Oral Answers to Questions
Tom Brake Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Government must, of course, tackle bogus colleges, but also minimise the impact of their plans on private organisations such as the Organisation for Tourism and Hospitality Management, which is based in my constituency. It cannot now provide work experience to students—often they are from the US—even though it has a good record of students returning at the end of their studies.
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising a specific case, which we will look at. We are very careful in the rules that we introduce. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration and I spend a lot of time listening to individual colleges and to representative bodies of colleges and education providers to ensure that we get it right. We want to ensure that people get a proper education when they are here. That is what our rules are focused on, but I would be happy to look at the case that my right hon. Friend has raised.
Damian Green
That sounds like a deliberate quiz question for the Immigration Minister, with every possible complication within it. If the hon. Lady wishes to write to me, I will happily examine the details of the case.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Is the Minister aware that in the police service a centrally procured box of 100 wipes for electronic equipment costs £19, whereas it can be bought on the internet for £1? What can the Government do about that?
Nick Herbert
Overall, we believe that huge savings could be accrued through better procurement by the police, but we have to remember that the costs of procurement are not just the cost of goods. They are the cost of the separate organisations in 43 forces that are individually procuring goods and equipment. On those calculations, we think we can save £350 million a year by more effective procurement.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Tom Brake Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hazel Blears
I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question but not received a response to it. I have the utmost respect for his experience in these matters. He is almost unique among us in having had experience on the ground of effective surveillance and the need to control terrorist suspects. In Committee, he thought very carefully about these issues, and he has already said tonight that he is concerned about the question of resources and that he might well consider supporting the Opposition’s amendment. I would welcome it enormously if, having thought carefully about the relocation question, he felt able to support us on that as well, given his practical experience and amazing depth of understanding of these issues.
I just want to say a word about why we have ended up in this ludicrous position. I say this with respect to the Minister. I respect him, and he does his job with incredible dedication and commitment, but in these circumstances he has ended up in a position that might well come back to haunt him. I think he knows that that position is untenable. Effectively, his decisions are flying in the face of the evidence of the police, of Lord Carlile and of a former Home Secretary, and they will leave him without the power to order relocation, should he need it.
This brings us back to the language that the Liberal Democrats have used time and again in the debate on these issues. They have talked about house arrest and internal exile. It is my belief that the counter-terrorism review, which the Minister has sought to rely on to justify all the steps that he has taken, is a political accommodation. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats—
Hazel Blears
I am going to make this point. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats said that they wanted to see the complete abolition of control orders because they were an insult to our civil liberties and to democratic society. They made that decision prior to coming into government and certainly without being privy to the available intelligence about these suspects. In fact, in his evidence, Lord Carlile said:
“I have a concern about the genesis of this Bill. It arose from coalition politics—I am aware of the process that occurred—and it is a compromise…it is the sufficient lowest common multiple, and it will do. However, it does not provide as much public protection as control orders, and it would be foolish to ignore that fact.”
He went on to say that
“my party made a serious mistake in committing itself to the abolition of control orders. It made that mistake understandably, however, because it did not have the information at the time.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 21-22, Q 66-67.]
What we have seen is political rhetoric and a particular stance being taken by the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition, with the Conservative part finding itself in the unenviable position of trying to accommodate that situation. Because of the use of terms such as “house arrest” and “internal exile”, the relocation powers became the centre around which this accommodation has had to be drawn.
Let me say to the Minister that the deal that was done will lead us to bad legislation and it will come back to haunt us. I hope and pray that we do not have an incident in which somebody who has not been subjected to relocation is able to resume his contacts with his co-conspirators, to further a plot to attack this country and to execute that plot because there was no power to relocate that person to another part of the country. I hope and pray that that will never be the case. I would certainly not have made the decision to deny a Minister the right to make a relocation order in order to reach a political accommodation.
In my view—I hope it is shared across the House and I hope the Minister shares it—national security is far too important to be the subject, as Lord Carlile said, of “coalition politics”. This should be about a clear-headed analysis of risk and the steps that need to be taken that are proportionate to mitigate that risk. At the forefront of our minds and reflected in every step we take should be the protection of this country’s innocent people so that they can walk the streets in safety and security.
I do not believe that the decision to deny the power of relocation meets any of those tests. It is illogical. I can only believe that the Bill has no power of relocation because of a political accommodation designed to enable the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition to save face by saying that it had done some kind of deal. That is why the Liberal Democrats are so angry about the prospect of a relocation clause being in the enhanced TPIMs Bill, because that would mean that the principle of a relocation clause had been conceded. I would be interested to know, particularly from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), whether he will support the enhanced TPIMs Bill when it comes up for scrutiny. Perhaps he will tell us now.
Tom Brake
I am happy to intervene; I had hoped that the right hon. Lady would give way earlier. As to the enhanced TPIMs Bill, what we have said is that we would need to consider the extraordinary circumstances that applied at the time. Certainly neither my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) nor I can envisage the extraordinary circumstances that would apply in which relocation powers would be acceptable. We will have to wait and see what scenario might develop.
Hazel Blears
That is a very interesting reply—that a Liberal Democrat cannot envisage the exceptional circumstances in which a relocation power might be necessary. I look forward to the scrutiny and to finding out whether there will be harmony between both parts of the coalition on this issue. I believe that the fault line that is emerging will go deeper and deeper, and I am sure that it will begin to crack as the debate goes forward.
My amendments are pretty straightforward. Ironically, the relocation power is available if there is police bail, but the amendments on police bail from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) have not come forward. If police bail is granted, there is a relocation power. This is beyond the power of words to express. I cannot for the life of me see why a relocation power is acceptable if there is police bail, but not when we are dealing with a suspected terrorist, who might be one of the most dangerous people in the country. We can have a relocation power for someone involved in serious fraud or serious crime, but not for someone we suspect wants to harm hundreds of people through a terrorist act. Again, this defies logic. That is why I genuinely believe that this is the result of political accommodation not the result of a logical decision by Ministers.
Amendments 5 and 6 are consequential to the new clause, but amendment 7 is slightly different, and I should welcome the Minister’s response to it. It seeks to ensure that it will be possible to exclude a terrorist suspect from an area although his own residence, or a residence with which he has a connection, may be in that area. At present there is a contradiction in the Bill. It is not clear whether the entitlement of a terrorist suspect to live in his own property, or in a property in an area where he has a connection, will take precedence over the exclusion power, or whether the exclusion power will take precedence over his right to remain in his own home.
For example, if a terrorist suspect’s home were in east London, in the area of the Olympics, would he be allowed to live there, or could he be excluded? In Committee we were told that it would be possible to exclude people from the area of the Olympics—or, indeed, to exclude them from a whole borough of London, or even from the whole of Greater London. It seems to me that, as the Bill stands, if a terrorist suspect had a home in such a borough, or in London as a whole, the right of an individual to remain in his own home would take precedence over the exclusion power, and that strikes me as a gaping hole in the legislation. I must ask the Minister to think about that very carefully, and to consider supporting amendment 7 if he is certain that he wants the power to exclude people from areas of particular danger, which could include that around the Olympics.
Tom Brake
It gives me great pleasure to rise to oppose the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), and first of all to deal with her oft-repeated allegation that getting rid of relocation is a sweetener for the Liberal Democrats. She quoted Lord Carlile, and clearly that is his view, but I should be interested to know what evidence he has to support his contention. Equally, the right hon. Lady might want to offset his view against that of Lord Macdonald. I think it incumbent on her to produce more evidence to support her allegation that a stitch-up or deal has been done on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. She was, of course, a member of the Bill Committee and she will have heard a number of Conservative Members speak out against powers of relocation, so I think she will know that it is incorrect to suggest that only Liberal Democrats are advancing this argument.
The right hon. Lady says that she feels strongly about the issue. So do I. I wonder whether she has had a chance to talk to some of the people who have been subject to control orders that have subsequently been quashed because it was found that there was no genuine or strong evidence against them. I wonder whether she has heard from those people about the impact of relocation on them as individuals, and on their families. I think that if she wants to be fully informed about all aspects of the matter, she should hear from people who have subsequently been found to be innocent.
