime Prevention and Antisocial Behaviour Reduction (Lord Henley) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
A consultation on the secondary legislation for the late-night levy and early morning restriction orders has been launched today.
The late-night levy and early morning restriction orders (EMROs) are two alcohol measures in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The extension of EMROs will allow local councils to restrict the sale of alcohol in their local area flexibly between 12 am and 6 am. This is a tool that licensing authorities can use to prevent problems in the night-time economy in either a part or the whole of their area. The late-night levy will fulfil our commitment to allow councils to levy a charge from those selling alcohol late at night in their area to help contribute towards high policing costs in the late-night economy. Again, it can be applied flexibly between 12 am and 6 am. These measures will empower local communities to act to achieve a more viable night-time economy.
The “Dealing with the Problems of Late Night Drinking” consultation is an opportunity for licensing authorities, the licensed trade and its representatives, police officers and the public to share their views on the details of the regulations that will implement these policies. In particular, it asks for views on what categories of premises should benefit from exemptions and reductions under the measures, with the intention to avoid penalising premises that are not part of the wider late-night economy.
Copies of the consultation will be placed in the House Library and it is also available on the Home Office website.
Khat
James Brokenshire Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
This has been an interesting and impassioned debate, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) for continuing to raise this issue. I am mindful that this is the second debate he has secured, having previously spoken on the same topic in a pre-summer recess debate last year. He represents well and effectively his constituency and these particular parts of the community in it by seeking to draw attention to this issue this evening.
My hon. Friend said that there was some kind of formal commitment and he drew attention to statements of shadow Ministers in the Opposition prior to the last general election. I would say to him, however, that there was no specific manifesto commitment and no provision was made in the coalition programme for government for the classification of khat. I would like to assure my hon. Friend, the community he represents and other communities and interested parties that the Government are concerned about this serious issue. It is a matter we want to investigate properly and effectively by closely examining the problems highlighted this evening; we do not want to kick this into the long grass.
We have heard today about real public concerns over health issues—sleep deprivation, loss of appetite, oral hygiene and mental health—and particularly about the social harms associated with the use of khat. Although its use has a cultural context and can be socially accepted among Somali, Yemeni, Ethiopian and Kenyan communities in the UK, many concerns have been raised within these communities. Higher prevalence of khat use among them and its potential for misuse might well disproportionately affect the social cohesion around khat users and their families, as well as their quality of life within wider UK society. We need fully and properly to understand this dimension.
Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Government are required to look to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to provide advice on drug-related issues, including on the case for control based on available evidence at the time of its consideration.
As my hon. Friend knows, the ACMD last formally considered the misuse of khat in 2005, when it advised against bringing the plant under the control of the 1971 Act and made recommendations for health and prevention approaches responding to local community needs, which the last Government accepted. In the light of those 2005 recommendations, the handling of khat-related issues has focused on the tailoring of health and education responses to local community needs, such as the availability of appropriate drug prevention materials and information to raise awareness among practitioners and khat-using communities.
Mark Lancaster
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are under no obligation to follow the ACMD’s advice? The last Government did not do so when it came to the reclassification of cannabis.
James Brokenshire
The Government will consider the evidence and recommendations supplied to it by the ACMD. The ACMD has an advisory role in that context and Ministers make the ultimate decision, but we have stated in our working protocol with the ACMD that we should properly consider the advice that we are given, and I think that that is the appropriate course.
The FRANK service provides information and advice on khat and harms associated with its use and misuse, directed at young people, their parents, and those working with them. Treatment for khat misuse typically consists of psycho-social interventions and talking therapies to help change behaviour, and drug action teams are expected to review commissioning of local services in order to respond in the best way to the diverse needs of their local communities. My hon. Friend has specifically sought to draw attention to that diversity this evening.
Mark Lancaster
Can the Minister confirm that FRANK offers that information and advice in the native languages of the east African communities?
