Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
James Brokenshire Excerpts(13 years, 7 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 the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause addresses the point about the local setting of licensing fees that was debated in the Public Bill Committee. I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) to the Opposition Front Bench. She will recall the discussions that we had on this point in Committee. I welcome other Members who sat on the Committee, and other hon. Members who are present.
In my response to the consultation on the Bill, I said that we intended
“to enable licensing authorities to set licensing fees based on full cost recovery”.
Since then, as I confirmed in Committee, I have been working with colleagues across Government to ensure that we achieve that aim in a way that is fair to all sides. I know that fee payers will be concerned about a change that is likely to see fee income rise overall. However, the fact is that licensing fees have not been increased, even for inflation, since the Licensing Act 2003 came into force in 2005.
The new clause does not represent a change of principle. The current fees are supposed to cover the legitimate costs of licensing authorities in discharging their functions under the 2003 Act. However, there has been widespread agreement for some time that they do not achieve that. The previous Government recognised the problem, and promised an independent review of their proposed fees as early as 2004. The independent panel published its report, known as the Elton report, in December 2006. The recommendations included an increase in fees, but no action was taken. Therefore, the question for this Government is not whether the situation needs to be addressed, but how best to address it.
We could set the fees centrally again, which would have the advantage of providing consistency for fee payers. However, I have chosen to move to set fees locally because I consider that it may be difficult to achieve a close approximation to full cost recovery with nationally set fees. Different areas do not have the same costs, and it is unavoidable that a blanket fee level would leave some councils with a deficit or provide an excessive income to others. No system is ideal, but as a matter of principle, council tax payers in areas with higher costs should not subsidise the administration of the licensing regime, and fee payers in lower-cost areas should not fund wider council activities.
Fee payers should be reassured that locally set fees will not mean that licensing authorities can set whatever fees they like. First, they will only set the level of the fee. They will not be permitted to design new fees or their own fee structure; nor will they be able to use licensing fees as an income stream. The only basis on which they will be able to set fees is to recover their costs in discharging their functions under the 2003 Act. I will issue guidance to local authorities on the setting of fees, including statutory guidance under section 182 of the 2003 Act. To ensure that costs are kept to appropriate levels, that will include guidance on the principles of good regulation, including risk-based and targeted inspection.
To provide further reassurance to fee payers, there will be a nationally set cap on fee levels. Under the new clause, that is provided for by the ability of the Secretary of State to apply constraints to the licensing authority’s ability to set fees. I intend that the level of the cap will be set in regulations after consultation. The consultation will contain a detailed impact assessment of the proposal.
In short, this measure is an important step towards ensuring that the Licensing Act 2003 works as it was intended to work, with fees fully funding licensing authorities’ administration of the Act.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
As the Minister pointed out, we debated this issue in the Public Bill Committee on the basis of an Opposition amendment. I am pleased, because he has obviously listened carefully to the arguments that we made. The Opposition were clearly championing the localism agenda, which I know is close to the heart of the coalition Government, so I am pleased that they have decided, at this late stage, to bring forward an amendment of their own on the issue.
We have heard from local government that since 2005, when the regulations of the Licensing Act 2003 were implemented, the licensing system has cost council tax payers more than £100 million more than was anticipated because of the centrally set fee structure. As the Minister said, that structure does not allowing licensing authorities to set cost-neutral local charges.
As the Minister pointed out, the Government had indicated that they were considering giving licensing authorities the power to set licensing fees based on full cost recovery. I am sure that there has been considerable interdepartmental wrangling on this issue, and that that is why the new clause has been brought forward rather late in the day on Report. A number of trade organisations, the Local Government Association and others were concerned to see the original clause in the Bill, so no doubt they will be pleased to see this new clause. However, I wish to raise a number issues with the Minister.
Justin Tomlinson
To sum up on that point, my plea is for common sense to be applied to each local area. I would go one step further. The Best Bar None and various Pubwatch schemes are so essential that they ought to be compulsory. It should be part of the licensing arrangement that somebody who is responsible for a venue attends those meetings. Clearly, the best examples are when local authorities, the local police and local venues work together. It is unacceptable if a late-night economy venue does not proactively participate in such schemes, so I would include such participation as a condition of the licence.
James Brokenshire
This has been a useful debate, and I welcome the contributions from the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind comments and thank him for his support and participation in Committee—and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson).
Obviously, new clause 1 relates to the general setting of licensing fees and the administration of the Licensing Act 2003 locally, rather than to the late-night levy. I recognise the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon has just raised, and perhaps we will debate the late-night levy in further detail when we debate another group of amendments in this part of our consideration of the Bill.
The late-night levy is a discretionary arrangement, so local authorities can decide whether one is appropriate in their area. The Government have indicated that there could be exemptions for establishments that make arrangements under schemes such as Best Bar None. Further detail will come forward in regulations and guidance, as I indicated in Committee, which I hope my hon. Friend accepts.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned in an intervention the business improvement district in Broad street, Birmingham, which I have had the pleasure to visit. I saw how that partnership-type approach of drawing together the relevant licensed premises and other businesses to provide funds to look after and manage the area. A sad and tragic occurrence led to the establishment of that business improvement district, but it is a good example of how partnership working involving the police, the local authority, licensed premises and other businesses can work.
The Government do not seek to prescribe one specific model of partnership or how partnerships operate, or to say how a local authority should approach its management of licensing-related issues. Those things can be done in various ways, including through a business improvement district, a late-night levy, an early morning restriction order or voluntary arrangements such as community alcohol projects. I went to see the St Neots project when that started, and it is now being rolled forward. We support many such consensual voluntary arrangements whereby various parts of business work with local councils to come up with innovative, practical solutions to address problems on the ground.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and others highlighted a number of specific points in relation to new clause 1. As she said, the previous Government tasked the independent fees review panel with consideration of the deficit between the costs and income of licensing authorities. In 2006, it estimated that a 7% increase in fee income was necessary for full cost recovery. Obviously, important points were made in the course of that review and, as I indicated, it was first and foremost in our considerations in introducing the new clause. The Government did not suddenly alight on the new clause at the last moment. Indeed, the original consultation document, which we published last summer, clearly refers to fees. In addition, full cost recovery was very much part and parcel of the consultation, to which we are therefore responding.
We will issue statutory guidance under section 182 of the 2003 Act on the application of good regulation, including risk assessment and targeted inspection, to which licensing authorities must have regard. That will be important as a further framework to the structure of the new arrangements.
Hon. Members mentioned burdens on business. We are obviously cognisant of statements in the recent Budget and the intention to introduce a moratorium to exempt micro and start-up businesses from new domestic regulation. There will be exemptions from the moratorium, and we will obviously need to consider the new licensing legislation, including locally set fees, within that framework. However, I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North that there is a clear need to address the gap highlighted in the Elton report. It does not seem right for local authorities effectively to subsidise the processing and activities of the 2003 Act when dealing with licensing arrangements, and I shall say more about that.
Diana Johnson
Will the Minister therefore confirm that the one-in, one-out principle will not apply in relation to the Bill, which certainly places a range of regulatory burdens on business?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady actually made that point in Committee. The Government take one-in, one-out seriously. Regulatory burden was considered closely and carefully during the approvals that led up to the Bill, as part of our broader consideration of the wider arrangements concerning burdens on business. We want to strip away things that are not needed, bureaucratic and unnecessary, but we will come to that in due course when we consider the next group of amendments, which relate to alcohol disorder zones, which clearly have not worked, because no one has taken them up. We obviously consider the new clause to be an important step towards getting the right balance.
The hon. Lady mentioned periodically reviewing the maximum fee level. That is certainly something that we will do. As I said in my opening comments, we also intend to consult properly on the details of the proposals, so that we can take on board the different opinions. There will, therefore, be an opportunity for a number of these matters to be considered further. The hon. Lady asked about the time scale for that. We anticipate that the necessary regulations will be laid in October 2012 to allow that detailed consultation to take place. That is the time scale we are working to in the laying of the relevant regulations. She also asked about guidance. There will be guidance on how locally set fees will operate and on how to set the fees. It is important that there is transparency on how this is undertaken—in many ways, that reflects the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon—and clarity on how the fees will be set locally.
A question was asked about what the assessment for setting fees locally will include and what full cost recovery will encapsulate. The new clause makes it clear that the costs that a licensing authority may recover in its fees include those of other responsible authorities and other relevant parts of the licensing authority. That means that marginal costs that relate to duties arising from the Licensing Act can be included. However, policing costs would not be included. In other words, we are looking at the administration of the Act by the relevant local authority. That is how the new clause has been framed. Obviously, however, further consideration of the details can take place as part of the consultation as we move towards introducing the regulations that will sit behind this provision. That also applies to the necessary guidance that will help to inform the framing of the arrangements. Obviously, fees must not represent a blank cheque for local authorities, and fee payers need to be reassured of that. As I have said, a maximum level for each fee will be set in regulations. We will consult formally on the level before we introduce it, and will take evidence from a variety of authorities and fee payers to ascertain the satisfactory maximum sum for each fee.
I hope that I have addressed hon. Members’ comments made during the debate. I also hope that all hon. Members will recognise that this is a sensible proposal, that we have listened to representations made from different quarters and that this provision will deal with the shortfall for local authorities. We are introducing the measure in a considered way, recognising the pressures on local authorities and businesses, and we believe that it is appropriate. We consulted on the new clause last August, and I hope that hon. Members will be minded to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Alcohol disorder zones: repeal
‘Sections 15 to 20 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (alcohol disorder zones) are repealed.’.—(James Brokenshire.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
James Brokenshire
New clause 2 will repeal the previous Administration’s alcohol disorder zones. This optional power for local authorities was so well considered and useful that it has been completely unused by local licensing authorities to date. Alcohol disorder zones were heavy on bureaucracy and potentially expensive to introduce and administer. I am genuinely sorry that the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) is in his place to hear me say this, because he was involved in the consideration of these zones. I recognise some of the challenges that he probably faced at the time in trying to introduce the policy, but we believe that it is time to call time on alcohol disorder zones. The Government do not believe that they are the right approach to tackling alcohol-related nuisance, annoyance or crime and disorder, and as such we seek their repeal.
Alcohol disorder zones were designed to tackle areas with a specific problem with alcohol-related nuisance, annoyance or disorder. To apply a zone, a licensing authority was required first to gather evidence that a specific area was responsible for causing alcohol-related nuisance, annoyance or disorder. Adoption of a zone further required that all premises subscribed to an action plan. If there was evidence that the action plan had failed, local authorities could impose a charge on local businesses to pay for additional enforcement, but had to provide a calculation of the cost of enforcement in order to levy the charge. That was a prohibitive bureaucratic process.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that one of the unattractive features of the disorder zone plan was that it required areas to be described, or to describe themselves, as places of disorder? In itself, that was a most unattractive prospect.
James Brokenshire
It would be fair to say that it probably was not the biggest selling point of the policy to have that tag attached to a local area. It was probably, therefore, one of the disincentives. However, the problem had more to do with the levels of bureaucracy, including the impact of making some of the extremely challenging calculations necessary. I do not think that any local authority has felt brave enough to come forward. The Government are committed, therefore, to reducing the burden. The tools and powers available to local authorities must be simple to adopt and proportionate to the problem. Early morning restriction orders, for example, will, by stopping the sale of alcohol, be a simple way for local authorities to tackle specific problems at specific times and on specific days. That is something that we recognise and have taken forward in the Bill. We have sought to apply a more flexible approach through early morning restriction orders.
The late-night levy will be an optional power for local authorities to raise a contribution to the large policing costs incurred in the late-night economy, as well as supporting costs of local authorities in managing the late-night economy. The levy has been specifically designed to be simple for licensing authorities to adopt. We considered the repeal of alcohol disorder zones in our public consultation last year. The responses overwhelmingly supported repeal. Local authorities and the police spoke of the evidential burden, while businesses identified the policy as ineffective. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that alcohol disorder zones should no longer be on the statute book. I therefore ask that the new clause be incorporated in the Bill so that we can finally put this failed policy to rest.
Diana Johnson
Clearly, the new clause is a housekeeping matter for the Government in tidying up licensing legislation. I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on the need for simplicity and a proportionate response to alcohol problems late at night. However, I do not think that the blanket approach being adopted under the late-night levy is proportionate. I would caution the Minister. Let us consider a large area of the country such as the East Riding of Yorkshire. If the local authority was minded to apply a late-night levy to the whole of the East Riding, small country pubs with no problems would have to pay the levy as well as places in more built-up areas, such as Bridlington, that do have problems late at night. The Government’s approach through the late-night levy might almost be described as the son of the alcohol disorder zones.
Steve McCabe
I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson); his experience has been of benefit to all of us. This is not a party political issue. We all want to see successful pubs and licensed premises where people can enjoy themselves and the businesses can make money and provide the jobs that are very much needed in some places. Perhaps I did not make myself clear to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert): I am happy to accept that alcohol disorder zones were not a success. I think that they were genuinely conceived as an attempt to deal with a problem that we all recognised, but they were not a success. I am not in any sense troubled to see the Government scrapping them and trying a different approach. I honestly hope that that approach will work, and I wish it well.