As the right hon. Lady may know, I have heard from a reliable source that of the people who are currently held under control orders, probably two or three present a real and serious threat to United Kingdom security. I acknowledge that—clearly—a limited number of people do represent a serious threat, and I think that that is why the Government have rightly announced that the package of measures to get rid of relocation will include additional surveillance resources to ensure that security and safety are maintained.
Bob Stewart
If one or two people might create a threat, why are we tying the hands of the Home Secretary? The provision does not have to be used, but what worries me is that we might need it for just one or two people. Why should we decide that we cannot use such a facility?
Tom Brake
The reason I do not think we should use it is linked to what was said earlier about the term “internal exile”. I know that the right hon. Lady does not like the phrase “internal exile”, but in practice that is what we are talking about. She was asked whether she took inspiration from any democratic countries in adopting the policy of relocation and she said that she did not. I suspect that she may have found it hard to find inspiration in the extent to which other democratic countries allow such a policy, so she has been inspired herself to come forward with the proposal to reinstate relocation.
That gets to the heart of what the debate is about. It is about where the balance between civil liberties and security lies and where we can achieve enhanced civil liberties at the same time as maintaining security. That is where the additional surveillance that the Government are putting in place kicks in.
Metropolitan Police Service
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. In calling the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), I congratulate him on his elevation to the Privy Council.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I, too, pay tribute to the officer shot in Croydon and to all officers who put their lives on the line to keep us safe.
Will the Home Secretary join me in urging the Metropolitan police to move urgently to rebuild their senior team to focus on next year’s Olympics and security concerns surrounding the games? Will she strengthen the proposed checks and balances that will apply to elected police and crime commissioners to ensure that neither elected police and crime commissioners nor chief constables can get embroiled in any scandals of any nature once those commissioners are elected?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend talks about checks and balances. As he will know, we have strengthened the checks and balances that will be provided by the police and crime panels to the police and crime commissioners as the Bill has progressed through the House of Commons and House of Lords. We have made important improvements to those checks and balances.
As regards the senior leadership of the Met, it is entirely right that we move quickly to reinforce it. The additional resilience of bringing in somebody from outside in Bernard Hogan-Howe is important and the immediate step was to ensure that the counter-terrorism post is filled. I can assure the House that the work on the security and safety of the Olympics carries on under Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison, in particular, and he has been doing an extremely good job.
Police (Detention and Bail) Bill
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Let me start, Mr Deputy Speaker, by apologising to you and to other Members for my brief absence from the Chamber. I had to attend the Programming Sub-Committee on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. I must say that the process that took place therein would not have been out of place in a “Carry On” film.
As Members will know, we are having this debate because the High Court has ruled that suspects cannot be bailed for longer than four consecutive days, or 96 hours. That decision comes after a ruling from Salford magistrates court that the police could not detain suspect Paul Hookway again because his “detention clock” had been running while he was on bail—a ruling that has immediate effect. It is clear that the damage that this would have done to police investigations had we not taken the action that we are taking would have been very substantial in stopping the police being able to keep track of a suspect while they continued their investigations, collected new evidence, and so on. Given that that would have affected more than 85,000 people across England and Wales, it was clearly necessary for us to debate emergency legislation and implement it as soon as possible.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise some concerns. Liberty’s briefing, which I support, includes the perhaps understated comment that it is
“somewhat surprising that this appears to be the first time that the issue has arisen in the 25 years that the PACE Act has been in force.”
Indeed, other Members have made that point. It is concerned about having a requirement to stick to a consecutive 96-hour period, stating:
“Unduly limiting the period for which a suspect may be bailed by police could have the effect of encouraging premature or inappropriate charging with all the injustices that would flow. It could also have the effect of encouraging police to detain for the maximum (96 hour) period in circumstances where a suspect could be released earlier thereby supporting prolonged detention rather than release on bail.”
Those are genuine concerns which have been supported in other representations that I have received. Although the action we are taking is necessary, there is no possibility today of our debating and perhaps amending these clauses to reflect some of the concerns about the use of police bail. Liberty goes on to say:
“While 96 hours may well be too short a limit to allow effective further investigation in more complicated cases, it should not be the case that police bail can go on forever.”
It also notes that
“police bail can have attached to it a number of highly onerous conditions.”
I should like to refer to a couple of anonymised cases that highlight some of the issues of police bail and, in some cases, its very extended use. A barrister contacted me to say that he was aware of a serious fraud case where certain suspects were on bail for a period of two years and 10 months, and released from it only recently when a trial of some of the other suspects in the same investigation ended with acquittals or a hung jury. He referred to another case in which he was instructed where the period was 18 months—from December 2007 to the point of charge in June 2009. He accepts that investigations will sometimes take a long time to progress, particularly in cases involving high-value frauds, as in the two that he cited, which I have now put on the record. He goes on to highlight the pernicious impact of police bail, particularly regarding the obtaining of restraint orders for the assets of the accused. He says that although there will be occasions where such restraint orders are justified, perhaps to ensure that criminal assets are not dissipated, their impact is substantial and can sometimes affect the ability of the accused to pay their mortgage, for instance—and of course such people often remain unconvicted.
It is legitimate, in the limited time available to us, to raise those points and to flag up the fact that while emergency legislation is necessary, we need to be careful about the implications of police bail and its uses and to ensure that it is not abused. Liberty says in its briefing that we might at some point—it suggests in the Protection of Freedoms Bill—want to consider a statutory time limit on the use of police bail. It suggests that the statutory limit for pre-charge bail should be set at six months. I am not sure whether I support that contention—I suspect that in fraud cases, in particular, it would be rather hard to deliver and perhaps insufficient—but it might be appropriate for us to debate the subject at a later date.
Mr Buckland
A potential solution to that issue would be the imposition of a time limit in most cases, unless there was a particular element, for example fraud, which would bring the applicants back to court to apply for an extension. That could be a way around the problem that my hon. Friend is so eloquently adumbrating.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. He is knowledgeable in these matters, and I am sure that what he suggests would be an appropriate solution.
The Law Society has also made representations to Members. As well as supporting a length of time for which pre-charge police bail applies, it is keen that the police should admit people to pre-charge bail only when it is necessary. If people voluntarily accept that they must attend, it may not be necessary to put pre-charge bail conditions in place.
It is clear that there is an urgent need to implement this emergency legislation. I am pleased that the Government are taking urgent action on this matter, and I wish the Bill a speedy passage through the House today.
Police Forces
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years, 1 month 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
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing this very important debate. I am pleased that so many hon. Members are present to discuss the subject. I shall make a limited number of points about what Sir Hugh Orde said yesterday, but before I do, I would like to show support for and congratulate officers on the work that they do in my constituency. I am sure that other hon. Members will do likewise for their constituencies.
Last week, I had the pleasure of attending a police academy event at Camden junior school, where the local safer neighbourhoods team and some police cadets were training a number of pupils in the arts of marching, fingerprinting and working with police dogs and horses. A great time was had by all. At the end of that event, as we were handing out certificates, I asked the children how many of them wanted to join the police force. It may be that they have not heard about some of the changes being made, but I am pleased to say that half of the children put their hands up and said that they wanted to join the police force as a result of attending the police academy. I thank my safer neighbourhoods team for arranging that.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman not worried—as I am—that if we cut down on staff who are not seen as front line and pare down the police’s responsibilities, that kind of activity will disappear?
Tom Brake
I am very pleased to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the scheme is continuing—or starting up again—in September. The police cadets involved are, in fact, pupils at one of the local secondary schools, and will therefore continue to play a key role in delivering that scheme.
I shall move on to what Sir Hugh Orde said yesterday. Among other things, he highlighted concerns about changes to accountability, central structures and, of course, pay and conditions. I shall just make a few points about those matters. On changes to accountability, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill is going through the Lords and some of the amendments that are being considered will add substantially to the accountability of police and crime commissioners.