James Brokenshire
I am told that a leaflet has been published in English and Somali, that a range of other drug information leaflets have also been published in Somali, and that the helpline is equipped to take calls in Somali via a translator. However, I understand my hon. Friend’s wish to ensure that the service is provided in a way that makes it accessible to those who may be in the greatest need of its support, and I agree with him that more needs to be done.
The Government are concerned about khat use—particularly among young people—and about the societal impact on the most affected communities, and they adopt a serious approach to their role by taking appropriate action to protect all sections of the community from harms caused by drugs. Since the ACMD’s last review in 2005 there has been an advance in the evidence base, which is why I requested the ACMD to undertake a comprehensive review to update its 2005 assessment. The chair of its khat working group has told me that the planned process of evidence-gathering for the review will be rigorous, and will include engagement with communities and stakeholder organisations and a public evidence-gathering meeting.
The ACMD review will cover issues including classification of khat under the 1971 Act, reporting the prevalence of khat use, identifying key khat-using populations, identifying and quantifying harms associated with khat use—specifically social harms—developing an understanding of responses to khat use through services and public information campaigns, and considering the nature of the khat trade, including international trafficking. The chair of the working group has indicated that he would be pleased if my hon. Friend put him in contact with constituents who have evidence to contribute to the review. Furthermore, the ACMD would welcome sharing its terms of reference for the review and its planned process for evidence collation. I would certainly encourage my hon. Friend and other Members present to get involved and support that. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will emphasise in her annual commissioning letter to the ACMD, which will be issued shortly, the priority that this work should now continue to have as part of the ACMD’s work programme in order to ensure its advice is delivered on time.
We have published two studies on khat, one in October 2010 and the other in July 2011. They reviewed perceptions and international evidence on the link between khat use and social harms, and included an overview of the evidence in respect of legislative approaches adopted abroad. These studies have been shared with the ACMD to inform its review. We identified research gaps, which was why those two studies were commissioned. We anticipate that they will help inform the ACMD’s review. We will ensure that there is appropriate information and we encourage others to participate in the review.
The October 2010 study of perceptions of social harms found that khat use was widely socially accepted within Somali, Ethiopian and Yemeni communities, and that there was an increased prevalence of use including among women and young people. There was widespread support for some level of Government intervention, but there was no consensus, although there was a range of suggestions, including regulation of trade, local investment in tailored services and more research and better statistics, and some called for control.
The July 2011 review of literature on social harms found no robust evidence either for or against in respect of the link between khat and social harms, but there were perceptions of social harms among the UK’s immigrant Somali, Yemeni and Ethiopian communities although there was little evidence of a clear causal relationship to support this view. Reference was made to stronger evidence on the health harms of khat consumption.
The Government have made clear in our drug strategy a commitment to a drug policy that is based on evidence and outcome. We have placed proper consideration of the advice provided by our independent experts, the ACMD, at the heart of enabling the delivery of the strategy. The Government and the ACMD have also agreed a new working protocol, which has been placed in the House Library, setting out a framework for mutual engagement in line with statutory duties. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my anticipation at the publication of the ACMD’s findings and appreciates the importance of considering the advice of our experts before deciding on next steps, in particular any legislative intervention. My hon. Friend will not expect the Home Secretary to prejudge the outcome of this advice and preclude the consideration of evidence that will be available then. I take this opportunity to invite Members to direct any representations and evidence in respect of khat to the secretariat of the ACMD, based at the Home Office.
We take this issue very seriously. I commend my hon. Friend on the way in which he has approached it and his continued focus on it. We will not kick it into the long grass. We remain focused on this matter and will take action if that is judged appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Brokenshire Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
9. What progress she has made on implementing the recommendations of the report of the coroner’s inquests into the London bombings of 7 July 2005; and if she will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The Government responded to the coroner’s report, accepting the three recommendations directed to Government and taking action on other issues raised in her report. We are progressing work on those recommendations and areas of concern and will provide a full report on progress in March 2012.
Debbie Abrahams
I thank the Minister for his response. He will be aware that the Foulkes family, who are constituents of mine, lost their David in the Edgware road bombing. He unfortunately died. In addition to wanting the coroner’s recommendations implemented in full, they and other families are keen to see greater accountability of the security services to Parliament. Will the Minister commit to that today?