There are some obvious concerns, however, and several of them have been mentioned today. Problems could arise when a rural area is adjacent to an intensively developed town, for example. The application of the rules in such a situation could be problematic. The west midlands has several local authorities in close proximity, and there is a risk that the application of certain levy arrangements in, say, Solihull could have a knock-on effect in neighbouring Birmingham. It is reasonable to say that we are concerned about how this will work in practice.
I urge the Minister to review the provisions, not because I want to be able to come back here in 12 or 18 months to have a bit of fun at his expense. On many occasions, I would quite enjoy that, but in this context it probably would not be terribly useful. As I have said, this problem does not involve any party politics. We are all grappling with the same issue, and want to get to the same end point. I therefore urge the Minister to have a review, perhaps even a rolling review, so that we can see what problems are developing, what solutions are being tried, and whether there is a way of developing best practice. Instead of reaching a point at which we have to say, “Oh well, that didn’t work either. We’ll repeal it and start all over again,” I would much rather see the approach being modified as we go along. It might be in the Minister’s interest to agree to report regularly to us on the lessons that have been learned from the application of the measure, so that we can call on the experience of people such as the hon. Member for North Swindon, who could suggest adjustments that might make a difference.
I wish the measure well, and I hope that it will work, but I urge the Minister to think about introducing a regular review process that will allow us to learn lessons and ensure that we tackle the problem.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for his contribution. He talked about not wanting to have fun at my expense, but I genuinely take his point on board.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was in the Chamber only fleetingly. Perhaps he did not want to be present at the denouement. I remember him, when he was a Minister, grappling to try to make the alcohol disorder zone policy work. I was an Opposition spokesman at the time, and I used to pick holes in it, saying that parts of it would not work and that it was too complicated. I asked how areas would be defined and which businesses would be part of the scheme. I also asked how the costs and charges would be calculated, and what steps would have to be taken to set the scheme up. I could almost see the beads of sweat forming on the hon. Gentleman’s brow, because those were all fair questions that many people were asking. I do not claim any great credit in that sense, because many outside agencies, including the Local Government Association, shared the view that it was a nice idea but that it really would not work. It is now right and proper to accept that, to move on and to learn the lessons from that time.
I respect the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who I know probably wants to gloss over the alcohol disorder zone episode, as does everybody nowadays, and move on to a new chapter. The ADZ episode taught us that in seeking to apply a charge in that way, defining the area can seem quite straightforward initially but prove devilishly difficult. That was one of the issues behind the ADZ problem.
We have sought to take a different approach by looking at the issue on a time basis rather than at a specific area and by dealing with the problems of managing the late-night economy. Research showed that there were pressures on the police and increases in crime in the early hours of the morning, suggesting the importance of the time at which this was happening. That is why clause 126 makes it clear that the late-night levy must
“begin at or after midnight, and… end at or before 6 am.”
I hear the points made about rural areas, for example, where there might not be a problem. I note the question about whether, if the levy were applied more generally across the whole local council area, it would capture the well-run community pubs in the locality. If this were set to start only at midnight, I would suggest that those well-run community pubs are most likely to have shut by that time—before the levy comes into operation. If this is a problem, there is flexibility in the setting of the time at which the levy starts; it could begin from 1 am, for example. That flexibility is built into the measure.
Nigel Mills
It would help us and the industry if we understood how we are going to deal with the problem of events accidentally going beyond midnight or 1 am. Although there might not be any problems, a licence might be sought to cover a wedding or other event. At times such as new year’s eve places are open for a long time, which might technically tip them into the levy, although that is not the Government’s intention.
James Brokenshire
I think I made it clear in Committee that in those circumstances we would allow people to change their licence conditions to avoid the levy. Temporary event notices for specific issues would be considered under the TENs regime.
Diana Johnson
Will the Minister confirm that if a pub or venue operates just once in a year for which the late-night licence after midnight or 1 am applies, it will be subject to a late-night levy? Will the Government consider allowing, say, five or 10 opportunities for a pub to open during the year before the late-night levy kicks in?
James Brokenshire
Again, I think I said in Committee that we would want to look at such issues in the detail of the regulations. There are some specific points, as I said in Committee, that it would be appropriate to examine further. As part of that, we would want to give flexibility to encapsulate the schemes we have debated this afternoon—the Best Bar None and other voluntary schemes—so that some credit could be applied. I stress that the provisions are intended to be flexible, but if it became clear that the levy was not effective, at that stage—once implementation has taken place and an appropriate period had elapsed—it would be appropriate, as with any measure, to review it. We believe, however, that the provisions already have the required flexibility and are workable, and that they will not have the same bureaucratic problems as alcohol disorder zones. We believe that they are an important means of aiding the management and control of the late-night economy, many areas of which have been badly affected by the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, without necessarily taking account of the consequences that have occurred.
Justin Tomlinson
I welcome the suggestion that there is greater flexibility in the provision, but setting the levy according to time is still likely to capture venues that conduct themselves appropriately but just happen to be operating beyond a certain time. There is an analogy with football policing. A big local football club will contribute to policing costs because it attracts all the supporters, but no one would dream of charging the part-time or amateur football clubs that play on the local recreation grounds. It should be venue-specific and it should take into account the need to be proactive in working with the local authority and the police authority.
James Brokenshire
On the venue-specific point, if there are problems, a review of licensed premises can be conducted. That is also why we included provisions to strengthen the enforcement of the laws against under-age sales.
Can problems with pre-loading, post-loading and so forth be pinned down to one specific area or not? We think that setting the levy on a time basis is fair and equitable, involving the provision of funding for local authorities to look at taxi marshals and manage the late-night economy in its broadest sense. By narrowing it down, the provision might start to lose some of the intent behind it, which is to help the police and local authorities to manage the late-night economy—if that is what they choose to do. I remind hon. Members that this is a discretionary power for local authorities to determine.
Diana Johnson
The Minister has made it clear again that this is a discretionary power that local authorities can exercise, but he has also made it clear that there were no alcohol disorder zones, so I wonder how many local authorities he expects to apply the late-night levy. That knowledge will help us to gauge its success in the future.
James Brokenshire
Strangely enough, this Government do not believe in central targets. The hon. Lady tempts me down that path, but I have to say that I have no specific target. I refer her to the regulatory impact assessment, which she will have read assiduously, as it sets out the level of fees forecast. The regulatory impact assessment sought to examine possible options and estimate what might be recovered by the late-night levy. Rather than count up the number of local authorities, however, I point her to that assessment. We hope it will be successful.
Andrew Percy
The Minister is generous with his time and in being willing to take some of our points into account. I welcome the suggestion that we might be able to find a way, by means of regulation, of excluding village pubs such as the ones in my area. The problem with the alcohol disorder zones was not necessarily the setting of the boundaries, but the paperwork and bureaucracy that went with them. I commend to the Minister one area of law that seems to have worked very well—the designated alcohol zones. These are no-drinking zones, which have a set boundary and were quite easy to set up in comparison with ADZs. Having boundaries or setting boundaries around problem areas is not necessarily that complicated if we ensure that the process is simplified.
James Brokenshire
There might be a distinction to be drawn between seeking to calculate costs and charges as with the ADZs, and local byelaws drawn up by some local authorities. As I have already said, the early morning alcohol restriction orders are relevant, along with cumulative impact zones. They show that there are ways of seeking to control the behaviour of individuals within a particular area. Calculating costs and levying charges and fees for licences appropriately has to be done in a broader way to make it effective so that we do not get drawn down into the bureaucratic mechanism that we are seeking to put to bed in respect of the alcohol disorder zone.
Michael Ellis
The Minister has been urged to make the Bill location-specific, but would that not confer a stigma on certain locations? Would it not also create excessive bureaucracy, as local authorities would have to do far more work? Moreover, would it not depart from the principle that the Bill seeks to implement, namely the establishment of a balance that will assist the police and allay public concern about such problems as disorder?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes some powerful points, which bring us neatly back to the subject of alcohol disorder zones. I do not think that they met the tests that my hon. Friend has just identified. For that reason, we think it right to end a policy that sadly became an alcohol disarray zone, given the challenges that stood in the way of its being brought to fruition. We believe that there is merit in providing local authorities and the police with funds enabling them to manage the late-night economy; we believe that the right way in which to do that is through the late-night levy; and we believe that it is time to end the ADZ episode, which has clearly been a failure.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 2 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
General duties of licensing authorities
‘(1) The Licensing Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 4 (General duties of licensing authorities) insert—
(a) protecting and improving public health.”.’.—(Diana Johnson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Diana Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Licensing Act 2003 sets out the four licensing objectives that must currently be taken into account when a local authority carries out its licensing functions: the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm. The new clause would introduce a fifth objective: to protect and improve public health. We tabled it to deal with three key issues. First, there is the fact that public health is far more prominent and talked about than ever before. Secondly, there is the role of primary care trusts and, in future, local authorities, which is relevant to clause 104. Thirdly, there is the current position in Scotland.
Let me explain first why we think the issue of public health is so important. As an Opposition spokesman, the Secretary of State for Health made clear his strong commitment to it. So committed was he that he planned to rename the Department of Health “the Department of Public Health” if the Conservatives came to power. Obviously that has not happened, but the Secretary of State is very busy with his Health and Social Care Bill, and we know that he is trying to rename the NHS “the HS”—to get rid of the “national”.
The widespread view is that there is a proper role for Government in the promotion of good public health. We know from the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill that one of the few budgets that will be ring-fenced in future is the public health money that will pass from the PCTs to local authorities in 2013. However, the Government have experienced big problems in their approach to public health. This month we have seen the fall-out from their stance on self-regulation by the drinks industry through the responsibility deal. A number of health groups have walked away from the discussions and the agreement, including the British Heart Foundation.
Don Shenker, the chief executive of Alcohol Concern, made clear his view that the Government’s approach to public health will not work. He said that the responsibility deal was
“the worst possible deal for everyone who wants to see alcohol harm reduced”,
and that it had no sanctions to impose if the industry failed to fulfil its pledges. He described those pledges as “half-hearted”,
and that the
“government has clearly shown that when it comes to public health its first priority is to side with big business and protect private profit.”
Let us consider what has already been said about this issue, and the action that the Government have taken so far. Yesterday the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) presented a ten-minute rule Bill to restrict the marketing of alcohol to children and young people. She made a telling point in expressing concern about the fact that the Government were putting the fox in charge of the chickens. They have, for instance, set their face against the idea of making personal, social and health education compulsory. That would have provided an excellent opportunity for young people to be taught about the effects of alcohol and the long-term health consequences of drinking too much.
In January, the Minister set out the coalition Government’s plans in relation to minimum pricing. He said that they wanted alcohol to be sold at the level of duty plus VAT. Many people, including representatives of many health organisations, have pointed out that that will have little effect on the price of alcohol in supermarkets, many of which will continue to sell alcohol that is cheaper than bottled water. It also contradicts the view of Liam Donaldson, the former chief medical officer, that there should be a minimum price of 50p per unit.
James Brokenshire
That was an interesting contribution from the hon. Lady. She said that she felt public health had been ignored for a long time, but she made a slight mistake by highlighting that. That is why I am delighted that my colleagues in the Department of Health are taking this matter seriously in their approach to Public Health England, which is giving proper attention to public health. It is a shame that the hon. Lady made those comments because we have had a reasonable debate and she unfortunately decided to make more partisan attacks during that contribution. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves of how we reached this point on the accident and emergency issues and of all the pressures that are brought to bear on our health service and on the police. The vibrant café culture had been promised and written up as part of the reforms introduced by the Licensing Act 2003, but it failed to materialise. That is why we are taking steps in this Bill to address licensing issues.
I agree with the hon. Lady that public health issues are involved here and that there is merit in making health a material consideration in the 2003 Act. The Government stated that in their response to the “Rebalancing the Licensing Act” consultation, which contained a specific consultation point on the matter, and we committed to considering the best way to take this issue forward. However, my view is that the issue requires further consideration, alongside wider Government work, to address the harm alcohol causes to health.
It is important to highlight the fact that the Bill has sought to bring certain changes into effect, such as enabling primary care trusts, as health bodies, to make representations. Health bodies have a clear interest in the existing 2003 Act objectives of “public safety” and “crime reduction”, as illustrated in: alcohol-related accident and emergency attendances; ambulance journeys following road traffic accidents and other accidents; glassing and other injuries; alcohol poisoning cases and so on. That directly relates to how those health bodies are able to make representations under the Bill. Drunken accidents and injuries comprise a high proportion of accident and emergency attendances—the estimate is up to 70% on Saturday nights. When added to ambulance costs, they cost the NHS about £1.1 billion a year, so this is a legitimate focus for licensing.
Diana Johnson
Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that we get the best possible policy on alcohol and public health—we all have an interest in doing that—but can the Minister explain to me what he expects the PCT to provide on an individual licence application? A lot of bureaucracy will be involved if the individual licence application has to involve accident and emergency statistics. Are they what he expects the PCT to provide?
James Brokenshire
In some areas, NHS organisations already share anonymised A and E data with the police. Such intelligence can highlight where violent incidents occur and any hot-spot premises, thus supporting police representations at licensing hearings and wider law enforcement. Making local health bodies responsible authorities will encourage the effective collection and sharing of anonymised A and E data and other robust and targeted evidence for licensing authorities to consider.