For example, confirmation hearings for key PCC staff posts will be introduced and police and crime panels will be able to hold confirmation hearings for key staff. Importantly, co-operation between PCCs and community safety partnerships will be strengthened, because accountability for delivering improvements in safety will be enhanced if there is a clear requirement for those two groups to work together co-operatively. The required majority for the police and crime panel to veto chief constable appointments will be amended, and the precept will be changed from three quarters to two thirds. We have pushed for that very hard through amendments 103 and 192. The composition of the police and crime panels will be extended to allow additional members. That will ensure all authorities within an area covered by a police and crime commissioner are represented. In terms of accountability, those are substantial improvements to the current arrangements.
Another area where accountability needs to be enhanced is in relation to the draft protocol that is being drawn up. That sets out how the relationship between the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable will operate within England and Wales. There is scope for improvement there, particularly on how the protocol might operate in relation to Wales. I have taken soundings from a recently retired senior police officer on other areas within the protocol, and he was clearly very keen for the majority to be changed. That is being taken up through Lords amendments. He also thought that further clarity was required regarding the fact that the police and crime commissioner will be the recipient of all funding, including the Government grant and the precept related to policing and crime reduction. How that money is allocated is a matter for the police and crime commissioner. That requires further clarification, because if the police and crime commissioner, for example, decided that no money at all was going to be spent on Tasers, thereby stopping the police using them, some might argue that that was interfering with operational matters. It would be helpful to have further clarity on the circumstances surrounding the protocol, and on whether the police and crime commissioner will be able to allocate funds without reference to any other parties.
The protocol is a good starting point. As I said, I am pleased that it will be amended to reflect the fact that the majority needed for a power of veto will be cut from three quarters to two thirds. I hope that when the protocol is published, more clarity will be provided about the relationship between the Home Secretary and the police and crime commissioners. One of the essential proposals in the Government’s plans that I support is about ensuring that policing is delivered locally without the interference of the Home Secretary. It would be helpful to have more detail in the protocol to ensure that that is the case, because whoever is Home Secretary—or, indeed, Prime Minister—clearly there will always be an inclination to get involved in day-to-day policing matters. If any further strength can be given to the powers of police and crime commissioners in the protocol to ensure that they have responsibility for policing at a local level, that would be helpful.
The other concern that Sir Hugh Orde raised was about the central structures. Elected police and crime commissioners are clearly part of that, but the national crime agency also falls into that category. As hon. Members will know, four commands will cover organised crime, border policing, economic crime and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. That structure could work more effectively nationally by drawing those different bodies together, and I certainly welcome the emphasis put on the border policing aspect.
Hon. Members have previously raised concerns about CEOP, and may do so today. I have visited CEOP and had detailed discussions with people there, including the new chief executive, Peter Davies. My impression is that he is completely confident that he can ensure that CEOP will continue to work effectively, whether it comes under the Serious Organised Crime Agency, as of course it did, or the NCA. All the private funders of aspects of CEOP’s work have indicated that they will continue to fund the organisation once it is included within the NCA. When the Home Secretary made a statement about that, she said:
“An individual at chief constable level will be appointed fairly soon”,
and that that individual
“will…work within the Home Office over the period before the NCA is set up.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 237.]
It is essential to have an effective person in place, and to have a sufficient transitional period to allow for an effective transition. I would be interested to hear what particular lessons were learned from setting up SOCA, and how those lessons will be applied to the establishment of the NCA.
My last point concerns changes to pay and conditions. Sir Hugh Orde and others have highlighted concerns about morale. We have to accept that, certainly according to surveys, morale in the police is not good, although I talked to officers on Friday and they did not express concerns about morale. They seemed to be fully committed and were enjoying their jobs. However, surveys show clearly a very high level of concern and unhappiness in the police force. One thing that the Government can do is explain—or re-explain, or explain in more detail—exactly what the impact of the proposals will be. Yes, it is true that some officers will suffer a reduction in pay. It is also true, however, that some officers will see their pay increase by up to £2,000 as a result of the changes, and that needs to be explained.
Another reason for low morale may relate to other things that the Government are having to do to tackle the deficit. I am confident that once those changes start to take effect and we start to see the economy moving in the right direction and a big impact is made in reducing the deficit, morale, not only in the police service but beyond, will improve.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
When I was Minister with responsibility for the police, I published proposals for the grant for this year and next year. Will the hon. Gentleman remind me why he opposed those proposals and called for more money? Why does he, a Liberal Democrat, now support a 20% cut in the money going to policing, despite the fact that the Labour Government were going to make savings in the budget for this year and next year? That 20% cut has an impact on some of the major concerns that he has mentioned.
Tom Brake
The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps know that what appeared to be the case regarding his Government’s finances was not necessarily the case once one looked at the detail. For example, the structural deficit was much higher than the previous Government had led us to believe. The changes that we are making are, to a large extent, changes that his party would have had to make if they were in power. I hope—I am always hopeful—that we will hear some solutions from Opposition Members and an articulation of their alternative. I am sure that Opposition Members feel that the themes they hear from those on the Government Benches are always the same. I would say in return that the themes raised by those on the Opposition Benches are always the same—a catalogue of genuine concerns are raised, but a solution is never provided.
Mr Hanson
When I proposed a police budget containing reductions of £1.3 billion, with savings on procurement, overtime and mergers of back-office staff, the hon. Gentleman opposed it. He now supports a £2.5 billion cut. The extra cuts of £1.2 billion will cause concern about morale, numbers, rising crime and the impact in our communities, as outlined by Sir Hugh Orde yesterday. Why has the hon. Gentleman changed his view in the past 12 months?
Tom Brake
I have already explained why I have changed my view. The Government have to take those decisions. I suspect that if the right hon. Gentleman was still the Minister with responsibility for the police, he would be saying some unpalatable things about pay and conditions, pensions and so on, too. Maybe he will say that when he makes his speech.
In conclusion, there are improvements that the Government can make and are making in relation to accountability and central structures to ensure that the transition to the NCA is seamless. The Government are doing what they can on pay and conditions in a very difficult financial climate.
National Crime Agency
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
Yes, another day, another Home Office statement and, sadly, yet another similar response from the shadow Home Secretary. Indeed, she repeated many of the phrases that she used in her response to yesterday’s Prevent statement. She really needs to go away and think very carefully about what we mean by a cross-government organised crime strategy. She said that the previous Government had such a strategy because it set up SOCA and because SOCA existed, but we are talking about bringing together all the strands of law enforcement, including law enforcement agencies and police forces, that deal with organised crime. We are developing a comprehensive, coherent cross-government approach to dealing with organised crime. That is an organised crime strategy, which is not what the previous Government had.
I accept that SOCA has been doing good work and we want to build on that as part of the organised crime command within the new National Crime Agency, but there are other areas of crime that we need greater focus on. Yes, we need to look more closely at what is happening on our borders and to enhance our ability to bring together various agencies that have responsibility for and operate on the borders. We need to do that in conjunction with organisations such as the organised crime command and CEOP to ensure that we have the advantage of using not only the intelligence capability that will be at the centre of the NCA but the synergies that will be available when those agencies work properly together.
We will also be setting up a new economic crime command. There is a need in this country to look much more closely at economic crime. There is a whole swathe of what could be called middle-level economic crime that we have not dealt with appropriately and properly in the past, and the economic crime command will enable us to put a clear focus on that. It will enable us to ensure that the various agencies dealing with economic crime are working together, are co-ordinated and are working to the same priorities. It will also enable us to ensure that resources are being put in the right place, at the right time, where they are needed. This is a new development and a very important one in enhancing our work on economic crime. Indeed, it will not wait until the NCA is set up. Within the next few months we will establish a co-ordinating board on economic crime which will already start that important work. This is a powerful new crime-fighting body which I believe will make a real difference to our ability to deal with organised crime.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I welcome the focus that the NCA will place on tackling organised crime, and the creation of the border command. We need the NCA to be set up seamlessly. Can the Home Secretary set out how the Government will minimise the disruption caused by the structural change and maximise the speed with which the NCA becomes fully operational and effective?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for an important question. The establishment of the NCA will require legislation. We aim for that legislation to be in place so that the NCA can be fully operational in 2013, but we believe that this is an important area and that we need to start working before then. The transition to the NCA can be eased by work such as developing the organised crime strategy, starting to develop the co-ordination capability on organised crime within the Home Office, which we are doing and, as I have just indicated, starting to develop the co-ordination capacity in relation to economic crime. These are the precursors for a more seamless transition to the NCA.