James Brokenshire
I certainly recognise the contribution that the families have made, and I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Lady’s constituent. The Government attach the utmost importance to the recommendations outlined in the coroner’s report and are fully committed to seeing through the implementation of actions to address them. She will be aware of the Green Paper on justice and security, which examines the role and powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee, including its ability to obtain wide-ranging information from intelligence agencies. The Government will report back to the House shortly on progress made and the consultation.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
10. What progress she has made on the establishment of the National Crime Agency.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
17. What steps she is taking to tackle metal theft.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The Government recognise the growing problem of metal theft and are taking urgent steps to address it. The Home Office is discussing with other Departments what legislative changes are necessary to assist enforcement agencies and deter offenders, including introducing a new licence regime for scrap metal dealers and prohibiting cash payments. We are also working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to establish a dedicated metal theft taskforce.
Mr Holloway
Metal theft costs us a huge amount of money in this country, as the Minister knows, whether it is of dodgy copper wire or lead from churches such as those in Ifield in my constituency. Is there any argument for seizing the entire inventories of metal dealers found to be purchasing what are effectively stolen goods?
James Brokenshire
I certainly recognise the impact that metal theft has on our communities, with the estimated cost ranging anywhere between £220 million and £777 million per annum. We underline and recognise the seriousness attached to metal theft, which is why we are seeking to establish a new taskforce better to inform intelligence and ensure that those responsible for such crimes are brought to justice.
Craig Whittaker
Calder Valley private and social landlords have reported to me the rising number of instances of houses in between tenancies being totally ripped apart—including water pipes, gas pipes and, indeed, electric wiring—causing thousands of pounds worth of damage. Does the Minister agree with me that the time has come for legislation to clamp down on rogue metal dealers who trade in such items?
James Brokenshire
The Government do not legislate lightly and have undertaken a range of work to tackle metal theft through non-legislative means. However, we have now reached the stage where the only conclusion is that new legislation is needed to tackle metal theft. We are therefore in discussion with other Departments to agree on the most appropriate option for bringing these changes forward.
Nadine Dorries
Does the Minister think it is time to change the law on the scrap metal industry? On Friday I met Alf Hitchcock, the chief constable of Bedfordshire, who informed me that his police force had targeted the dealers. The police found people coming along with stolen scrap metal, some of whom had driven vehicles there with stolen red diesel. The law at the moment pertains to an Act that was designed around the days of Steptoe and Son; is it not time to change the law?
James Brokenshire
As I thought I had already indicated, we believe that existing regulation of the scrap metal industry through the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 needs to be revised, as the law is no longer fit for purpose. We need to combine that with further enforcement and better intelligence, which is why the ACPO metal theft working group is seeking to equip police forces with the necessary tactical information to assist Bedfordshire and other police forces in cracking down on this crime.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Has the Minister had any discussions with Virgin Trains, for example, and the police about what happens to the metal stolen from the railway lines, which can pose a severe hazard to public safety?
James Brokenshire
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the risk, threat, inconvenience and serious harm that can be caused by stealing cabling and signalling equipment from the railways. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the British Transport Police has the lead role in respect of the work conducted by ACPO; it is actively engaged in that and is working with the rail industry, recognising the particular problems that the hon. Gentleman has identified and the threats posed to rail infrastructure.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the appalling crime two years ago in the area of the former Auchengeich pit in my constituency relating to a beautiful piece of sculpture built by the community in honour of the 47 brave men who had lost their lives in a tragedy of 1959? The community came together again and built another statue. I have no criticism of Strathclyde police, but does the Minister agree that on such issues the closest co-operation among forces throughout the UK is helpful?