The hon. Lady specifically asked how the role of local authorities will be managed in the context of Public Health England. She will be well aware that licensing authorities become responsible authorities under the Bill and are therefore able, in essence, to make their own representations. Obviously, different functions are carried out by different parts of the local authority, as happens in planning. The licensing committee is able to consider applications and relevant legislative issues, so there is a broad read-across in how a local authority is able not only to make representations but to determine things. A local licensing panel will have an almost quasi-judicial role in that situation, as does a planning authority.
I want to return to some of the hon. Lady’s other points.
Steve McCabe
Whether or not the Minister accepts the new clause, does he accept the central point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson)? As the Bill stands, a local authority could license a supermarket to sell cheap alcohol, creating a problem. If that local authority then imposed a levy that applied to other premises in the near vicinity but not to the supermarket, the health sector would not necessarily benefit from any of the levy, but it might suffer some of the worst cost effects of the problem. Does he accept that he must do something about the central health issue?
James Brokenshire
I will come to that. If the late-night levy is effective in managing the night-time economy and in supporting the police, it will have an impact. For example, it might affect the accident and emergency attendances that might otherwise arise in an area. Indirect benefits could accrue from the operation of the levy in that way. Different points need to be discussed, but I will come on to the issue of price, which is a fair point and was raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson).
Protecting public health is a complex issue, and that was reflected in the mixed nature of the responses the Government received when, in our “Rebalancing the Licensing Act” consultation, we asked about adding the prevention of health harm as a fifth licensing objective. Although those who supported the proposal acknowledged the benefits of improving public health, reducing the burden on the NHS and increasing responsibility among licensees, those who opposed it were concerned that it would be onerous and unworkable.
Adding protecting and improving public health as a licensing objective, as the new clause proposes, would mark a fundamental change to the Licensing Act. The four existing licensing objectives underpin the Act and, as the hon. Lady highlighted, the licensing authority is required to carry out its functions with a view to promoting these objectives. We believe that before we make such a fundamental change, it is essential that full consideration is given to the potential impact to ensure that any changes are workable and do not have any unintended consequences. We should undertake such considerations alongside wider Government work to address the harm done by alcohol to health. For example, if we were to introduce the objective now, we would need to consider carefully—as we are—what the knock-on consequences might be.
If an area has public health challenges caused by deprivation, does that mean, strictly applying such a rule, that it should automatically have no licensed premises and is that acceptable? We need to consider such detailed factors carefully in the context of the consequences of making such a radical change. That is why we need to consider the question carefully and cautiously, albeit that I have sympathy with the points about public health. That was why we raised the issue in our consultation last August but felt, on the basis of the representations we received, that it was important to reflect on the matter and to consider it further in that context and in the context of the wider work that is taking place.
The hon. Lady made a good point about the Scottish licensing laws, which have an objective to protect and improve public health. We are keen to learn any lessons from the Scottish experience. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 only came into force in September 2009, it will be evaluated and we look forward to learning from it. There are other differences in the Scottish framework, such as the powers to control density of premises, which raise their own issues and would need to be taken into account.
As announced in the “Healthy lives, healthy people” document, we want to improve alcohol treatment services through a greater focus on outcomes and payment by results. We also want to improve the commissioning of preventive services, including brief interventions by health professionals, so there is a broader focus that we wish to take on board. The hon. Lady mentioned the responsibility deal, but this is only a first step. The initial pledges will form an important platform for future work. Networks are already developing the next tranche of pledges, which we expect to go much further and to demand much greater commitment and action on the industry’s part.
Diana Johnson
The Minister announced in January his intention to legislate on minimum pricing. Can he update us on when those measures will come before the House?
James Brokenshire
We are considering this matter very carefully so that it is introduced in a less bureaucratic and a straightforward way. We will put further proposals before the House in due course because this is something we are committed to. Having made the announcement, we will be following through on this. It is important to ban below-cost sales and introduce the duty-plus-VAT measure that we announced at the start of the year. The Government are committed to following through on that.
The Government have already made provision in the Bill to make primary care trusts and local health bodies responsible authorities. That will ensure that local health bodies can influence licensing determinations by making representations based on local health evidence such as accident and emergency statistics. Those representations will need to be linked to existing licensing objectives to be relevant. Health bodies have a clear interest in the existing Licensing Act objectives, as I have mentioned, so we think it is an important step to recognise their role in that way.
For the reasons I have given, I ask the Opposition not to press the new clause and to allow the Government to examine this issue further and learn from the evidence and experience that is emerging from elsewhere. We can then consider what is the best way of legislating to make public health a material consideration within the licensing process, thereby recognising the points that have been made this afternoon and, equally, that this is a complex area. Doing things effectively and in the right way is the best course of action.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister for his warm words about looking at public health and alcohol and I hope that we will see some more action on this. On minimum pricing, I am concerned that the announcement was back in January but I think there is genuine willingness to move forward on this. I have set out my concerns that the minimum pricing level that the coalition has announced is not high enough, but if we are going to do this, let us get on and do it. I do not quite understand why there is delay, because the coalition has made its announcement and stated its position. I listened to the Minister’s comments about the time frame, but “in due course” can mean quite a few things in the House of Commons, so I will certainly be looking to see what progress is made, because it is time to get on with this.
It is disappointing that the Bill does not address the issues of pre-loading and the concerns that people are expressing up and down the land about the low cost of alcohol in supermarkets. I am keen to work positively with the coalition on this important issue and I strongly hope that there will be real progress in the coming months. I hope also that the health organisations that have walked away from the responsibility deal negotiations can be brought back in and reassured that there is genuine commitment on the part of the coalition to deal with health and alcohol issues. On the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
James Brokenshire
I beg to move amendment 22, page 87, line 26, leave out ‘authorisations’ and insert
‘premises licences and club premises certificates’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 23 to 30.
James Brokenshire
These are minor amendments to the late-night levy clauses in part 2 that clarify the effect of the provisions. To avoid possible misinterpretation, the Bill should use consistent terminology. Amendments 22 and 30 intend to achieve that end. Amendments 26 and 27 amend clause 133 merely by making it clear that if licensing authorities amend the categories of premises in their area that benefit from an exemption or reduction in their levy liability for a subsequent year there may already be none as well as one or more premises in those categories for the existing year.
Amendments 28 and 29 remove a drafting error in clause 133 and clarify the basis on which licensing authorities must ensure that any exemption or reduction categories that apply in their areas in a subsequent year accord with the categories prescribed in regulations. Amendments 23, 24 and 25 ensure that local authorities do not suffer a burden in introducing the late-night levy. They do not change the intention underlying the levy, nor do they change the burden on business.
The Bill as it stands allows licensing authorities to deduct the costs that they incur in the “collection, administration or enforcement” of the levy from the levy revenue. However, it has become clear that that phraseology, including the reference to administration, does not include the specific costs of introducing the levy. A licensing authority will need to carry out a number of administrative procedures before collecting the levy. First, it will hold a consultation on the way in which it wishes to operate the levy. That is an important process, and it ensures that the community’s opinions are heard. Following a decision to adopt the levy, the licensing authority will announce its intentions. Some businesses will decide that they do not open long enough in the levy period to make it worth while to pay it. To avoid the levy, those businesses will be able to make a free change to their licence. However, that means that licensing authorities must process the licence variations without recovering costs. Amendments 22, 23, 24 and 25 will ensure that licensing authorities can deduct the costs of those introductory processes from the levy revenue.
I do not want the levy to become a burden on licensing authorities. It has always been my intention that it should be self-funding while raising a significant amount of money for the police and other organs of local government. The amendments ensure that that is the case. Let me reiterate that the amendments will have no further impact on business. We have published indicative levy charges, which will remain the same. To make some simple clarifications and to ensure licensing authorities bear no burden as a result of the late-night levy, I urge the House to accept the amendments.
Diana Johnson
May I ask the Minister to clarify a few points? There will be a number of changes to the licensing provisions in the months and years to come, and I should be grateful if he set out his intentions on whether additional support or resources will be provided for local authorities when those new schemes are adopted. For instance, will additional financial resources be made available to assist local authorities with the late-night levy and early morning restriction orders in ensuring that information is provided to businesses? Clear guidance should be issued about what that will mean for businesses.
We have held a number of short debates about the late-night levy and the possibility that operating just one night a year can make a business liable for the levy. Businesses are often busy just trying to operate on a daily basis without having to get to grips with the minutiae of new legislation. Will the Minister set out what the Home Office intends to do to ensure that businesses are fully acquainted with the requirements of the new legislation and exactly what it will mean for them? Costs can be deducted from the late-night levy if someone has participated in the consultation on whether to have a late-night levy. Will that all be set out in a clear and transparent way so that businesses understand exactly why they will have to pay a certain amount? Setting things out in a clear format that is easy to understand will be the key to ensuring that the new licensing provisions operate well. If the other amendments in the group are intended just to tidy up the legislation and make it read more smoothly, my only question is on how the operation of getting information out to businesses would be provided.
James Brokenshire
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Her point on guidance is relevant. As I have indicated, as part of the implementation of the late-night levy it is intended that guidance would be drawn up on the process and that it would deal with some of the detail in regulations on the issues I have already highlighted. [Interruption.] I have only started and already the hon. Lady wants me to give way.
Diana Johnson
Will the guidance provided on that basis be statutory guidance, or guidance that can be ignored?
James Brokenshire
I am not sure that guidance can be ignored. It is intended to be of assistance in the implementation of the proposals on the late-night levy. The key element that the hon. Lady has highlighted relates to costs and resourcing. We are bringing forward some of these changes to ensure that licensing authorities can take account of the set-up costs relating to the late-night levy, which might otherwise be an issue. We think that it is important to introduce the amendment to ensure that, as with the different examples I have already given, there are no unintended consequences and that, if we are seeking to ensure that costs are properly attributed, that is built into the structure of the late-night levy.
The hon. Lady made a general point on transparency and how costs are to be drawn up. That is a fair point which I take on board, and we will work through that in detail on implementation so that businesses are clear about the calculation and which costs will be brought into effect for the deduction. It is worth saying, however, that it is a deduction and the levy itself is a fixed figure; we are talking simply about what is being deducted and the 70:30 split, with which she will be familiar. In some ways that relates to our previous debate on the general licensing fees and the costs that can be attributed for the maintenance of the Licensing Act. Some of her comments may be addressed in that direction as well.
Clearly, we want to ensure that the late-night levy is a success. We want local authorities to come forward with it. We believe that allowing the set-up costs is an important part of ensuring that the levy operates well and does not have unintended consequences. That will ensure—this reflects some of the comments in the preceding debate—that the levy will be used by local authorities, will be useful and will contribute to managing the late-night economy and dealing with some of the challenges we have heard about this afternoon. That is why we believe that the Bill and its provisions on the late-night levy mark an important step forward in assisting local communities and local authorities to manage the problems of alcohol and the late-night economy. I therefore hope that hon. Members will be minded to support the amendment.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Clause 130
Net amount of levy payments
Amendments made: 23, page 89, line 20, leave out from ‘of’ to ‘may’ in line 22 and insert ‘relevant expenses which’.
Amendment 24, page 89, line 23, leave out third ‘the’ and insert ‘any’.
Amendment 25, page 89, line 28, at end insert—
‘(2A) In subsection (2)(a), “relevant expenses” means expenses incurred by a licensing authority in the administration of the late night levy requirement including, in particular, such expenses incurred in, in connection with or in consequence of—
(a) any decision mentioned in section 134(1);
(b) collection of payments of the late night levy;
(c) enforcement of the late night levy requirement.
(2B) Expenses incurred by a licensing authority which fall within subsection (2A)(a) include, in particular, expenses which it incurs in connection with any application made by virtue of section 134(2)(c).’.—(James Brokenshire.)
Clause 133
Amendment of late night levy requirement
Amendments made: 26, page 90, line 38, leave out ‘different’ and insert ‘any’.
Amendment 27, page 90, line 39, after ‘apply’, insert
‘in addition to any that currently apply, or to cease to apply,’.
Amendment 28, page 91, line 7, leave out 'by virtue of section 132(1)(b) or (iii)'
and insert
‘as the result of a relevant decision’.
Amendment 29, page 91, line 11, at end insert—
‘( ) In subsection (4)(b), “relevant decision” means a decision under—
(a) section 132(1)(b)(ii) or (iii), or
(b) subsection (1)(c) of this section.’.—(James Brokenshire.)
Clause 135
Permitted exemption and reduction categories
Amendment made: 30, page 92, line 41, leave out from ‘all’ to ‘that’ in line 42 and insert
‘holders of relevant late night authorisations in’.—(James Brokenshire.)
Clause 140
Demonstrations in vicinity of Parliament: repeal of SOCPA 2005 provisions
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 162, page 94, line 27, leave out subsection (2).
James Brokenshire
This useful debate has given the House the opportunity to discuss an important issue. We made it clear when we introduced our proposals that it was right and proper that the House should have a proper say on the Bill’s provisions relating to Parliament square, and I believe that the House has had that say this afternoon.