As we develop the agency, we intend to establish a position for an individual who will head the work. An individual at chief constable level will be appointed fairly soon—within the next few months—and will be able to work within the Home Office over the period before the NCA is set up. At that point there will be a transition for a permanent individual to be established as the head of the NCA.
We want to learn lessons—for example, from the setting up of SOCA, where there were some difficulties in terms of personnel and their move over to SOCA. We will be looking at the lessons to be learned from that.
Prevent Strategy
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady is correct to say that it is important to ensure that individuals are able to tackle this perverse ideology, and part of Prevent’s work with individuals will be precisely about that—about enabling people to understand the perversion of the ideology.
In relation to dealing with the wider aspects of community participation and cohesion, however, including looking at the involvement in society more generally, as we would like, of women from particular communities who are often not able or encouraged to do so, the Department for Communities and Local Government is looking at that issue in the integration strategy that it is developing.
We refer to RICU, which was set up under the last Government, in the strategy. I fully accept the right hon. Lady’s point about communication, which is extremely important; that is why we are looking at the role that RICU plays in it.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Home Secretary agree that a clear divide must exist between the measures designed to tackle violent extremism and those designed to promote community cohesion, that funding must be denied to organisations that do not support our basic values in relation to respect for women and minorities, and that the most effective way to confront radical non-violent groups is to tackle their beliefs in open debate?
Mrs May
I certainly agree that we need to challenge the ideology. I also agree that the means by which we deal with violent extremism, or people who are vulnerable to radicalisation towards violent extremism, need to be separated from the wider task of community cohesion and working towards greater participation in society. In the past, people came to look with some concern at what was being done in the name of Prevent because it was trying to mix up those two aspects of work. It is important that we separate out the community cohesion work, which is overseen by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
As I said earlier, control orders are not ideal, and ideally we would not need them, but we do. We need to continue with control orders and this kind of protection.
I will set out my view of the Bill’s measures and where we think greater scrutiny is needed, and highlight the reduction in safeguards and checks and balances that the Home Secretary is introducing, because the point is not simply that she is weakening the powers of the police and security forces in certain areas, but that she is weakening the checks and balances, and in particular the parliamentary checks and balances, on the system that is in place. Those parliamentary checks and balances are extremely important for safeguarding our civil liberties, as well as for protecting national security.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I rise in search of some clarity on where the right hon. Lady stands. She seems to be saying on the one hand that TPIMs are simply recreating what existed under control orders, but on the other hand that what the Government are doing is making the situation much more dangerous, but it cannot be both.
Yvette Cooper
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman listens more closely to what I am saying. The overall approach of the Government’s Bill, which he should read, is to reinstate most of the elements of control orders. I agree however—and I have said this clearly—that the Home Secretary is changing control orders in a series of ways, and I will address them shortly as they are significant. Some of them are justified, but others create risks, and changes will need to be made.
Overall, the Government should admit what they are doing. This is a cut-and-paste job. In place of control orders, all we have is “son of control orders”. It is irresponsible to maintain this pretence. That is not being straight with Parliament or the public on an issue of grave importance: how we safeguard our national security and our civil liberties. Debates on matters such as these should be open, transparent and considered, not fudged, fraudulent and confused. This is an area where Governments need to maintain the trust and confidence of the public, but we do not achieve that by playing these kinds of political games.
This is also a very strange use of parliamentary time. There are some limited and specific differences between control orders and “son of control orders” that I am not concerned about, but, frankly, the Home Secretary could have achieved them with about four clauses amending the 2005 Act which could have been debated as part of the Protection of Freedoms Bill. She could have covered the issues of relocation, the length of the curfew and access to phones through amendments to an existing Act. She did not need an entirely new piece of legislation to abolish control orders and then reintroduce them under another name.
Why are we not doing that? Why do we have an entire additional Bill with 27 more clauses, all redrafted, doing the same thing? Why are we here today? The answer is because the Home Secretary has lost yet another battle with her Cabinet colleagues on her policy areas, so she is forced to go through this charade of entirely new legislation; and because, once again, the Government are putting politics before good policy.
As I have made clear, some of the changes to the control orders are limited. We can support some of them, but some are very troubling. The first change is to move the burden of proof from “reasonable suspicion” to “reasonable belief”. We understand that the view of the experts is that none of the control orders that have been upheld would have failed that higher standard, and that this will not make a significant difference to the serious cases they worry about. We believe it is right to follow the evidence, and we are happy to support this change on that basis.
The second change is to alter the wording in respect of the hours. That is a bit of a joke. In place of curfews, we have a reference to overnight residence requirements, but what is the difference? The online “Oxford English Dictionary” definition of a curfew is
“a regulation requiring people to remain indoors during specified hours, typically at night.”
It is, therefore, a requirement to stay in one’s residence overnight, or, as one might say, an overnight residence requirement. The Deputy Prime Minister made great play of the fact that people would be restricted for fewer hours under TPIMs than under control orders, but that is not what the Bill actually says. In fact, there is no specified limit on the number of hours someone has to stay at home. All the Bill says is “overnight”.
Let us turn again to the OED for illumination about what that should ordinarily mean. Overnight means
“for the duration of a night”,
and night means
“the period from sunset to sunrise.”
So does the Home Secretary intend TPIMs to apply for the hours of darkness? Does she want them to be longer in winter than in summer, and longer in the north than in the south? Does she want them potentially to be used to prevent evening activities and meetings, or only to require people to sleep in their own beds? If she does not think TPIMs should be used to prevent evening meetings or people going out after dark when surveillance is much more difficult, is she confident that this will not increase the risks to the public, or make it harder for the security services and police to do their jobs?
I asked the Home Secretary this during her speech, but how does this fit with her own decisions? A number of the 14 orders she has made or renewed since she took office include curfews, several of more than 12 hours. A recent one runs from 5 pm to 9 am—it is summer, so does that count as “overnight”? She can refuse to answer all these questions, but if she does not answer them, the courts will. Her definition just invites legal challenge or judicial review and, for the sake of the Government’s legal bill alone, she should tighten it up.
Thirdly, the Home Secretary has replaced an inexhaustive list of restrictions with an exhaustive list to choose from. We will ask in Committee whether or not any case, historical or current, would have been affected by this change. Fourthly, she and the Deputy Prime Minister have said that the new Bill would prevent relocation. This matter does raise some significant concerns. Preventing people from entering an entire area, or requiring them to live somewhere else, is, in general, deeply undesirable. However, many experts have concluded that in certain limited circumstances it is extremely important and can be justified. Indeed, police officers have told me that relocation can, in some exceptional circumstances, be the most effective way to disrupt terrorist activity and break someone out of a network of dangerous contacts and associations.
The Home Secretary must think that too, because in February she imposed a control order on a suspect that banned them from entering London and less than one month ago her lawyers defended those restrictions in the High Court. I have gone through the Court papers for this case, which, like so many, is extremely serious. The individual on the order, who is known as CD, was suspected of planning forthcoming attacks using firearms in London. The Court was told that he was attending regular meetings with associates in this city to plan an attack and had previously travelled to Syria for what was alleged to be extremist training. The assessment of the security services and the Home Secretary was that it was necessary to relocate CD outside Greater London to prevent him from having these meetings and co-ordinating an attack—that is what they argued in Court just last month. The High Court judge concluded that the relocation obligation is
“a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from the risk of what is an immediate and real risk of a terrorist-related attack.”