James Brokenshire
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Many sickening crimes have occurred where monuments and places that exist to celebrate our war dead or important historical incidents have been desecrated. I think the whole House will join me in utterly condemning those responsible for these appalling actions. That is why we are moving forward by tackling the problem with the new taskforce. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that providing better intelligence and co-ordination is helpful, which is precisely what we will do and are already doing.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I welcome the importance that the Minister attaches to this issue, but it should not be too difficult to sort out. All he needs to do is to ensure that sellers verify their identity when selling metal and that each transaction is recorded, and to make cash payments for scrap metal illegal. That seems pretty simple to me and to businesses in the black country that are calling for those measures. Why can we not get on with this more quickly?
James Brokenshire
We are moving forward with this quickly. That is why we are taking the action that I have outlined today. We are also dealing with the aspects that he mentioned—on the regulation of the scrap metal industry, on having stronger enforcement powers to ensure that those responsible for these actions are held accountable for them, and on ensuring that we move to a cashless model of payment. Those are precisely the areas on which we are focusing, and we will report back to the House shortly.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend will know that not just schools and churches but voluntary organisations, such as the one that runs the Severn Valley railway in my constituency, have been victims of this invidious crime. He will also know that an all-party group on combating metal theft was set up last week under the joint chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) and the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones). Will the Minister agree to meet me, along with other officers of the all-party group, to discuss how we can combat metal theft?
James Brokenshire
I am aware of the strong interest that the House attaches to this issue, which is evidenced by the fact that there are nine questions about it on today’s Order Paper. I believe that that constitutes a record number of Home Office questions on a single issue. My noble Friend Lord Henley, the Minister responsible for crime prevention and antisocial behaviour reduction, is well aware of the concern felt by Members of both Houses, and has told me that he would be very willing to meet members of the all-party parliamentary group.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
13. What plans she has to review the Riot (Damages) Act 1886.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I welcome the work of Merseyside police and other police forces around the country in dealing with metal theft. It is why we are moving forward with the metal theft taskforce, and why that will also be responsible for greater co-ordination, but I hear the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about penalties. That is something that we are actively considering in the context of our review of the current legislation. [Interruption.]
Immigration
James Brokenshire Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
We have had an informative and measured debate, and it is important to note that the Government found time for it. As many Members have pointed out, we should be able to discuss immigration with candour, openness and honesty, basing our evidence on the facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) spoke of the need to ensure that the subject was not off limits, as I think we have done today. As was clear from many speeches, it is a matter of significant concern to our constituents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), for instance, highlighted the support for the Migrationwatch e-petition.
I welcomed the 10 speeches from Back Benchers, although I was disappointed and slightly surprised that they were all made by Government Members. As I have said, it is important for the subject not to be off limits and for a broad debate to take place across the Chamber.
Let me remind the House of this Government’s approach to immigration, which is about balance. Britain benefits from immigration and has always done so, but it will continue to do so only if immigration is properly controlled. That means that the unsustainable level of net migration in recent years must be brought down. It is not unfair to characterise the previous Government’s approach as not being about controlled migration; it was more characterised by unlimited migration. Following the pushing by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) accepted that the level of migration had been too high, so we look forward to the development of further policy and of the debate in the weeks and months ahead.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) highlighted the points-based system. I am sure that we will return to these issues in the future, but I wish to set out one fact for her. When that system was introduced in 2009, the number of student visas increased from 232,000 to a record 320,000. We have taken the clear approach that the view and policy of the previous Government were not sustainable, so we have imposed some much-needed rigour on the system through: an annual limit of 20,700 sponsored workers with a job offer; closing the tier 1 general route and replacing it with a smaller, more focused exceptional talent route; accelerated settlement for the biggest investors and most successful entrepreneurs; restricting tier 2 to graduate-level occupations and intermediate-level English speakers; restricting intra-company transfers to 12 months, unless someone is earning £40,000 or more; and introducing tougher entry requirements, with higher language competency and evidence of maintenance requirements, whereby all educational institutions are to be highly trusted sponsors and vetted by the relevant improved inspectorate. However, there is more to be done, which is why the Government will be announcing reforms to settlement and the family route in due course.