There are clearly issues of agreement on both sides of the House. The right to protest is a cherished and important right that the Government seek to uphold, and it is a positive step forward if the Opposition Front-Bench team accept that fact and accept that the draconian approach that in many ways had become their hallmark was a wrong turn. I certainly welcome therefore the comments from the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about scrapping SOCPA, which had a very chilling effect on the right to protest. That is why one of the fundamental effects of the Bill will be to scrap those provisions and to return to treating Parliament square the same, in many ways, as the rest of the country.
The question before us relates to the extent of the right to protest. I think that it has been accepted that it is not an exhaustive right or something that we can do to the nth degree, and that there are limits to the right to protest. In her evidence to the Bill Committee, Shami Chakrabati made that point very clearly. We are discussing the limits to and the extent of that right. We have to take a step back and say, “We have that right to protest, but what is the issue at hand?” The issue at hand is that the right to protest does not mean the right to permanent encampment. That is at the heart of what we are seeking to address and why the provisions in the Bill are structured in the way they are.
I hear those who say that it does not make any difference, that it is not a problem and that we should not be seeking to introduce changes in respect of Parliament square and the surrounding area that contrast with the rest of the country. However, I would make the point that the square has been fenced off for six months to allow remedial and repair work, and has therefore been unavailable, which has clearly affected not just people’s access to it, but the right to protest there. That is why it is important that we examine the issue, and why the proposals in the Bill reflect that approach.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Is it not true that the vast majority of the public would think that any encampment outside Parliament should go? I have heard a lot of speeches this afternoon about why it should stay, but the vast majority of our public would say, “Get rid of it. It shouldn’t be there.”
James Brokenshire
The act of protest does not by default give individuals the right to erect permanent encampments in Parliament square or on the pavements outside it. That is the essence of what we are proposing. We want to protect the right to protest, but that does not mean that we endorse the permanent encampment that has arisen and that, in essence, has deprived others of access to that space.
I heard the points that the hon. Member for Gedling made about practicability and workability—in some ways he summarised the reasonable discussions and detailed debate that we had in Committee. However, we have had discussions with the Metropolitan police—he will be aware of the exchange of correspondence—and I have spoken to Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens in recent days, in advance of this afternoon’s debate. One of the challenges has been about differences of ownership, between the Greater London authority and Westminster city council, and ensuring that the proper protocols are agreed. However, with those protocols in place, our strong belief is that our proposals are workable; otherwise we would not be bringing them before the House.
I hear the debate about the language and the drafting. The Government recognise that any new law will be robustly tested by determined individuals—indeed, that would be the case for any proposals. We have therefore sought to capture attempts to circumvent the legislation that have been raised with us by the police. However, that necessarily carries the potential of capturing others, which is why we have allowed some discretion, as it is important that the provisions should be used proportionately.
Let me turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I suppose that the debate comes down to the context and this issue of a permanent encampment, which we think is so significant. As we have heard, Parliament square is a world heritage site, surrounded by important historic buildings such as Westminster abbey. Given its location opposite the Houses of Parliament and the limited space, we are seeking to balance the competing and legitimate needs of members of the public who come to the area as visitors or protesters, with those of Members of Parliament and others who need to be able to carry out their daily work and enjoy the space.
The Government are clear that no one particular person or group of persons should take over the area to the detriment of others. Encampments remaining on Parliament square in defiance of the byelaws have caused significant damage to the garden and the space, which has underlined the unworkability of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act thus far. The encampments have required considerable remedial work by the Greater London authority, during which time nobody has been able to enjoy the unique space. In relation to the democracy village occupation, the courts found that Parliament square gardens were not a suitable area for any sort of encampment. More recently, the High Court has said:
“Parliament Square Gardens is not a suitable location for prolonged camping; such camping is incompatible with the function, lawful use and character”
of Parliament square gardens, and
“it is also inconsistent with the proper management of the area as a whole”.
The Government and, I think, most Members of this House and the other place would agree with the court’s findings.
Encampments prevent the public’s enjoyment of this unique location and deter people from visiting the area. They even deter and prevent others from protesting, although I have heard the points that have been made in that regard. Let me stress again that we are not seeking to prevent people from protesting on or around Parliament square. We are not seeking to put time limits on protests or to regulate them in that way.
The package of measures in part 3 is aimed at preventing encampments, at dealing with disruptive activity by anyone on Parliament square and at giving the police and authorised officers of the Greater London authority and Westminster city council powers to ensure that Parliament square can be enjoyed by all. So, for example, anyone who pitches a tent in the controlled area defined in the Bill may be directed to take it down. If they fail to comply with the direction, the tent may be seized and they may be charged with an offence.
I welcome the constructive debate that we had in Committee, during which Opposition Members recognised the problem with the current SOCPA provisions and acknowledged the need for new measures. We have heard this afternoon, however, that some of them do not agree with our proposals and continue to have issues. We have introduced a co-ordinated package of provisions that will link into byelaws to ensure that the issues of displacement that have been identified are addressed.
We have listened and reflected on what has been said, which is why the Government have tabled amendments 57 and 58, which deal with authorised officers using powers of force. We continue to believe that the right of authorised officers properly to manage and support the activities in Parliament square, and people’s enjoyment of the square, requires them to have the ability to give directions and to seize items, but not to use reasonable force, because that is the role of the police. That is why we have tabled amendments 57 and 58. They reflect the point that has been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others inside and outside the House. We believe that the package in the Bill strikes a proportionate balance.
We will continue our discussions with the police, with Westminster city council and with the Greater London authority on the management of Parliament square, and on any moves that might result in more co-ordinated ownership and management of the site. Fundamentally, we believe in the right to protest, but that right does not mean permanent encampments. The measures before the House are proportionate and appropriate, because they will enable those who want to protest to have their say outside the House while ensuring that that does not result in the permanent despoiling of Parliament square.
John McDonnell
I wish to press amendments 162 and 185 to a vote. The debate has been helpful in that it has reassured me that we support the right to protest. I look forward to Members joining me in protests in the coming months. There is a disagreement over the difference between protest and permanent protest. There is a tradition of effective permanent protest in this country, and that is the tradition that we are seeking to support.
There is a basic human right, enacted in legislation in this Parliament, to assembly, association and speech. Members must have due cause if they want to tamper with that right in any way. If there is an argument that the encampment causes noise, nuisance or any form of obstruction, legislation already exists to deal with that. Indeed, the Minister has just demonstrated that the court is now dealing with the matter in relation to the grassed area. There is therefore no need for the House to waste its time in introducing specific legislation for a small encampment of principled people who are reminding us of the consequences of our actions in this House.
Let me advise Members and warn that we will come back again on this issue. What we are doing here is counter-productive: it will cause further conflict; it will put police officers in an impossible position and council officers in an even worse position. The encampment will move elsewhere and the Government will then have to come back to the matter, as the last Government tried to do with their Civil Contingencies Bill to ban protest elsewhere and outside other public buildings. I believe that this is an error.
I wish the coalition parties had adhered to their promise before the election to—
Operation Ore (Staffordshire)
James Brokenshire Excerpts(13 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)
Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on securing this debate and on bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. I certainly understand his desire to highlight the specific case of his constituent, and he has clearly followed up with great care the various issues that have been raised with him. I hope he will recognise that it is difficult for me to respond specifically on an individual case of this nature. I also hope, however, that he will appreciate that this provides me with an opportunity to comment on Operation Ore and on a number of steps that the Government are taking to tackle the issue of illegal images online and the wider work of child protection generally. I note the five points that he has highlighted, and I will seek to address some of them in the course of my comments.
It might be helpful if I give the House a brief overview of Operation Ore. As the hon. Gentleman has explained, this was, at the time, an investigation into the activities of individuals on a scale that we had not seen before. In September 1999, the United States Postal Inspection Service searched the premises of an American-based online trading company known as Landslide Inc, which was providing access for payment to adult pornography and child abuse images. Material was seized that included a database containing the list of subscribers.
In September 2001, Landslide Inc transaction information was received by the National Crime Squad, a precursor agency of CEOP—the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. The information was originally received within the National Criminal Intelligence Service, but following an initial assessment it was passed to the National Crime Squad. The NCS took responsibility for national co-ordination in dealing with the dissemination of the subscriber data. This included a co-ordinated approach to the categorisation and prioritisation of individual suspects based on their potential access to children. The transaction data consisted of information submitted by a customer in purchasing access to the websites, which included their name, address, credit card number, e-mail address and a customer-selected password. In April 2004, following the first incitement case, further forensic work revealed the capture of the subscriber IP address and the credit card verification logs.
In the majority of Operation Ore cases, police forces have used the data from Landslide Inc to commence investigations into the suspected possession of indecent images of a child. There is a common misconception about these cases being linked under an overall programme of investigation. I want to make it clear that the decision whether to proceed in each individual case was a matter for the police force concerned, and that once the individual packages were released to the forces, it was the responsibility of individual chief constables to decide whether to undertake investigations. Following investigation, forces considered whether offences had been committed and warranted judicial proceedings. Each case was independently scrutinised by the local Crown Prosecution Service, and in those cases where suspects elected for trial, the evidence was obviously further tested by the courts. To the best of our knowledge, no cases were brought on the basis of credit card data alone.
We understand that about 2,700 individuals have been convicted of these offences. This figure includes more than 700 admitting their guilt in receiving a formal caution. In almost 2,300 cases, child abuse images were discovered. In 22% of all dissemination cases following an investigation, the police service took no further action. Importantly, more than 154 children were safeguarded.
As I have already indicated, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss individual cases in this debate, but I want to be clear that it is my understanding that the investigation process followed by the police in these cases was the same as for any other type of crime, and that following a thorough investigation, decisions were made on whether to proceed with a prosecution, or other action, taking all relevant factors into account.
I appreciate the points made by the hon. Gentleman and recognise the sensitivities for people who are arrested or accused of such crimes. An additional factor that the police have to consider in such cases is whether there is a direct and continuing threat to children from those who have been accused of a crime. It is a matter for the investigating officers, in conjunction with local children’s services, what action they take having considered that question. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted his desire and his constituent’s desire to receive an apology from Staffordshire police. That is a matter for Staffordshire police. The hon. Gentleman has put on the record the chronology of the events, the issues he has and his constituent’s concerns. I am sure that those points will be heard by Staffordshire police as a consequence of this debate.
The police and CEOP have standard guidelines for dealing with these investigations, which include recommendations for handling interviews and arrests. Although it is right that we consider the effect of the accusation on the person who is accused, that needs to be balanced with the risk posed to children. A member of the public who is dissatisfied with the behaviour of individual officers or a force may complain to the relevant police force or to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The IPCC has a dual purpose to act as an overall guardian to the police complaints system, ensuring its effectiveness and efficiency, and also to take a role in individual cases. It is entirely independent of the police and the Government. The hon. Gentleman raised a specific point about the IPCC’s ability to take on individual cases that predate its creation. I hope that it is satisfactory to him if I respond later with further details on that issue.
The broader issue of illegal images is sadly one that persists. I would like to take this opportunity to set out the approach that we will take to that problem. I believe that we all have a responsibility to help to make the internet a safer place for the public. I support the self-regulatory model developed in the UK by the internet industry and law enforcement to provide a structure for the reporting of such images, the analysis of them, and action to track down those responsible or prevent access to them.
I recognise the support for the Internet Watch Foundation and the action taken by responsible internet service providers to prevent inadvertent access by the public to such images. That is an example of how industry and others can make a significant contribution to tackling this problem. I valued the opportunity this afternoon to attend the launch of the IWF’s three-year strategy and the publication of its annual report on its work to take down such images, working closely with law enforcement and other agencies. The Government strongly support this model for tackling illegal images. We believe that it works and we would like to see other countries take action to achieve the same ends.
The work of the IWF and the industry, allied with that of the police and CEOP, has helped virtually to eradicate the content in question from servers hosted in the UK, although there is clearly still work to be done. We will continue to support the work of CEOP, which does so much to help to protect children. It has been a great success, and it has helped to safeguard a significant number of children and apprehend people who would seek to harm them.
I wish to reassure the House of two things. The first is the seriousness with which the Government take the protection of children. In that context, we will continue to support the work of the police and CEOP to protect children from the threats posed to them. Like the hon. Gentleman, I thank them and congratulate them on their work to ensure that children are safer. Secondly, we will ensure that should an operation on the scale of Operation Ore be required again, the UK has in place a robust structure to deal with it. We will ensure that cases are handled in accordance with the law.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue in general, and equally for raising the case of his individual constituent. He has made his points very clearly, and he has certainly followed the case through for his constituent. I am sure that hon. Members who are in the House this evening, and people outside, will have heard the points he has raised tonight and will take notice of them.
Question put and agreed to.
Mobile Communications (Interception)
James Brokenshire Excerpts(13 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 congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing the debate. He has a keen personal interest in the issues raised, as he has highlighted; indeed, I am aware that many Members share that interest.
The issue of phone hacking is undoubtedly one that Members on both sides of the House regard as extremely important. As well as the original investigation by the Metropolitan police, which resulted in the prosecution and conviction of Clive Goodman, the royal editor of the News of the World, and a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, there has been a separate review by the Metropolitan police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service. The matter has previously been the subject of consideration by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. It is also the subject of current inquiries by both the Home Affairs Committee and the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
Such a degree of interest is understandable. The Government fully agree that the prospect of journalists, or anyone else, unlawfully hacking into and listening to people’s private conversations is an extremely serious matter that needs to be treated accordingly. In its plainest terms phone hacking is unlawful and should not occur. Any interception of communications is a very serious invasion of privacy. No activity of that nature would ever be taken lightly by the state itself.