All this happened just last month, so the House needs to consider why we are seeking to introduce a change to control orders that would remove a function that the Home Secretary believed, and the High Court agreed, was needed for national security only one month ago?
Fifthly, the Home Secretary is restricting individual TPIMs to two years. Control orders could be renewed repeatedly, and she has not explained what will happen to the two people currently on control orders for more than two years once this Bill comes into force. Will they transfer to TPIMs or will the Home Secretary have to apply to the courts all over again? Sixthly, she is permitting access to phones and computers. She has assured the House that that will be monitored, but we will seek assurances from the monitoring agencies as to whether sufficient safeguards are in place and whether they have the resources to manage the continued monitoring that will be involved.
A wider question is being raised because these changes—the potentially reduced hours for curfews; a potentially narrower list of restrictions; more association with others who may be causing trouble; and the greater use of phone and internet—all require greater surveillance and resources to fill the gap. The Home Secretary has refused to confirm a figure, but the figure of £20 million has been routinely used in the newspapers and, presumably, has been briefed from her Department. Yet the overall police budget is being cut by £2 billion, the police counter-terrorism budget is still being cut in real terms and experienced counter-terrorism officers are being laid off through the A19 process.
I am concerned that the Home Secretary knows that there are troubling gaps in her plans. She has said that
“in exceptional circumstances, faced with a very serious terrorist threat that we cannot manage by any other means, additional measures may be necessary…So we will publish, but not introduce, legislation allowing more stringent measures, including curfews and further restrictions on communications, association and movement…We will invite the Opposition to discuss this draft legislation with us on Privy Council terms.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 309.]
What “additional measures” are these, given that control orders are pretty far-reaching? Does this mean that she knows already that there is a potential gap in security as a result of the new TPIMs? The Home Secretary has said she would consult the Opposition about these plans, but she has not yet done so. If new emergency legislation is needed to fill the gaps her own Bill creates, Parliament needs to know about this before we get to the evidence and Committee stage; otherwise we will be debating the Bill under false pretences, legislating only to legislate again.
This Bill is a con, recreating most of control orders while pretending not to do so, and it is risky, as some elements and changes water down the protection for national security, but there is a third problem: the Bill also reduces, rather than increases, parliamentary checks and balances on the Home Secretary. As I have said, the right approach to take to ensure that we protect civil liberties and national security together is to support strong powers for the police and security services to act in difficult circumstances, and to make sure that there are strong checks and balances to prevent abuse.
The current checks and balances on control orders are both judicial and parliamentary: the High Court has to approve every control order but Parliament has to give its approval every year for the control order regime to remain in place. Democratically elected MPs have to decide every year whether the terrorism threat remains sufficiently severe, whether anyone has come up with a better alternative and whether to allow the Home Secretary to continue to use these exceptional powers. That is an important parliamentary check on the exercise of Executive power which should continue to be unusual, yet she is removing it in this Bill. The power of the Home Secretary to impose TPIMs under this Bill is not a temporary one—it is permanent. TPIMs do not have to be renewed annually, as control orders do, and the TPIMs regime does not have to be renewed annually, as the control order regime does. This is therefore a serious downgrading of parliamentary oversight of a regime which is always supposed to be exceptional. She will know that serious concerns have been raised about this by Liberty, Justice and others, who say that far from representing a positive innovation, the TPIMs regime is, in one crucial respect, more offensive than the system it is designed to replace.
The Home Secretary is now in the astonishing situation of pleasing no one. She has a Bill that fudges the issue and does not fundamentally change the control order regime in the way that she and others promised its critics. However, it does water down some measures, worrying those who monitor national security, and it waters down the checks and balances that allow Parliament to prevent abuse, and that should worry this House.
The Opposition have very serious reservations about this Bill. Where possible, we want to support the Government on counter-terrorism. That is made more difficult when neither we nor the Intelligence and Security Committee have access to more detail about the risks in individual cases that would allow us to be reassured that the Home Secretary’s judgments are right. We believe that it would have been better not to introduce this Bill at all. We believe that it is, in the main, unnecessary, that it includes elements that take risks and that it reduces accountability to Parliament. Now that the Government have introduced it, we believe that it needs a serious rethink in Committee. We will not vote against Second Reading tonight, but we will expect greater transparency on these measures, more answers to the questions we have posed and significant changes to be made to the Bill to reassure us about our concerns. Counter-terrorism is too important for us to take risks for the sake of political expediency. The Home Secretary should forget deals done to save face for the Deputy Prime Minister—it is beyond saving—and she should ignore the demands for short-term headlines from the Prime Minister, as in the longer term she has to carry the can.
Paul Goggins
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that an international terrorist is sitting there thinking, “Thank goodness they have given me the internet so I can reveal all my contacts and conspiracies,” he is quite naive. We are talking about highly sophisticated people, and I am concerned that the provisions in paragraph 7(3) are not as sophisticated as they need to be to deal with the threat.
Paul Goggins
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was saying that international terrorists would rush off and use it and reveal all their sources and contacts to the authorities monitoring the measure. I shall make the point again: I do not think that the provisions as set out reflect the sophistication with which international terrorists operate.
My third difficulty relates not to the Bill but to a wider issue that is significant to the powers in the Bill—the whole business of rules on the disclosure of evidence. I welcome the fact that under the Bill there will still be closed hearings which can continue as before under control orders. That is needed, because if a judge is going to review the material or hear an appeal from a particular individual, he must consider the information available to the Home Secretary when she made the initial application. If some, if not all, of that information has to be protected, that must be done in a closed hearing. Special advocates will still be needed. The gist of the case must be provided to the individual.
As we recognise, however, the AF judgment makes it increasingly difficult to protect what in the interests of public safety and national security must remain secret information. That issue caused problems for the previous Government, and it has caused problems for this Government. It has ramifications for our relations with international partners with whom we share important information and intelligence. I applaud the fact that the Government are seeking to address that problem and deal with it in the Green Paper. May I tell all Front Benchers that we should do everything we can to resolve the issue, because if we do not do so the TPIM system will simply not work, as there will be an ever stronger demand that information that should remain secret is revealed in open court to the individual concerned? It is important that we resolve that issue so that we know what can be disclosed and what can be protected.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who drew on his experience and made some sensible contributions to the debate. I diverge from his view, however, on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made about communications. The point about allowing people to have access to mobile phones, the internet or fixed lines is that there are indeed some intelligent potential or actual terrorists, but equally there are some rather stupid terrorists who may use those facilities and make the sort of connections that would facilitate a prosecution. That might be one of the purposes of making communications available to them.
The Bill is welcome. It starts to tackle some of the grossest abuses of human rights that existed under the control order system, but I would like it to go further. For instance, on prosecutions, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East referred to the fact that there would be additional resources for covert surveillance and intelligence. My understanding is that that will be used to secure prosecutions, which is welcome. More could be done to secure prosecutions, and we may want to return to that at a later date. I am pleased that the Government are not afraid of improving Bills where and when that is necessary.
I do not agree with Liberty’s contention that the Bill is worse than the control order system that is currently in place. It is not; it is more targeted. Liberty’s argument seems to be centred on the fact that although control orders are continually on the political table because of the sunset clause that calls for an annual review and the associated parliamentary oversight, the effect of the Bill would be permanent. That is true. However, control orders have been debated annually and renewed year after year, whereas TPIMs are limited to a maximum of two years, following an initial period of one year.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East argued that the Government should allow TPIMs to go beyond a two-year period. My understanding of one of the arguments deployed in favour of control orders is their ability to disrupt. One would expect that after a two-year period of a lack of communication or of controlled communication, the disruptive nature of control orders would have had an impact and broken down those networks. The right hon. Gentleman may have been arguing for TPIMs to be applied indefinitely to ensure that that disruption was permanent and took place over a longer time scale. My view is that disruption would have taken place within the first two years and the links would have been broken. To suggest that TPIMs should be extended beyond two years presents a threat from the civil liberties perspective.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
There is a case of somebody being subject to a control order that has been in effect for more than two years. If the advice of the Security Service is that it should continue, what would the hon. Gentleman say?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If there has been no evidence of any activity whatever during that period—TPIMs would allow for the measure to be imposed again if there was some sign of activity—and if there has been no activity, with the additional surveillance that will be provided, one must question the Security Service’s position. It might want to keep the person under a control order indefinitely, but if there is no evidence of activity surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that a line must be drawn. Given that the person had not undertaken any terrorist activities, the disruptive effect would have been felt and no further application of a control order would be appropriate.