Some important contributions have made by hon. Members, and I will try to respond to as many as I can in the time left to me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex highlighted the need to take action on the student route. Statistics show that one in five students—or about 21%—appeared to remain in the migration system five years after the end of their course, which highlights clearly why we need to take action. Indeed, we have fundamentally reformed the student visa route, with measures including a tightening of the regime for licensing colleges that sponsor foreign students; restrictions on the entitlements of students, including the right to work; and the closure of the post-study work route from April 2012. The hon. Member for Rhondda highlighted the issue of the post-study work route, which we believe is far too generous. In 2010, one in 10 UK graduates was unemployed and 39,000 non-EU students took advantage of post-study work. The figure was 47,000 between January and September this year, which is why we will close the post-study work route from April 2012.
I wish to comment on the points raised by a number of hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), and for Peterborough, about the pressures on public services. Those pressures are the reason why the Government have commissioned research into the impact of migration on UK employment and the take-up of public services, and we will be publishing this work in due course. We have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to examine the national impacts on employment, congestion and national services, and its report will be published early next year.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness about scientists and researchers, the Government’s changes to the points-based system have all been made with the needs of the science, academic and research communities in mind. A number of routes are available depending on the individual’s level of experience or the length of time needed in the UK, including at tier 2, which is the main route for those coming to work as scientific, academic or research staff, where the possibility of a long stay is available. Migrants with PhDs are given extra points and migrants must meet the resident labour market test and be paid the appropriate rate for the job, with a minimum salary of £20,000. We have clearly reflected on the needs of science in the proposals and on the exceptional talent route, through which 700 of the 1,000 places in the first year have been earmarked for the use of exceptionally talented scientists, academics and engineers.
Let me comment on the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) about children in detention. We have radically changed the system to ensure that the welfare of the child is at the heart of the decision and the removals process. This Government have introduced very important and significant change and my right hon. Friend was right to highlight that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough highlighted the issue of A2 nationals and, as he said, the Migration Advisory Committee has made a clear case for extending the restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians. He may be aware that on 23 November, restrictions on how Bulgarian and Romanian nationals access the UK labour market were extended until the end of 2013, which means that those nationals will continue to require permission from the UKBA before they can work in the UK. Let me make it absolutely clear that this Government will always introduce transitional controls on all new EU member states as a matter of course. That is a very important statement to underline and put on the record, recognising to some extent the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner).
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) highlighted the issue of the European Court of Human Rights and article 8. The Government will revise the immigration rules to reinforce the public interest in seeing foreign criminals and those who have breached our immigration laws removed from this country.
I talked about a balanced immigration policy. We want the brightest and the best to come to the UK and we want to support economic growth. I know that that point was, in many ways, underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) when he talked about the economy and how this issue factors in. That is why we have consulted widely on all our reforms with business and with the higher education sector. Every month since we introduced the limit the visas on offer have been under-subscribed, so not a single valuable worker has been prevented from coming here.
To promote the brightest and the best we made the investor and entrepreneur routes more attractive and accessible, for instance through an accelerated path to settlement. The latest quarterly figures show that numbers for both investors and entrepreneurs have more than doubled compared with the same period last year. We have opened a new route for exceptional talent under which applicants do not need a job offer but must be endorsed by a competent body as world-leading talent. By introducing these important changes, we have underlined the sense of balance and their contribution to the economic well-being of our country.
Our border operations are key in ensuring the effectiveness of our migration policies, guarding against abuse and circumvention of the visa system and illegal immigration. It is important to understand that the old idea that the border starts at Dover or Heathrow will become increasingly old-fashioned. To reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, we want to export our borders so that they start at airports and visa application centres around the world. In so doing, we will ensure that we have stronger, more effective controls.
People have a right to know that the Government are protecting their jobs, keeping a firm grip on those who come here and sending home those who break the rules. That is the approach the Government have taken and will continue to take in the best interests of our citizens, our economy and our country. It is very much that sense of balance that we have adopted in our policies. Immigration is a vitally important subject for this country.