Interception is of course a potentially powerful tool for combating terrorism and serious crime, but the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which governs lawful interception and its oversight, allows only a very small number of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to apply for warrants to undertake such steps. The warrants can be issued only by the Secretary of State and for very limited purposes, including preventing or detecting serious crime and the interests of national security.
The checks and balances that have been established underline how serious a step it is to contemplate interfering with private communications, even when such action is designed to protect the public and prevent harm or detect wrongdoing. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary devotes a great deal of her time to scrutinising warrant applications under RIPA for the security services and police to interfere with the communications of serious criminals and terrorists.
There is no place for indiscriminate and unauthorised interception. Such activity, which includes the so-called hacking of voice messages, is an offence under RIPA and carries a penalty of two years’ imprisonment. In addition, and of growing relevance as technology advances, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 created other offences relating to the unauthorised accessing of data. They include unauthorised access to a computer to look at information, for which the penalty is up to two years’ imprisonment, and accessing a computer in order to commit other crimes, such as stealing data, for which the penalty is up to five years’ imprisonment.
Personal data are also protected under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, and unlawfully obtaining personal data is also an offence under that Act. There can thus be no doubt that the intention of Parliament is that an individual’s personal and private data should be properly protected.
When there is reason to suspect that any of the provisions protecting personal data may have been breached, it is quite rightly a matter for the police to consider and investigate. Police investigations are operational matters, and it is for the relevant police force to decide whether and how best to approach any such investigation, in consultation as necessary with the Crown Prosecution Service.
It has been suggested that the original investigation by the Metropolitan police was inadequate, but I remind the House that the investigation did result in the prosecution and conviction of two individuals. In dealing with that investigation, the police worked closely with the Crown Prosecution Service to determine the best approach to the case and prosecution. Those decisions were subsequently reviewed. The police made it clear that the investigation was technical and complex. They also undertook to consider any fresh information and evidence that might shed any new light on the case. As the Director of Public Prosecutions made clear in December 2010, for a prosecution to be taken forward it is necessary for there to be credible evidence and individuals prepared to testify to it.
Fresh information has recently been made available to the police and a new investigation is under way, as the House is well aware. It is important that that investigation be allowed to proceed without hindrance. It would not be appropriate for me to speculate or comment on the details at this stage, but the Metropolitan police have made it clear that it is to be a thorough and most robust investigation. It is being carried out by a fresh team within the Metropolitan police. The officer in charge, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, released a statement on 9 February, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in which she made it clear that the Metropolitan police were
“determined to ensure that we conduct a robust and thorough investigation which will follow the evidence trail to its conclusion.”
Chris Bryant
I have full confidence in Sue Akers because everything I have seen shows that she is doing the job that should have been done previously, and I do not underestimate the difficulty of that job. The Minister said—it is an argument that has been adduced by others, and Mr Yates in particular—that new evidence has been provided, but that is not actually true. The only reason there was new evidence in relation to Ian Edmondson is that the papers relating to Sienna Miller, which mentioned Mr Edmondson, were finally wrested from the hands of the police by Sienna Miller in a civil court case. That is the scandal.
James Brokenshire
All those issues relating to the investigation will undoubtedly be examined by Sue Akers and the Metropolitan police as part of their ongoing investigation. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Director of Public Prosecutions has also instigated an independent review of all the original evidence held by the Metropolitan police, including that not originally given to the Crown Prosecution Service in connection with the original case.
That review will consider whether there is any material that could form evidence in any future criminal prosecution. It is important that the police are able to focus fully on this new investigation and pursue any new avenues of inquiry as necessary. The most appropriate course is therefore to await the outcome of the investigation, rather than speculating further at this stage on particular aspects.
I am sure that the whole House will agree that a free press is a fundamental hallmark of our democracy, but that does not mean that the media are above the law—they are bound by it in precisely the same way as any other individual. Any breaches of that law are punishable through the courts in the normal way. With freedom comes responsibility. The press have their own set of guidelines set out in the press code of practice, which contains a clause forbidding the acquisition and publication of material by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or e-mails. The media must adhere to those standards of conduct. I would also say that the defence of activity being in the public interest is not the same as what may interest the public.
The media’s conduct in relation to the code of practice is overseen and enforced by the Press Complaints Commission. The commission is independent from the newspaper industry, with commission members appointed by an independent appointments commission and with an in-built majority of lay members. It is also, rightly, independent of the Government. We of course recognise that these arrangements and the industry’s system of self-regulation are not perfect and are sometimes breached. However, overall we believe that the PCC acts as an effective check on the industry and in reinforcing the standards expected.
The PCC recently announced that it has set up a working group to look at new evidence as it becomes known, and it is examining its own role and actions in relation to the issue as it has unfolded. The committee will comprise the two lay commissioners who joined most recently, in 2010, both of whom are experts in relevant legal fields: Ian Walden, professor of information and communications law at Queen Mary, university of London; and Julie Spence, a former chief constable of Cambridgeshire police. There will be one editorial commissioner, John McLellan, the editor of The Scotsman.
Despite some undoubted lapses in the standards that we expect of the media according to the principles of its own code, overall we believe that further regulation of the industry is neither necessary nor appropriate. We will, however, continue to keep the issue under review.
On the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the mobile phone companies, mobile network operators offer a range of advice and services on keeping personal details secure at all times. Some send an automatic message if a PIN number is incorrectly entered, or they may suspend services until the legitimate owner of the account authenticates their identity. The Information Commissioner has been working with service providers to consider the safeguards available, and he will include advice on that in his next set of guidance.
As I said at the outset, I recognise that the matter continues to command a great deal of interest. That is why it is already under detailed scrutiny. In addition to the current police investigation, the Director of Public Prosecutions has instigated a review by Alison Levitt, QC, of all available evidence—not just that passed to the Crown Prosecution Service in connection with the original prosecutions. She has been asked to take a robust approach to assessing the evidence, advising whether the Metropolitan Police Service should carry out any further investigation or whether any prosecutions can be brought. She will also advise on the new investigation.
The Home Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into phone hacking, as is the Standards and Privileges Committee, and, as I have said, the Press Complaints Commission has announced its own review of the emerging information. As the hon. Gentleman noted, other cases are being brought by individuals who believe that they might have been subject to hacking, and they are currently before the courts. Each process has its own proper procedures for looking into the detail of the allegations and its own course to run.
The Government and the whole country take the issue of phone hacking extremely seriously: the intrusion of privacy, the attempt illegally to use private conversations for financial gain and the compromising of individual rights—we consider all those abhorrent. Although two individuals have already been convicted and jailed in relation to the case, it is possible that as a result of the new police investigation others will be prosecuted.
I remind the House that the Government have no involvement in decisions to charge or to prosecute individuals, and I am sure the whole House will agree that, in a free society, that is entirely right and proper. The right course of action for the Government is to await the outcome of the new police investigation, and that is exactly what we will do.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Brokenshire Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)
18. What plans she has to assist police forces to tackle antisocial behaviour.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The Government recently launched a consultation on reforming the toolkit for dealing with antisocial behaviour. The proposals will reduce the bureaucracy, delay and cost that hamper the police and their partners. We are also working to help police forces improve their service to victims by, for example, supporting eight police forces in trialling a new approach to handling calls on antisocial behaviour.
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The nature of antisocial behaviour means that the main emphasis in tackling it lies with the police, because much of this behaviour is crime, but other partners, such as community safety partnerships, play an essential role. We support that and it is recognised in the toolkit for civil orders. We have stripped away some of the bureaucracy that got in the way of getting those partners to do the job that they are needed to do.
Gavin Barwell
May I encourage my hon. Friend to liaise with police authorities about deploying safer neighbourhood teams on the basis of places, not artificial ward boundaries, as such an approach would allow coverage to extend into the crucial evening period, when a lot of antisocial behaviour takes place?
James Brokenshire
There are certainly operational issues associated with the tasking of safer neighbourhood teams. I know from my hon. Friend’s constituency the importance and emphasis that the Mayor of London places on those teams. I am sure that he will have heard clearly the message that my hon. Friend has sent about the importance of discretion at the operational level.
Lorraine Fullbrook
What can be done to engage young people early in order to prevent their engaging in antisocial behaviour?
James Brokenshire
The issue relating to young people and antisocial behaviour is important. It is also worth recognising that most victims of antisocial behaviour are young people themselves. The Government are focused on intervening early: the early intervention grant, which is worth about £2.2 billion, will support activities to help young people start off in a positive way. Clearly, young people can be victims of antisocial behaviour, which is why it is important that we take action early to prevent it in their communities.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister accept that in dealing with adults involved in neighbourhood nuisance, low-level violence and intimidation, antisocial behaviour orders have been an invaluable part of the toolkit? Will he give an assurance that they will continue to be available to police and local authorities seeking to reduce antisocial behaviour?
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are consulting on a new toolkit, whereby the tools are reduced in number to five core ones. The problem is that ASBOs have been used less and less and the number of breaches has increased. We are clear about the need for civil orders, which is why we are consulting on the new powers. They are better tailored and will ensure that the civil standard of proof is used to make the orders easier to obtain. They will also be able to put in place positive requirements to break patterns that may lead to antisocial behaviour and crime.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
In Bristol, the police have made very good use of the antisocial behaviour legislation—the acceptable behaviour contracts and ASBOs—to tackle kerb crawling and on-street prostitution, which blights the lives of many residents of the Eastville area of my constituency. Can the Minister assure the House that any replacement for the current antisocial behaviour legislation will continue to give the police the powers to tackle this problem?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that specific example and I hope that her community will take part in the ongoing consultation on the new toolkit, which will last until the middle of May. We are clear that the existing powers remain in place until such time as a new regime is introduced, but we are very focused on it being practical, supporting communities and having the effect that people want it to have in bearing down on antisocial behaviour and the crime that can lead from it.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that more than 10,000 police officers, many of whom are in neighbourhood teams tackling antisocial behaviour, will be cut over the next two years? The Thames Valley police force, which covers the constituencies of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, said the following about possible local youth centre closures:
“the loss of those services would mean more opportunities for young people to get involved in crime and antisocial behaviour”.
So with cuts to front-line policing and youth services across the country, how exactly does the Minister expect his rebranded, weaker version of the ASBO to maintain progress in combating antisocial behaviour?
James Brokenshire
I do not accept that this is some sort of weaker tool. There is going to be a more effective suite of tools with which to bear down on antisocial behaviour. Let us not forget that it was the last Labour Home Secretary who suggested that the previous Government had in some way been coasting on antisocial behaviour. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has reminded me that Thames Valley police has said that it will be protecting neighbourhood response teams. It is also worth highlighting that the Mayor of London recognises the importance of safer neighbourhood and community teams and of delivering on the antisocial behaviour agenda.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I do not know whether the Minister has seen “Minority Report” in which precogs predict where and when serious crimes are going to occur, but will he assess a less futuristic and more practical technique that has been advocated by Peter Neyroud, the ex-chief of the National Policing Improvement Agency, and by the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, which could cut reoffending and antisocial behaviour? The technique flags up the criminals who are most likely to reoffend, thereby allowing resources to be concentrated on them and halving prisoner numbers, saving money and improving public safety in the process.
James Brokenshire
I am not sure whether Philip K. Dick is bedtime reading for Peter Neyroud, but certainly the whole idea of prevention and acting earlier is very much at the heart of the consultation in which we are engaged on antisocial behaviour. I am certainly clear about the role of prevention and the need to act early in breaking patterns of offending before people become too engaged. I will certainly look at the research to which he refers.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Will the Minister responsible for antisocial behaviour assure me—in relation to the review he will be conducting—that when antisocial behaviour is aggravated by the victim’s disability, it will be taken into account when considering the severity of the disposal?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting this issue, which is at the heart of the call handling pilots launched at the start of the year to identify vulnerability, and to ensure that there is better join-up between the police, local authorities and the health service in order to ensure that where there are specific issues, they are identified more speedily and more effectively. Bullying and intimidation linked to disabilities are utterly reprehensible and unacceptable, and the system needs to improve to identify where these problems are occurring.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
T9. Will the Minister inform the House of when his Department intends to review the current definition of an air weapon under the Firearms Act 1968?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Home Affairs Committee has produced its report on firearms generally. We are still considering the issue and will respond to the report in due course.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Residents of Hastings and Rye warmly welcome the additional information from the crime and policing website, but is the Home Secretary aware of the additional service it provides to women who may be coming home late at night and might feel vulnerable? That is particularly important ahead of international women’s day tomorrow.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
James Brokenshire Excerpts(13 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 the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in Force of Sections 1 to 9) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.
The purpose of the order before the House is to renew sections 1 to 9 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 pending their repeal and replacement with an alternative regime. These sections expire after one year unless renewed by order, subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. The effect of this order will be to maintain the control order powers until the end of 31 December 2011. As the Home Secretary said to the House on 26 January, this limited renewal is to allow us to bring forward the legislation introducing a replacement system.