As I said, control orders have been debated annually, and they have been renewed annually.
Naomi Long
Control orders having to be debated annually gives Parliament the opportunity to reconsider the situation before deciding whether to continue. The fact that up to now the control order system has been renewed on each occasion does not mean that it would be so indefinitely. Does it not make sense that we should continue to treat these measures as exceptional, rather than routine?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which is a very sound one. I hope, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm this when he responds, that because counter-terrorism legislation is so essential, the Government will want to keep it under review, and that if, in future years, there is a need to adjust the measures, appropriate adjustments will be made.
What are the other objections to TPIMs? There is the question of whether there is any difference between reasonable belief and reasonable suspicion. It is my view that the Bill presents a higher evidential hurdle. The courts are aware of that, and they know the difference between those two. That difference is significant.
I acknowledge that TPIMs maintain a system of Executive-imposed measures that do not lie comfortably inside the judicial system. The Bill imposes measures that restrict freedom and human rights. As hon. Members know, those measures include but are not limited to overnight curfews, restrictions on travel, exclusion from certain places and buildings, and restrictions on electronic devices. It has been argued by the Opposition and by Liberty that these measures simply reflect the most offensive aspects of the control order system, but I do not think that that is the case. Clearly, in relation to relocation, internal exile, which the Soviet Union would have been very comfortable with, has gone.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does the hon. Gentleman not have some concerns about the successive non-debate of this issue by Parliament and the fact that a defendant with a two-year TPIM might never know why it was imposed and never have the evidence given to them? All they know is that they have a barrister who does know but is not allowed to tell them and that the judge knows but is not allowed to tell the barrister. Therefore, a circle of secrecy surrounds something that has a major impact on a person’s life, is career-changing, and so on. Is that really right in a liberal democracy?
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman might not be surprised to know that I agree with much of what he says. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has an opportunity to speak, he might echo that very same point. That is why the Bill is clearly an improvement on what is in place now, but has scope for further improvement. I am sure that we will return to that in this place and perhaps in the other place.
Pete Wishart
Does not the hon. Gentleman understand and appreciate that those of us who cannot stand these things think that the Liberals have compromised too cheaply on these issues? I remind him that his leader said:
“A battery of curfews and tags, imposed in a legal limbo at the behest of politicians, is no surrogate for the aggressive use of the full force of the law.”
Why have the Liberals caved in so cheaply on these issues?
Tom Brake
I hope to explain why I do not think we have caved in cheaply, as the hon. Gentleman stated. First, relocation has gone. I accept that on overnight curfews I would be much more comfortable with what Liberal Democrats have referred to previously as residency requirements. An address would be identified at which the person would be expected to reside. I hope that the fact that there is no specific definition of overnight curfews will lead to a more flexible approach; that there might be a spectrum according to which overnight curfews may be imposed, going from what most would regard as overnight—eight or 10 hours—through to something much closer to a residency requirement. If overnight curfew was specified precisely, the risk is simply that that is what would be adopted in all cases, so there would not be the ability to consider each individual case in detail. In addition, the exclusions are specific, not geographic as previously, and there is access to telephones, computers and the internet, a matter that was raised by families in relation to their children and their ability to use computers for schoolwork, and so on. Those are real changes that are included in the Bill.
Another area of concern that has been flagged up and to which the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) referred is the extent to which the person subject to TPIMs will know what they have been accused of. The Home Secretary said that the individual will know enough about the key elements of their case to enable them to act. That is worthy of further discussion and elucidation. I see the Minister nods and perhaps when he responds he will be able to say more about what this will mean in practice. Clearly, it is an ongoing issue for Liberal Democrats, the hon. Gentleman and others to ensure that people who are subject to control orders or will be subject to TPIMs know as much as possible about the allegations against them without revealing the confidential sources that could put at risk people in the field.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been a number of legal decisions that now require the person subject to a control order to be informed of the substance of the case against them? It is not something new; that is the legal position.
Tom Brake
I am aware that there have been cases where that has been the outcome.
I am sure that the Minister will want to pick up that matter when he replies. I also hope that this will give him an opportunity to update us on intercept evidence. I understand the difficulties in balancing the operational requirements with the legal requirements and in balancing the scale of benefits with the associated costs, but I hope that he will update the House.
I referred to prosecutions in relation to surveillance evidence. It might be helpful to specify a time frame within which a prosecution must be brought. There may be some scope for moving on that in future debates.
I come now to a couple of subjects that I suspect will not necessarily boost my popularity in certain quarters, but having advocated the importance of voting rights for some prisoners my popularity might not be in the ascendant in any case. It is important to treat in a civilised way those who may wish to inflict death or injury on us in order to expose their barbaric nature. That is why we need clear safeguards for those who are extradited to the UK. If people have suffered torture abroad and are subsequently moved to the UK, on their arrival the UK Government have an important role in assessing any health or mental health implications that should be taken on board. There is also the ongoing issue with regard to the role of the control order review group, which the Government will ensure continues in operation under TPIMs, in reviewing the mental health of people subject to control orders and now to TPIMs. It has that role at present, but from the discussions that I have had with those who have been subject to control orders that have subsequently been quashed it does not seem to be working very effectively.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about people who may have been subject to torture in other jurisdictions. This is a controversial issue, but does he agree that we should not deport people to a jurisdiction that has not signed the UN convention on torture, and that they should remain here until such time as that jurisdiction signs it, rather than the unfortunate arrangements that were made with a number of countries in the past?
Tom Brake
That is a difficult point to address. I know that there are concerns about how watertight memorandums of understanding are, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. It is a tough call. I am at risk of making policy on the hoof if I give an instant response. It is a difficult issue and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. Perhaps when the Minister responds he will say whether the UK Government are making progress in drawing up memorandums of understanding with other countries where we believe that the safeguards are sufficient to allow that.
There are some issues around how people subject to TPIMs are dealt with, and what sort of assessment is made, particularly of their mental health, and any torture that they may have experienced in the countries that they come from.
I will support the Government on Second Reading. The Bill is better than its predecessor. Its measures are more targeted, less damaging to individuals subject to TPIMs and more observant of human rights. But it is not perfect and can be improved, and I hope that it will be during its passage here and in the other place.
Hazel Blears
But that is no reason to relax the powers. If there are fears that such activities could be happening now, I should be very concerned indeed and certainly would not want to go down the path of having less control over access to electronic equipment. I require further reassurance, as do the citizens of this country, that we are not going to give people access to mobile phones and computers so that they can maintain those relationships and networks that are the very reason they are subject to a control order or, indeed, will be subject to a TPIM. We require further reassurance on that issue.
I am very concerned about the inability to renew the TPIM after two years. In the case of AM in 2007, the control order lasted for more than two and a half years. When it came up for renewal Mr Justice Wilkie, confirming its renewal after two and a half years, said that AM was
“highly intelligent, calm, cautious beyond his years. He has replied and maintains this degree of calmness and self-confidence, which in my judgment is consistent with the view of the Security Service that he is a disciplined, trained and committed person whose commitment remains unimpaired, despite the length of the control order. He was and remains prepared to be a martyr in an attack designed to take many lives. He remains highly trained, security conscious and committed.”
I am therefore concerned that if there is a blanket prohibition, in any circumstances and without the addition of new evidence of involvement in terrorism such orders will come to an end. I require further assurance. If the reason for making the TPIM in the first place were of sufficient seriousness, I would be extremely concerned about our deciding simply to say that there is an arbitrary cut-off point, as the legislation does, irrespective of the threat that the person poses.
Hazel Blears
These are matters for careful and balanced judgment, which is why we have constant judicial oversight, why we have to return to the courts to renew our orders and why we have a legal system in this country which is capable of making such judgments. If we are in the hands of a respected, experienced and knowledgeable High Court judge, who has heard submissions on the issues, I should feel slightly more content than if an order simply came to an arbitrary end as a result of legislation passed in this House.
Policing and Crime
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I have been a Member of the House since 1997, and I still naively expect this Chamber to be a place of rational debate. However, there has certainly been no evidence of that from the Labour Front-Bench contributions today, either during the previous debate on sentencing or during this one on policing. There is no recognition of their share of the responsibility for the significant cuts that the coalition is having to make. They are tougher than we had expected because the finances we inherited were deteriorating faster and the international climate was tougher for countries that were not tackling their deficits.
There is no willingness from Labour to demonstrate how the £7 of savings it was going to make, as opposed to the £8 that the coalition is having to make, would safeguard police numbers. Indeed, Labour Members are not even listening to their own party leader, who said in his speech to the Progress conference on 21 May:
“There will be those who say it is enough for Labour to hunker down… I hear it quite a lot: let’s be a louder… Opposition”,
but he then went on to say:
“But to think that it is enough is to fail to understand the depth of the loss of trust in us and the scale of change required to win it back. We must recognise where we didn’t get things right”.
Their leader is asking Labour Members to adopt a more honest and considered approach, but they do not listen to their leader, as we found out during the AV campaign when he said, “I’m right behind it” and half of them walked off in the opposite direction.
It was the Opposition’s choice not to have a debate about what is achievable from an efficiency savings point of view and what is achievable in police numbers. We heard in an intervention that police numbers in Staffordshire had been maintained.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I met the chief constable of Cambridgeshire constabulary this morning and he told me that the budget can be managed so that there will be no reduction in police constables at all, and perhaps even a small increase. It is being done by greater efficiency and by greater collaboration with other forces. Will my hon. Friend suggest that other police authorities follow that excellent lead?
Tom Brake
Indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Clearly, a number of forces around the country are adopting approaches or policies to ensure that police numbers are maintained. Another good example is Cleveland, where by working with Steria the force has been successful in achieving savings of £50 million over a 10-year period; it has been able to achieve 20% reductions in the areas on which they are working by focusing on cutting bureaucracy, increasing mobile access to make the police more effective when they are out in the field, and improving case file preparation, which no doubt leads to more successful prosecutions. When the will is there, much is achievable in making greater efficiency savings and focusing on police numbers. The Government are right to tackle the issue of police terms and conditions. It has been on the agenda for many years, but has never been tackled. It was time for the Government to grasp that particular nettle and progress is now being made.
It was also the Opposition’s choice not to debate one of the most effective ways of tackling crime, which is by cutting reoffending. Community sentences were mentioned in the earlier debate. With community sentences, 51% of people reoffend as opposed to the 59% who reoffend after being given a prison sentence. These are comparable groups of offenders: in one case, with a community sentence properly enforced, there is only a 51% reoffending rate; when a similar group of prisoners are sent to prison for one year or less, 59% reoffend.
David T. C. Davies
Is the hon. Member aware that that report also showed that anyone sentenced to more than 12 months in prison had the lowest reoffending rate of all? Is not the lesson we should draw that long prison sentences are more effective than anything else?
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am drawing on one part of the report; he is drawing on another. It is very clear that community sentences, for people who would otherwise have been given a short prison sentence, actually reduce reoffending. That means fewer victims. Surely, if we are having a rational debate, that must be a matter of interest to all Members.
For community sentences to be effective, I underline the importance, as stressed to me by User Voice, of ensuring that rehabilitation is retained within the community sentence scheme. In its view, those sentences are more effective than prison sentences because the rehabilitation component is there. I hope that that will remain part of the community sentences that are going to be issued.
Work in prison is also important. It is effective in tackling reoffending because it gives prisoners skills that they can use, as well as providing—according to the Howard League, which published a report today—something like £17 million that can go into the victims fund. I am sure that everyone would welcome that as well.
Volunteering in prison is potentially just as effective in reducing reoffending as work in prison. Last week the Prison Reform Trust launched a very successful scheme at High Down prison drawing on the skills of listeners, and I am certain that the reoffending rate among former prisoners who have participated in it will be less than that among those who have not.
The Opposition did not, of course, choose to call a debate about the most cost-effective ways of solving crimes. Today I was fortunate enough to visit Crimestoppers, which happens to be based in my constituency. What it is achieving at a cost of £4.5 million has been valued at £120 million. Last year it helped to solve 50 murders. It favours payment by results, because it believes that it has a very successful model. By using the public as a resource, it is able to bring cases to court much more quickly than it could have done had it followed the normal court and police processes.
The Government have set out in a concrete and substantive way what we believe will be effective in tackling crime and what we believe is necessary to deal with inefficiencies in, for example, the back office. I feel that it was incumbent on the Labour Members who tabled a debate on this subject to set out what their alternative would have been, but I am afraid that that has been totally lacking this evening.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The debate is on policing, but I shall touch on the economics of the situation, which are raised so often by Government Members. The Opposition are not in denial about the deficit, but we do not accept that we caused it—[Interruption.] Members on the Government Benches can snigger and laugh, but they could say that we caused the deficit only if no other country with a similar economy had had the same problems. All those countries had the same problem with their economic and banking systems because of the recklessness of the bankers, the sub-prime mortgages and the fact that some banks had balances that were bigger than the GDPs of many countries. They were reckless. We saved our system and as a result we managed to save half a million people becoming unemployed.
Yasmin Qureshi
I will give away on another point, not on this one.
We recognise that there are financial difficulties, but we must ask what we will achieve when we save money. We must ask whether if we save £10 in one area, we will end up paying £20. That will happen with the police cuts and the changes to the police more than with the changes to any other service. Staff numbers might be cut in the Department for Work and Pensions without repercussions elsewhere, but when front-line police officer numbers are cut that is a false economy.
There has been discussion in the House about imprisonment and long-term sentences and, in some cases, long sentences deter people from committing offences. What really stops people committing offences, however, is the fear of being caught, being prosecuted, being convicted, going to prison and having their liberties taken away. When somebody sees a police officer on the street, they will not commit a crime. When they know that there are a number of police officers in a particular area, they will not commit a crime. We will save the money that is spent when someone is arrested on prosecuting them, on lawyers’ fees, on our prison services, on prison officers, on probation officers and on all the different agencies that work in the criminal justice system. Of course, let us not forget the poor victim who suffers as a result of the criminal offence. If we put together the cost of all that, we must ask whether it is worth making that £10 saving when we will end up spending £30 to deal with the problem that the saving causes.
I urge the Government seriously to consider how cuts should be made in a Department such as the Home Office, given that we will have more problems in the long term. I know that the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said that we must not blind the House with statistics, but everybody always bandies statistics about and it is right to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said about the fact that crime, including violent crime and crimes against properties, fell considerably during the 13 years of Labour government. That did not happen miraculously—the Labour Government invested in the police, spent money on community support officers and gave more money for fingerprint analysis, DNA evidence and technical support. The combination of those things caused the crime rate to fall. Government Members can tell us not to quote statistics, but that is the truth: crime fell under Labour and it fell for the reasons I have given.
It is not just me who says that crime will rise. The chief constables of South Yorkshire and Lancashire have said that that will happen if the numbers of front-line police officers are cut. It is inevitable—it is common sense—that more crimes will occur if police numbers are cut, so I urge the Government to reconsider this false economic measure.
Vernon Coaker
Before the hon. Gentleman gets on his high horse, I should say that I have not heard of the new rule that one has to let an MP know every time one visits friends. I went to see friends of mine in Cambridgeshire who happen to be police officers, and they told me what the impact on front-line officers will be. If I had to choose between the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and front-line police officers in Cambridgeshire to tell me about the impact on the front line, I know who I would trust.