I would like briefly to set out the context for the proposal before the House. As the Prime Minister has said, the threat to the UK from international terrorism is as serious as we have faced at any time. It is assessed by the joint terrorism analysis centre to be “severe”. A number of significant terrorist plots have been uncovered over the past year. Recent trials and investigations show that terrorist networks are continuing to plan and attempt to carry out attacks. That threat will not diminish at any point soon.
Against this background, and given our commitment to redress the balance in our counter-terrorism powers, the Government conducted a review of counter-terrorism and security powers which considered the necessity, effectiveness and proportionality of control orders.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Have any of the people whom the Minister is concerned about—who may or may not be plotting terrorist attacks—at any time been subject to a control order or considered for a control order?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to comment on such sensitive security issues. I can tell him that the review we undertook underlined that the Government’s absolute priority must be to prosecute suspected terrorists in open court. Measures that impose restrictions on suspected terrorists who have not been convicted in open court should be our last resort. As far as possible, given the need to protect the public, any restrictions should support the primary objective of prosecution.
The review concluded that for the foreseeable future, there is likely to continue to be a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security, but who, despite our best efforts, cannot be prosecuted or, in the case of foreign nationals, deported. As at 10 December 2010, eight individuals were subject to control orders. Our reluctant assessment is that there will continue to be a need for a mechanism to protect the public from the threat that such individuals pose. Lord Carlile reached the same conclusion in his most recent and last independent report on control orders. Consequently, he and the other statutory consultees support the proposal to renew the control order powers. I am sure that hon. Members from all parts of the House will join me in thanking Lord Carlile for his work over the past 10 years.
The review also concluded that it is possible to move to a system that will protect the public but be less intrusive and have more clearly and tightly defined restrictions. In particular, the two-year maximum time limit clearly demonstrates that these are targeted, temporary measures. It will be possible to impose a further measure only if there is evidence of new terrorism-related activity after the original measure was imposed. Measures will have to meet the evidential test of reasonable belief that a person is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. That is higher than the test of reasonable suspicion of such involvement in the control orders regime. The police will be under a strengthened legal duty to inform the Home Secretary about an ongoing review of a person’s conduct with a view to bringing a prosecution. A more flexible overnight residence requirement will replace the current curfew arrangements.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous so far and we will see how this goes. Will he clarify how the new residence requirement is different from the existing arrangements? In her comments to the Home Affairs Committee, the Minister for Security, Baroness Neville-Jones, was less than clear on that point.
James Brokenshire
I know that this issue was of interest to the Home Affairs Committee. As the Minister for Security made clear in her evidence, the normal overnight residence requirement will be for between eight and 10 hours. She has written to the Committee to set out that as at 10 December 2010, the longest curfew under a control order was for 14 hours, which was in place in two cases. Of the remaining curfews, one was for 13 hours, three were for 12 hours, one for 10 hours and one for eight hours. Therefore, at least six of the eight individuals will be confined to their residence for a shorter period than they are currently. The Minister for Security has made that point clear.
It is worth stressing some of the other relevant issues. Forcible relocation to other parts of the country will be ended. Geographical boundaries will be replaced with a power to impose much more tightly defined exclusions from particular places. There will be no power to exclude someone from, for example, an entire London borough. Individuals will have greater freedom of communication, including access to a mobile phone and a home computer with internet access, subject to certain conditions such as providing passwords. They will have greater freedom to associate—for example, there will be no blanket restrictions on visitors or meetings. Individuals will only be prohibited from associating with people who may facilitate terrorism-related activity. They will be free to work and study, subject again to the restrictions necessary to protect the public. These changes will allow the individual to continue to lead a normal life so far as is possible, subject only to the restrictions necessary to prevent or disrupt involvement in terrorism-related activity.
The more limited restrictions that may be imposed may facilitate further investigation, as well as preventing terrorism-related activities. The new regime will also be accompanied by an increase in funding for the police and the Security Service, to enhance their investigative capabilities. The Government intend to bring forward legislation to that effect shortly. The legislation must be properly prepared and properly scrutinised by the House. In the meantime, we are clear that it would be irresponsible to allow the current regime to lapse in the absence of alternative measures and while the investigative capabilities of the law enforcement and security agencies are being developed.
It is important to underline that control orders remain legally viable and although they are, in our judgment, imperfect, they have had some success in protecting the public. We are satisfied that the current control order powers and the order before us today are proportionate and fully compliant with the European convention on human rights, and that, pending the introduction of their replacement, it is essential that these powers continue to be available in order to protect the public.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I should like my hon. Friend to take note of the observation made by a former Home Secretary, Charles Clarke:
“The principal responsibility of the judiciary is to justice and to the liberty of the citizen properly carried through, but not to the security of the nation.”
Is my hon. Friend also aware of my Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which I introduced today? The object of the Bill is simply to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of these matters in order to ensure that we maintain habeas corpus, due process and fair trial, even in the case of alleged suspects.
James Brokenshire
I am aware that my hon. Friend has introduced a Bill, although it would not strictly apply in the context of this debate on control orders and the new proposals that we are seeking to introduce, given that his Bill applies to provisions allowing for detention. That means that it would not affect these measures, because they do not allow for detention. I note that he has sought to introduce his Bill, but I do not think it is directly relevant to this debate.
Jeremy Corbyn
Is the Minister aware that the objection that many of us have to the principle of control orders is that they are effectively a form of Executive control and not subject to judicial review in the normal way? What we need is criminal law to deal with criminals, rather than Executive fiat to deal with people about whom the Security Service might or might not have suspicions.
James Brokenshire
I certainly hear the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. As I have already stressed, our preference is always to bring prosecutions and to bring people before the criminal law. I must also highlight my previous comment on the compliance with the ECHR of the provisions before us. These measures are always used only as a last resort.
We are currently preparing legislation to introduce the replacement system. I am anxious that the passage of that legislation should follow due process, and that it should be subject to the intense scrutiny that I know Members of this House and the other place will rightly bring to bear on it. Hon. Members will understand that these are complex issues, and I am sure that they will share my desire to ensure that we get the new provisions right. While the process is under way, it would not be responsible for us to leave a gap in public protection between the repeal of control orders and the introduction of the replacement regime. Our intention is that there should be a safe and managed transition to the new system. This means that, until the new system is introduced, we need to retain the full range of control order powers. The alternative would be to allow individuals who pose a threat to the public to go freely about their terrorism-related activities for the remainder of the year.
This is the last occasion on which the House will be asked to renew these powers. The Government will shortly bring forward a more targeted and focused regime to protect the public. Before the transition to that new regime is complete, the risk to the public would be grave indeed were control order powers not renewed. I therefore ask the House to approve the renewal of those powers for the transitional period.
James Brokenshire
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this measured, considered and useful debate on a range of issues relating to combating and preventing terrorism. I, too, would like to put on record my thanks to the police service and the security services for all that they do in keeping us safe, keeping our constituents safe and keeping our country safe.
I will seek to address as many of the points raised as I can in the time available to me. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) for the support that he is giving to the renewal of this order on a temporary basis until the end of this year. I hope, notwithstanding his comments, that he may be minded to support the important measures that we will introduce on TPIMs. We think that those measures are an important step in bringing forward measures that are less intrusive, with more clearly and tightly defined restrictions. I note that the hon. Gentleman sought to have some political fun, but the serious point is that the review of our terrorism and security powers was about trying to do the right thing for our country, for its security and for our civil liberties. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we will not do anything that puts our national security at risk.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of other points. As for the timing, we will try to introduce the replacement legislation at the earliest opportunity, but we want to get the technical issues right; he will appreciate the legal issues. It is therefore important that we make the revised proposals at the appropriate time after that work is concluded. I reiterate what I said in my opening speech: we want to ensure that there is proper scrutiny by this House of the provisions. He will recall that the provisions on control orders were brought forward in an expedited fashion, and perhaps did not receive such scrutiny and investigation. We believe it is important that that should take place.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does that include pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed Bill?
James Brokenshire
The Bill will be brought forward and scrutinised in the usual way. I think that the hon. Gentleman may be referring to the draft Bill on the enhanced TPIM provisions, which the hon. Member for Bradford South highlighted. When this matter was raised with Baroness Neville-Jones by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, she said that she would take it away and give it further consideration. We are considering it further.
Hon. Members have asked whether the Security Service is content with the outcome of the review. The Security Service played a full role in the review and provided it with all the facts and assessments required. The director general of the Security Service told the Home Secretary that he was content that the replacement measures and mitigations balanced the risk of the abolition of control orders. I note that the Joint Committee sought the publication of a summary of the views of various agencies and organisations. Again, Baroness Neville-Jones undertook to consider whether such a summary could be produced, but noted that some of the contributors to the review would have views on whether they wished all their evidence and views to be made public, and that it would be necessary to consult on that. We are considering that position further in the light of those statements.
I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) for his impassioned and very personal contribution to the debate. Anyone who was here and who listened to it will have felt his comments keenly. The threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism is significant, and it is vital for the UK’s terrorism legislation framework to be capable of dealing with it. Evidence from Northern Ireland was taken account of as part of the review, and the Home Secretary has discussed the review several times with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take security in Northern Ireland extremely seriously. I know that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is on the Front Bench, would endorse that view in relation to the work of his Department.
I have been asked about cost. The control orders regime cost the Home Office £12.5 million between 2006 and 2010. We will provide sufficient new money for the Security Service and the police to take the mitigating actions that they have identified as necessary.
Other points have been made about the Joint Committee report published this morning. Quarterly reviews are undertaken of the conduct of individuals who may be subject to control orders, the prospects of prosecution and the prospects of gathering evidence that could be used to prosecute. Those are formally reviewed by the relevant authorities on a quarterly basis. This issue is examined further and followed through in that way. I reiterate that it is our priority to get individuals into court on appropriate charges. That is the commitment that the Government have always made.
Some questions were asked about special advocates. As part of the counter-terrorism review, we received a contribution from the special advocates. On 6 July 2010, as part of the package of measures on detainees, the Prime Minister announced a Green Paper on the use of intelligence in judicial proceedings. This will aim to develop a framework for ensuring full judicial and non-judicial scrutiny of intelligence and wider national security activities in line with the Government’s commitments to individual rights and the rule of law, and to protecting national security properly. The Green Paper will need to include consideration of the key concerns that have been expressed about the operation of the special advocate system. We will ensure that the system remains compatible with human rights. We will consider this matter along with the Committee’s other recommendations, and we will respond formally to its report in due course.
Some questions were raised about the use of intercept as evidence. There is an ongoing programme of work on assessing the likely balance of advantage, cost and risk involved in a legally viable model for the use of intercept as evidence, compared with the present approach. Our intention is to provide a report back to Parliament during the summer.
This has been an important debate. We are replacing the control orders with a new, less intrusive, more focused system of terrorism prevention and investigation measures, but we wish to see a safe and managed transition to the new system. This means that, until the new system is in place, we need to retain the control order powers in order to avoid a gap in protection for the public, which is clearly the primary role of the Government. I therefore hope that the House will support the motion.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
James Brokenshire Excerpts(13 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)
This has been a good debate. The passion shown and the wide-ranging nature of the debate has underlined the fact that freedom of speech is very much alive and well in the House. I take heart from the broad support across the House for many, if not all, of the Bill’s provisions. There is a clear recognition from Members on the Government Benches—and, indeed, by a number of Opposition Members—that the previous Government’s approach during their 13 years in office eroded a number of freedoms and, importantly, failed to enhance our security. Freedom was not enhanced by the creation of a leviathan national identity register containing the personal details of every adult in the country. Civil liberties were not protected by creating a database holding the details of every child. The vulnerable were not safeguarded by requiring more than 9 million employees and volunteers to register with a Government agency. Justice was not served by including more than 1 million unconvicted individuals on the national DNA database, and community cohesion was not strengthened by the police stopping hundreds of thousands of people under anti-terrorism powers but making only a handful of arrests for terrorist offences.
I remind Opposition Members of the Leader of the Opposition’s words to the Labour party conference:
“But we must always remember that British liberties were hard fought and hard won over hundreds of years. We should always take the greatest care in protecting them. And too often we seemed casual about them.”
This Government will not be casual about liberty. That is why the Bill sets out a different approach that will protect our communities while defending personal freedoms.
This has been a good debate and I thank hon. Members on the Government side, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), whom I welcome as the successor to Evan Harris, although there have been some comments in support of the activities that Evan continues to do outside the House. I thank also my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), for Salisbury (John Glen), for Witham (Priti Patel), for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), for Colchester (Bob Russell) and for Stone (Mr Cash). In addition, I thank many Opposition Members for their contributions, including the light relief provided by the vision of his brush with Oddjob described by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who did not specify whether his fingerprints were taken by Goldfinger. I know that the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton) would have liked to take part in the debate on wheel-clamping, and we appreciate her support for those measures.
I am conscious of time and I will do my best to cover as many as possible of the points that have been raised, but I apologise if I am not able to get through them all. On CCTV, I welcome the support of many hon. Members for the introduction of a statutory code of practice and the appointment of an independent surveillance commissioner. Those measures will help to maintain and strengthen public confidence in the use of CCTV systems and will ensure that the millions of pounds invested in such systems deliver value for money. Some hon. Members have commented on whether this trust and confidence is required, and I highlight the comments of Sara Thornton, the chief constable of Thames Valley police, in her review of Project Champion concerning CCTV usage in Birmingham. She said:
“As a consequence, the trust and confidence that they”—
in other words, the local people—
“have in the police has been significantly undermined.