The hon. Member for Shipley spoke about the impact of DNA and CCTV. People and communities up and down this country are not saying to me as shadow Policing Minister, to my hon. Friends or to Government Members, “We’ve got far too many CCTV cameras in our area.” I do not have people queuing up in my constituency to tell me that. They are not saying, “Actually, our civil liberties are being undermined tremendously”. They say that they want more CCTV, because they understand that it supports the police and helps them fight crime. It reassures people and enables crime to be tackled effectively.
Vernon Coaker
I will not give way, because I have only a couple of minutes. I normally would, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
A point that has not yet hit home is that supported housing, domestic and sexual violence services and youth services—the community services that people depend upon—are all being cut. When specialist housing support, sexual violence officers and the specialist domestic violence services provided by local authorities or voluntary organisations are no longer in place, people will instead dial 999 and ask for a police officer, who by their nature will try to attend. That will be a real problem for the police, because demands on them will go up as there is contraction in other services.
The Home Secretary spoke in absolute terms about what police and crime commissioners would do, but said not a word about the defeat in the House of Lords. She spoke as though the vote there had never taken place. There was no reference to it at all, no slight heed paid to the fact that the Government’s plans might need to change.
Human Trafficking
Tom Brake Excerpts(13 years, 3 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
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It was only four short years ago that the United Kingdom reflected on the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807. At the time, among all the self-congratulatory celebration, I suggested that our renewed focus should be on refreshing our resolve to tackle the modern equivalent of slavery—human trafficking. Human trafficking involves the recruitment, transfer and harbouring of men, and particularly women and children, so that they can be exploited for forced labour, sexual services or domestic servitude. It is the most unpleasant by-product of globalisation in the labour market and now scars each and every constituency.
The modern-day slaves that human trafficking has created are voiceless and vulnerable. They are stowed in the untouched shadows of our communities. They exist not just in the seedier corners of my central London constituency or of Manchester, because the backdrop to their exploitation can equally be the sprawl of suburbia, the fields of our countryside or even the beaches that line our shores. The means of their subjugation are varied. Sometimes, there is violence, but traffickers might equally threaten to harm a victim’s family; they might enslave people through debt; they might reduce them through shame; or they might manipulate them through deception.
As illicit ways to make money go, trafficking can be perceived as comparatively low risk. A busy brothel with five to 10 girls in central London, for example, can make £20,000 a week, without the violence and risk associated with the illicit drugs trade. As for those with even baser motives, trafficked victims working outside the established sex trade are attractively difficult to detect.
In putting my speech together, I was aware of the imminent publication of the Home Office strategy on human trafficking, which was promised in the spring, but which may now be released in June, owing in part to pre-local election purdah. I hope that the debate will prove timely and will, along with the strategy, help to create momentum by raising public interest and reigniting the will to tackle trafficking more robustly. I also hope that it will serve to clarify what progress the Home Office has made since October, when a number of Members, including some in the Chamber, raised legitimate questions about the Government’s strategy in the debates marking anti-slavery week.
A debate that took place as recently as last Monday helped to raise the issues before us, and I hope that the Minister will not find this morning’s proceedings too repetitious. I put in for this debate some weeks ago, but, alas, the unquenchable enthusiasm of the 2010 intake makes securing a Westminster Hall debate these days far trickier than it was in the past. Nevertheless, last week’s debate focused primarily on the European directive on human trafficking, so I hope that we can cover some new ground today.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I apologise, Mr Crausby, for not being able to stay until the end of the debate. In last week’s debate, a point was raised about there being an independent voice for children. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that there is an independent voice to support children in legally challenging the UK Border Agency, the police and other statutory or voluntary agencies, when the actions being taken are not in a child’s best interests?
Mr Field
I have particular sympathy with that point, not only because children are particularly vulnerable, but because having people acting in loco parentis in the way in which my hon. Friend has described is a well-known legal process.
It is important that we do not simply use the debate as an opportunity to produce an hysterical portrayal of the problem or to condemn Governments, past or present, for a lack of progress. I accept that this is an immensely complicated issue; it obviously has legal bearings, as my hon. Friend has suggested, and it touches on many parts of our system from policing to immigration, justice, housing and social services. I wish, however, to encourage a measured debate about how we can best create an environment that is hostile to traffickers. I also want to send out a clear message that we are firmly on the side of the victims.
In discussing human trafficking, I want to pay tribute to parliamentarians past. The erstwhile Member for Totnes, Anthony Steen, has probably done more than anyone to raise the profile of trafficking at the parliamentary level. He founded the first all-party group on the issue in 2006, and he continues to work as the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which is based at Blackfriars in my constituency. I played a small part in bringing Anthony together with the City of London corporation to ensure that the foundation was based in a high-profile place in central London. I cannot hope to emulate Anthony’s incredible passion for, and knowledge of, this subject, which he displayed in an extremely detailed debate that he led in the dying embers of the previous Parliament, but I hope that our discussion pays homage to some of his work.
Whenever we approach a subject such as trafficking, people inevitably demand numbers, so that they can grasp the scale of the problem. Unfortunately, as we all know, reliable statistics are difficult to come by. Some people contend that the number of trafficked victims is very low, while others contend that the figures are grossly underestimated. As a covert crime, trafficking is inevitably incredibly tricky to measure.
Mr Field
My hon. Friend’s point is well made, although, without wishing to defend the planning officer fraternity too much, I suspect that the phenomenal financial constraints that most local authorities find themselves under mean that they are not necessarily prioritising this area, but it is important that we put those concerns on the record.
Tom Brake
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He has discussed different organisations needing to be educated about the problem, so that they can tackle it more effectively. Does he agree that when the elected police and crime commissioners take responsibility for policing, it will be essential for them also to understand the importance that people place on tackling human trafficking? That should not be neglected.
Mr Field
I am not sure that I want to go too deeply into concerns about precisely where that legislation goes, not least given yesterday’s comments by the Deputy Prime Minister, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. If one considers the populist element of electing police commissioners, I hope that everyone—not only MPs, but interested residents, constituents and citizens—will make it plain that the problem needs to be tackled; indeed, it might be part and parcel of the manifestos of would-be candidates for such a role.
The Government have declared human trafficking to be a coalition priority; I mentioned earlier that we await a new strategy that will shortly step up our efforts in that regard. We recently put our name to the EU directive on trafficking, so the UK has signed up to various obligations. Nevertheless, and without wishing to pre-empt the strategy, I want to put some of my thoughts to the Minister.
It is quite clear from my work on the subject that the current disparate, multi-agency approach has a multitude of fundamental flaws. I have alluded to some of those flaws, which others also recognise. Some are the result of the inherent difficulty in dealing with such a complex and varied problem. However, the Government should consider making a few reasonably small improvements.
The notion of a one-stop shop was put to me by Detective Superintendent Duthie as a means of improving the treatment of trafficked victims and the collection of intelligence. Victims tend to have a variety of needs, and at the moment they are dealt with by a huge range of organisations based in different places. A one-stop shop—a human trafficking centre, as it were—might assist in dealing with health, housing, legal aid, counselling, immigration, repatriation, family reunification and more. I wonder whether the Minister would let us know his thoughts on that idea.
When researching the subject in advance of this debate, I was struck by the poor information available on the internet of all places. If I were a trafficked victim, the first resource that I would use to find a way out of my situation would be the internet. Although a one-stop shop might be seen as too expensive, has the Home Office or any other body considered setting up a presence on the internet that would provide easy, comprehensive and readily available advice to trafficked victims on how to report their experience and, more importantly, how to escape? As things stand, information is dotted across a range of sites, which is incredibly confusing.
Earlier, I mentioned Paladin, the police unit tasked with identifying trafficked children at London’s ports. Concern has been raised by the recently ennobled Baroness Doocey about alternative trafficking routes. Her fear is that Paladin’s vigilance at Heathrow and other points of entry might persuade traffickers to use other routes; in particular, she is concerned that there are no specialist child protection officers working full time at St Pancras, even though that station is within Paladin’s remit.