There is a real opportunity to learn from Project Champion about the damage that can be done to police legitimacy when the police are seen to be acting in a way which prizes expediency over legitimacy.”
That is the context in which we should consider the provisions in the Bill relating to CCTV.
My hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Oxford West and Abingdon highlighted the application of the CCTV code of practice. The code is intended to benefit all system users. The specific requirement to have regard to the code is initially limited to the police and local authorities as the principal operators of public space CCTV systems, but the use of privately operated cameras in private or semi-public spaces is more complex. We wish to achieve a consensus on key issues before considering whether to extend the duty to have regard to the code of practice to other operators—for example, in shopping centres. I take on board the comments that were made. I can offer my hon. Friend the Member for Witham an assurance that we recognise the important role played by CCTV in detecting and deterring crime.
An issue that was raised which is not in the Bill was section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. It is essential to consider in the round whether current laws strike the right balance on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom to manifest one’s religion and the need to protect the public. In its report, “Adapting to Protest”, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary suggested that changing the law was not the answer. In many ways it was the constant changes to the Public Order Act that had led to operational confusion. The Government will continue to review the law throughout the course of this Parliament to ensure that it allows competing rights to be properly balanced.
Comments were made on the provisions for safeguarding vulnerable groups. Some Opposition Members expressed concern that reforms to the vetting and barring scheme would put children and vulnerable adults at greater risk. We do not consider that that will be the case. The remodelled scheme set out in the Bill will cover those who may have regular or close contact with children or vulnerable adults. It will provide for a more proportionate and efficient scheme in tandem with a refined criminal records disclosure service. The creation of a huge database to monitor millions of ordinary people created an artificial sense of security. We are moving back to a common-sense approach.
Yvette Cooper
Will the Minister confirm that if somebody applying for a post as a voluntary teaching assistant has been barred from work as a teacher owing to inappropriate contact or behaviour with children, the school will not be told that the independent experts at the ISA have barred that person?
James Brokenshire
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear, the underlying information will be known. That is the key point. It is worth mentioning that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) met the NSPCC and other bodies, which said that they were assured by the explanations that they were given.
On DNA, we reject the allegations that we are being soft on crime. That is not the case. We recognise the importance of DNA and how it combats crime. Our approach is based on putting the guilty on the database to make a difference there, not putting on the database those who are innocent.
The Bill strikes the right balance between individual freedom and collective protection. It guards against the unnecessary and unregulated intrusion by Government into the lives of the many. It protects the fundamental values of liberty and freedom that mark this country out. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
protection of freedoms bill (programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Protection of Freedoms Bill:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 10 May.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Bill Wiggin.)
Question agreed to.
protection of freedoms bill (money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Protection of Freedoms Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of this Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided, and
(2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.—(Bill Wiggin.)
Question agreed to.
National DNA Database (Ethics Group)
James Brokenshire Excerpts(13 years, 9 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)
I am pleased to announce the following appointments to the Ethics Group which provides Ministers with independent ethical advice on the operation and practice of the national DNA database (NDNAD):
Professor David Latchman CBE
Dr Nina Hallowell
Professor Latchman and Dr Hallowell replace two members of the group who have now stepped down.
Eight current members of the Ethics Group have been reappointed for a further three-year term. They are:
Dr Derrick Campbell
Mrs Wendy Coates
Ms Madeleine Colvin
Dr Jane Pearson
Dr Clive Richards
Dr Sameer Sarkar
Ms Sarah Thewlis
Dr Suzy Walton
Antisocial Behaviour
James Brokenshire Excerpts(13 years, 9 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)
Today I am launching, “More effective responses to anti-social behaviour”, which sets out the key findings of the Home Office’s review of the current tools and powers to deal with antisocial behaviour, as well as proposals to simplify and improve them.
Reducing the everyday crime and disorder that is described as antisocial behaviour—from vandalism and graffiti to drug dealing and harassment—is a high priority for the public, and for the Government. It is corrosive, blights communities and neighbourhoods and has a huge impact on the quality of life of millions of people. The unprecedented response by the public to the launch of street-level crime information earlier this month illustrates just how concerned they are about the issue.
Our aim is to ensure that where a community or victim is suffering antisocial behaviour—particularly the sort of targeted, persistent harassment apparent in a number of high-profile recent cases—the police and other local agencies take the problem seriously, take the necessary steps to stop it permanently, and protect vulnerable victims.
Our reforms to local crime and policing will take us some way towards meeting that objective. The introduction of elected police and crime commissioners, street-level crime information and regular neighbourhood beat meetings will make police forces more accountable for the way they deal with the issues that matter to local people. Helen Newlove is highlighting ways the public can get involved in making their communities safer. And we announced earlier in January that eight police forces are, with local partners, trialling a new approach to handling calls from the public that will ensure repeat and vulnerable victims of antisocial behaviour get a better service.
However, the police and other professionals also need an effective toolkit to deal with antisocial behaviour; one that is quick, practical, easy to use and provides a real deterrent to perpetrators.
Our review of the current tools and powers found that there are too many of them, with practitioners tending to focus on the measures they are most familiar with. And the bureaucracy and cost associated with some of the court orders (especially the antisocial behaviour order) may encourage some practitioners to use informal or voluntary tools to deal with serious incidents instead. At the same time, the growing number of people who breach their ASBO suggests the potentially serious consequences are still not deterring a persistent minority from continued antisocial behaviour. Finally, the tools that were designed to help perpetrators deal with the underlying causes of their antisocial behaviour are rarely used.
In response we propose a radical streamlining. Instead of providing a specific tool to deal with every problem, we aim to introduce a handful of faster, more flexible and more effective tools that allow practitioners to protect victims and communities and get to the root of the problem. Specifically, we propose to:
repeal the ASBO and other court orders for antisocial individuals, and replace them with two new orders that bring together restrictions on future behaviour and support to address underlying problems—a criminal behaviour order that can be attached to a criminal conviction, and a crime prevention injunction that can quickly stop antisocial behaviour before it escalates;
ensure there are powerful incentives on perpetrators to stop behaving antisocially—for example, by making breach of the new orders grounds for eviction from social housing;
bring together many of the existing tools for dealing with place-specific antisocial behaviour, from persistent litter or noisy neighbours, to street drinking and crack houses, into a community protection order;
bring together existing police dispersal powers into a single police power to direct people away from an area for antisocial behaviour;
make the informal and out-of-court tools for dealing with antisocial behaviour more rehabilitative and restorative; and
introduce a community trigger that gives victims and communities the right to require agencies to deal with persistent antisocial behaviour.
Copies of the consultation document will be placed in the House Library. The consultation, which runs until 3 May, is open to everyone to have their say and details can be found on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/asb-consultation.
Proposed Directive (Information Systems)
James Brokenshire Excerpts(13 years, 9 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)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the proposed European directive on attacks against information systems, which we have decided to opt in to.
Hon. Members will not need me to tell them how much we benefit from the services that are now available online. In 15 years, the number of global web users has jumped from 16 million in 1995 to more than 1.7 billion today. About three quarters of all British households now have an internet connection, and last year nearly two thirds of all adults in Britain bought goods or services online.
We want to build on our cultural and economic success in the online world, but with the growth of the internet has come the growth of a new type of crime and a new risk to our national security. We now face a real, ongoing and persistent threat from other states, terrorists and criminals operating online. They are stealing commercial secrets, they are trying to take sensitive Government information and they are defrauding ordinary people.
Cybercrime, often carried out by organised criminals, is now a major and growing threat to all sectors of our economy, and we should be in no doubt: online attacks can have a significant real-world impact, from people's bank accounts being emptied to industrial plants and critical infrastructure being disrupted. The risks from cyberspace are now so great that the national security strategy placed the threat as one of the top tier of risks to our national security.
Recognising the seriousness of the threat, the Government are already investing heavily in cyber-security. Following the strategic defence and security review, we committed £650 million of new investment over the next four years to transform our protective capabilities in cyberspace. Our response is led by Government, but uses the resources and knowledge of the private sector, including those parts of the private sector that own and operate large elements of our digital infrastructure. The programme explicitly depends on building strong relationships with like-minded countries around the globe, because the problem is an international one and online criminals do not respect international borders.
Here in Britain we have long-standing laws against computer misuse, but we need to be able to take action also against cyber-criminals operating overseas; it is therefore clear that we need to work across national boundaries. That means our law enforcement agencies working with their partners overseas to identify suspects, gather evidence and bring criminals to justice. The European Union directive on attacks against information systems supports those aims. The directive builds on an existing 2005 EU framework decision with which Britain was already compliant. It is also consistent with the Council of Europe convention on cybercrime, which Britain is in the final stages of ratifying. Opting in further demonstrates our commitment to internationally co-ordinated action against online threats.
The directive will ensure that there is a basic set of agreed minimum rules in relation to online crimes and penalties across the EU that member states must build into their legislation. It will also ensure that member states respond quickly to requests from other member states for assistance in cybercrime cases. Those measures will benefit Britain and other countries that have active online economies, because it will mean that cyber-criminals will not be able to hide in European countries that do not have as well-developed laws against cybercrime as we do.
The directive also seeks to address the threat from large-scale attacks on information systems by ensuring that member states have adequate legislation to allow the prosecution and punishment of those organising, committing or supporting large-scale attacks. That is not a hypothetical threat: it is a real, existing problem for the British Government and British business. Finally, the directive sensibly takes into account changes in the threat picture since the framework decision was agreed, such as tackling the creation of malicious software and other innovative tools that criminals have invented to commit offences.
It is for all of these reasons that we have decided to opt in to the directive. It fits with our approach of making Britain a tougher place for online criminals to operate in, and it will mean that the reach of our law enforcement agencies extends outside our borders. By opting in now, we do not accept that the draft directive is perfect. We will work to ensure the final text is in Britain's interests and we will seek to negotiate out any proposals we believe are unnecessary.
I pay tribute to the work done by the European Scrutiny Committees of both Houses. They do much to ensure that European legislation is right for this country. On this specific directive, both Committees agree that there is a case for further EU action in this area.
Cybercrime is a major threat to Britain. The aims of the directive are consistent with the aims of the Government in protecting our country, our economy, our businesses and our citizens from those who seek to misuse the online environment. I commend this statement to the House.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for providing the Opposition with a copy of the statement in advance of the announcement to the House.
I have listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government’s decision to opt in to the draft directive on attacks against information systems. It is clear that there is a growing threat of large-scale simultaneous attacks against information systems and an increased use by criminals of so-called botnets—networks of computers infected by a virus that can be activated remotely. There is clearly a real terrorist threat, as well. It is right to say that there has to be a robust and consistent approach to this problem, not only across the EU but internationally, and we know that a sensible way forward is to build on the framework decision agreed in 2005.
In a report by the Commission in July 2008, the implementation of the framework decision was found to be relatively good, but a number of new threats had been identified; the draft directive has therefore been produced. The matter was before the European Scrutiny Committee on 3 November 2010, at which time the Government still had not decided whether to opt in to the draft directive. I, too, pay tribute to the hard work that the Committees in both Houses do on behalf of us all.
I welcome the decision, but I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, why has the decision been made now to opt in to the draft directive? After the European Scrutiny Committee had considered the matter, the Minster wrote to the Chair of that Committee stating that a decision on whether to opt in had to be made by 23 December 2010, and promising to let the Committee know the decision at that point. I understand that he then wrote to the Chair of the Committee on 31 January confirming that the UK was opting in to the directive. When was the decision actually made? Was it made before 23 December? If the decision was delayed, why?
In his statement, the Minister said, “By opting in now, we do not accept that the draft directive is perfect. We will work to ensure the final text is in Britain's interests and we will seek to negotiate out any proposals we believe are unnecessary.” Would it not have been more consistent and logical to have opted in to the draft directive much earlier, to ensure that the British government could influence it and have their say? On such a matter, and given that we are building on the already well- established 2005 framework decision, was it not in our interest to have our say early on? Why wait until the end of the process?
Secondly, we understand that there will have to be changes to domestic legislation on issues such as extraterritorial jurisdiction and including all the offences set out in articles 6 and 7. Will the Minister explain the exact changes that will be required, in particular to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and any other legislation? When will the House be asked to deal with those matters?
Thirdly, the directive sets out the need for a national contact point to provide an initial response to urgent requests for information within eight hours. With the transition from the Serious Organised Crime Agency to the National Crime Agency, what ring-fenced funding will be available for the initial response work, and how will the overall cuts to the Home Office budget affect the ability to provide that response?
Fourthly, under article 15, there is a requirement for the collection of statistical information on offences covered by the draft directive, including details of the number of offences reported, the follow-up and the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions each year. Although the Minister has indicated previously that some of those data are already collected, what further resources will be needed to ensure that the full datasets are collected, and who will do that? What additional resources have been allocated for the purpose from the £650 million he mentioned?
Fifthly, what plans does the Minister have for dealing with the increase in penalties to a maximum term of imprisonment of not less than five years? Does he envisage creating a new offence to deal with aggravating factors, or increasing the length of existing sentences?
Finally, may press the Minister on another matter? Although we welcome the announcement of the opt-in to this directive, it is deeply disappointing that the Government have failed to opt in to the draft directive on human trafficking. We ask them to think again.
James Brokenshire
I thank the hon. Lady for her broad welcoming of this decision and the actions that the Government are taking to combat the threat of cybercrime and on cyber-security. This is probably the first time that the House has had the opportunity to debate a number of these issues and ask questions on them, so I welcome the opportunity as part of our scrutiny of EU directives.
With regard to the hon. Lady’s questions, I can assure her that the opt-in decision was made in time, so there is no issue of any harm in that sense. The negotiations and detailed consideration of the directive were started only recently, so the UK’s position has in no way been compromised by our decision. Indeed, the timing has been part of respecting the parliamentary scrutiny—allowing the three-month period so that the European Committees can do their work.
The hon. Lady raised questions about changes to legislation and made other points on how implementation might take place. I think that it would be premature to address those points directly until we see the final version of the directive, which is still subject to further discussion and consideration. We will investigate clearly and set out for the House properly how we intend to take matters forward once the directive has been finalised.
The hon. Lady asked questions about the national contact point and about statistics, information and funding. As I have set out, the Government take the issue of cybercrime and cyber-security very seriously, which is highlighted by the £650 million that the UK has committed as part of its national cyber-security programme. We are considering carefully how allocations will be made for that, taking account of the need to ensure that the UK continues to respond effectively to the challenges posed from the online environment.
I welcome the hon. Lady’s broad welcoming of the decision to opt in. We see positive benefits and direct advantages from the directive. On her point about the EU directive on human trafficking, we did not decide to opt in at the outset because it contained no operation or co-operation measures from which the UK would have benefited. We have said that we will review that position after implementation of the directive, at which point the UK could apply to opt in retrospectively.
James Brokenshire
I hear my hon. Friend’s point. We obviously reflected on the conclusion from the Committee’s initial response on the directive, which stated:
“We agree that large-scale attacks against information systems are likely to have a cross-border dimension and require close co-operation between Member States. We think that the legal base proposed is appropriate and accept that there is a case for further EU action to respond to new methods and tools for committing cyber crime.”
As he will realise, there is a three-month period in which the UK must respond to those issues. We take scrutiny very seriously. Indeed, making this statement on the Floor of the House underlines the importance that we place on allowing scrutiny to be applied. Obviously, the directive still requires more work and consideration in the negotiation, and that is precisely what the Government will do.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Does the Minister not understand that when Britain is dilatory in signing up to new directives and pieces of legislation, particularly those which have obvious cross-border relevance, it is deleterious to the British interest, because we are unable to take part in the full process of developing the policy? What he said earlier about why we are signing up to this directive but not yet to the directive on people trafficking makes absolutely no sense.
James Brokenshire
We examine the directives on a case-by-case basis, and I have set out clearly that we decided to opt in to this directive so that we could be part of the negotiations. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), the human trafficking directive contained no co-operational measures from which the UK would benefit, which was why we decided not to opt in, but we certainly keep the issue under review.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
The motivation behind the change in the law might or might not be worth while, but there is a question about how and where we determine the legislation that governs this country. Will the Minister confirm that this directive has been agreed notwithstanding the fact that it was held under reserve by the European Scrutiny Committee and that it involves a change in the law and, apparently, the creation of new criminal offences, all of which are taking place without an opportunity for a debate in this House, let alone a vote? Has our law-making process not been bypassed altogether so that we now have a law that, whatever its merits, has simply been made in Brussels?
James Brokenshire
I simply do not agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis. We have allowed scrutiny of the approach and of the directive. I hear his point, but the implementation of the directive will take place in this country, and I think that the importance of cross-border working on an issue such as cybercrime, where close co-operation is needed, means that that work at EU level is important. We clearly keep the interests of the British people at the heart of our intentions, to ensure that the decisions made add to their protection, which is threatened by increasing levels of cybercrime and by those who wish to prey on them using computers and the internet.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that by opting in to the directive we will strengthen the UK’s leadership role in the fight against cybercrime and that, were the UK to sign up to the EU directive on human trafficking, we could provide additional leadership in that field as well?
James Brokenshire
As I have said, we keep the position on the human trafficking directive under review. I think that the directive that we are considering today has clear benefits and builds on the work of the Council of Europe’s convention on cybercrime, which, interestingly, the previous Government signed up to in 2001 but never got around to ratifying. That highlights the importance that this Government place on international co-operation when dealing with these important matters.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome the statement, but cybercrime does not recognise international or EU boundaries, as my hon. Friend recognises, so will he confirm that there is nothing in the directive that will prevent us from seeking to co-operate with other Commonwealth countries, our friends in the United States and other like-minded countries to combat that menace?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need for international co-operation. It is one of the reasons that we have ratified the European convention on cybercrime, which has in fact been signed up to by a number of countries outside Europe, including the United States. We take the important issue of international co-operation very seriously, and the directive we have decided to opt in to underlines and telegraphs that commitment, but clearly there is work to do with countries outside the EU as well.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
Nowadays, investigators need access to current and historical data in order to achieve a successful prosecution in cybercrime and other internet crimes. In the past, the United Kingdom wanted seven years to be the key measure throughout Europe of the time that IT providers, banks and so on held back-data, so that we could get proper investigations going. Does the directive set a limit and require all EU Governments to place a duty on IT providers to hold data for the same time?
James Brokenshire
The directive is focused on the criminality and on cyber-attacks. It includes provisions on mutual co-operation, but it does not set the sort of framework to which my hon. Friend refers.
Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the measure is not about sovereignty, but about practical co-operation that is vital to our national interests?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend sums up the measure very well. It is very much focused on practical co-operation and on ensuring common standards, which, building on co-operation, better information and mutual assurance, provide practical benefits for the United Kingdom, given the challenges that we face from cybercrime committed not only in this country, but in other EU countries.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Minister refers to the Council of Europe convention, which covers 47 countries plus the United States and other countries, but what added value does the directive have when compared with that convention? If the directive is inadequately drafted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) says it is, why do we not wait to see whether it can be correctly drafted before we sign up to it?
James Brokenshire
The directive builds on the convention and deals with certain additional issues, such as the response that other EU countries provide to requests for information on cyber-related attacks and cybercrimes, so we think that it has important benefits. It is precisely because of those practical benefits that we think it appropriate to opt in at this point and to negotiate on and change the drafting where it requires further work. We believe that, because of the directive’s practical and direct benefits, it is important to be there and do that.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Will the Minister help me on a technical point? I understand that the directive is a repeal-and-replace measure; it repeals a directive to which the UK is party and replaces it with a new version. If the UK had opted out of the directive—I am glad that it has not—would it have still considered itself bound by the original 2005 framework decision? If not, what would the implications have been for UK cyber-security, given that that framework decision provides for police and judicial co-operation on cross-border cyber-threats?
James Brokenshire
I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, which transcends this directive, which is a Title V measure, as contrasted with the third pillar measures that are subject to the potential block opt-out in 2014. I hesitate to go into the technicalities, but we have clearly opted in to the directive, so it falls within the Title V base rather than the third pillar base. It was a technical question, and I am sorry for that rather technical response.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
In Dover, we see human trafficking and all too often the evil perpetrated by international gangs in the physical sphere. We should sign up to directives only when we get information-sharing and international assistance, because crime knows no borders, but can the Minister reassure the House that there will be no mission creep from cybercrime to the snooping that we have seen under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and, in striking the right balance, we approach those issues with the rights of the individual’s freedoms and liberties very much at the forefront of this Government’s mind. We believe that the directive is important and will add value, but we will approach those issues with liberty and freedom at the forefront of our mind.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I have been a victim of mobile telephone fraud, so will the directive have the scope to deal with cybercrime in connection with such fraud?
James Brokenshire
The directive is very much focused on computers and computer systems, rather than on telephones and mobiles, but, as telephone calls and Skype add to computers’ ability to facilitate contact, such communication might be brought within the scope of the directive.
Alcohol (Minimum Pricing)
James Brokenshire Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
This has been an exceptional debate. Some debates that we have either on the Floor of the House or in Westminster Hall are partisan. Speakers may have entrenched positions and may not necessarily reflect the views of the whole of the United Kingdom or, indeed, of all political parties, but that is not the case this morning. That highlights the impact of the issue and the concerns that people have about the misuse of alcohol and what we see in our communities because of it. Equally, it reflects the complexity of the matter, which can and should be addressed in several different ways. There are societal, health and crime issues, and those themes came through clearly in a range of contributions, whether speeches or interventions, which have informed the debate and made it valuable.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on securing this debate and allowing this discussion to take place. When I was doing my research, I thought that I had suddenly latched on to something when I discovered a page on the internet that said, “MP admits mistake”:
“MP Nick Smith has told Parliament he ‘got it wrong’”
on the drinking age, but I then discovered it was a New Zealand MP with the same name rather than the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes this issue seriously. In his initial contribution in this House, he highlighted his concerns about social and health inequalities in his constituency as well as other themes. I know how keenly he feels about these issues, and why he sought to secure this debate.
It is important to recognise that, for the first time, because of research that we have undertaken and the many representations that we have heard, we have set out the need to establish a link between alcohol harms and price. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is in his place, because we have reflected on the comments in the Home Affairs Committee report, which, interestingly, was published in November 2008. That shows how time passes in this place. It recommended that the Government establish a legal basis for banning the use of loss-leading by supermarkets—that was one of the key recommendations. He and I have had several debates over the years on the issue and the points that arise from it.
It is also important to say that our modelling indicates that the change that we are proposing—duty plus VAT—will reduce the number of crimes by about 7,000 and hospital admissions by about 1,000. We heard from the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) about his fears that the change will somehow drive the price down. I certainly do not see it that way. The sad reality is that some products are deeply discounted. They will be caught by our proposals, and hence the change that we are seeing.
I appreciated my visit to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I went to Newquay and saw some of the good community work that is taking place on the ground, and how people are dealing with some of the issues around youth drinking and some of the pressures in certain towns. The Newquay Safe Partnership is an important example of that practical work, and I was delighted to visit his constituency.
I am conscious that time is limited, so I apologise if I am unable to canter through everything. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent asked about the options for bringing matters forward. I am certainly committed to doing that as soon as practicable. We are examining various options, but I intend to press forward quickly to resolve matters and ensure that the measures are introduced at the earliest opportunity.
There were also some questions about Treasury statements, and the hon. Gentleman asked about my comments on super-strength lagers. Before Christmas, the Treasury conducted its own analysis of duty and identified super-strength lagers of more than 17.5% alcohol by volume as a particular issue. It was considering options for duty in the Budget. I hope that that gives him an idea of the time frame.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) highlighted some of the practical issues on the booze bus that clears up some of the problems late in the evening. I stayed out with the booze bus in London late into the evening and saw people literally being picked up off the street—they were dealt with professionally and impressively by the London ambulance service and paramedics. I found quite interesting the leaflet that they gave to the people with whom they dealt, who perhaps would reflect on it the following morning when nursing the after-effects of what they had been through the night before. The leaflet highlights the cost of the pick-ups—each case costs the London ambulance service some £200—and the fact that about 60,000 calls are made each year. I saw for myself some of the real challenges that professionals have to deal with on the ground, responding to the issue, which is why it is important to introduce several different measures to address the problems linked to excessive alcohol consumption.
There is a clear role for the industry. I have been struck by some of the positive work, not just in Newquay, on things such as community alcohol projects, Best Bar Nones, purple flags and some of the steps that are already being taken by the industry to address the problem. Yes, more should and could be done, which is why, for example, we are seeking to introduce the late night levy. It will assist local communities with funding and support for policing and some of the other initiatives, such as the booze bus.
As a rejoinder to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) who described our response as bureaucratic, I gently remind her of the previous Government’s alcohol disorder zones. If she thinks that what we are proposing is bureaucratic—it is actually simple and straightforward—I point her in the direction of ADZs and the bureaucracy that was attached to them. I hope that she will welcome some of the steps that we are taking on pricing, because I know that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), a former Home Secretary, indicated regret at not taking that on board. I welcome her support as we go on to debate some of the detail around licensing in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill during the coming weeks.
It is important to set the proposal for the ban on below-cost sales in our proposal to introduce a floor price of duty plus VAT. The matter was considered carefully. There were some comments about the industry making further suggestions. We consulted during the summer on our proposals and listened carefully to the responses. Again, there were no simple solutions or unanimous views on what should happen. This is a complex matter, and there are issues around competition law. Also, we need to produce something that is understandable and easy to enforce. There are other models such as invoice pricing, but we did not want to get involved in them because of the bureaucracy attached to them.
Sadly, it appears that we are now calling time on this debate. Our proposals are a first step. We are determined to tackle the harms caused by alcohol and are introducing a comprehensive suite of proposals on problem practices, problem licensing and problem people, and we are looking at how we can better support and aid recovery as part of our wider strategy. I have appreciated this morning’s debate, which I am sure will continue.
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. We must move on to the next debate. I ask hon. Members who are not staying to leave quickly and quietly.