Oral Answers to Questions

Alun Michael Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

I am aware of the scheme in the hon. Gentleman’s area, which I understand is called “Behave or Be Banned”. It strikes me as an extremely good scheme that encourages licensed premises to work together to the advantage of their community.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. May I declare an interest, in that I am standing to be police and crime commissioner in south Wales? Like the excellent Labour candidates across England and Wales outside London, I want to rescue police governance from the shambles that the Government are creating.Given that the Government pay for the free distribution of literature to electors in parliamentary elections, Welsh Assembly elections and even European elections, it is not odd that they are not doing so in PCC elections, and that the only communication will be a leaflet from the Electoral Commission about the process? Should not the Government, even at this late stage, include with that leaflet a page from each candidate standing in each police force area, so that the public know what choice they have to make?

[Mrs May]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition really need to get their story straight on the cost of PCC elections. On the one hand they complain about the cost, but on the other hand they ask for the cost to go up by putting in extra provisions. I note that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have risen to comment on the excellence of the Conservative candidates. On the Opposition Benches, however, it has taken the right hon. Gentleman to stand up and speak for himself, because nobody else has been willing to stand up for their candidates.

Police Officer Reductions

Alun Michael Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend referred to prevention. Does he agree that our police officers work hard to fulfil the first and primary responsibility laid down by Robert Peel, which is to prevent crime, rather than only chasing after criminals? Does he also agree that it is greatly to the credit of the police that they do not whinge about their difficult situation but get on with the job? In a way, however, the effects of the reduced numbers to which my hon. Friend referred are therefore played down.

[Bill Esterson]

My right hon. Friend will make an excellent police and crime commissioner. I shall touch on the post for which he is standing a little later, but he is absolutely right that the police do get on with things. They soldier on regardless of what is put before them by politicians, and they try to make the best of a bad job—the record police cuts qualify as a bad job.

The record number of front-line police under the previous Government ensured that any inclination to crime that resulted from being out of work or short of money was challenged by the police because there were enough of them. A combination of prevention and enforcement therefore meant that crime continued to fall in a recession.

Now we have fewer police and worrying signs of a reverse in the levels of crime, following unprecedented cuts in funding, all at the expense of those at risk of suffering from crime up and down the country. So much for being tough on crime and tough on its causes—more like tough on the victims of crime, as they are the victims of a political dogma that sees the opportunity to cut the size of the state, not least policing.

People in my constituency want to see police on their streets, but 624 police officer posts will have been lost from the Merseyside force between 2010 and the end of 2012-13, as a direct result of the Government’s 20% cut in the police budget. A further 178 staff support posts will be lost over the same period. The Prime Minister promised to protect the front line, but that has not happened. It is no good Ministers blaming chief constables and police authorities. A 20% cut by the Government is not the fault of the police service. If they are so keen to cut the amount spent on police officers, why have they insisted, with due respect to my right hon. Friend, on a new bureaucracy that will cost more money to set up—money that could be spent on front-line officers? I am, of course, referring to police and crime commissioners.

The prospect of having Tory commissioners striding around their patches, lauding it over professional police officers, is not a happy one. I understand that Tory candidates plan to have their own uniforms, like some latter-day sheriff of Nottingham, although I hope that the people of Nottinghamshire will have the good sense to vote Labour in the elections on 15 November, to avoid the dreadful prospect of a series of Tory commissioners playing at cops and robbers.

I turn to another part of the police service and the excellent men and women who also contributed to the cuts in crime that we saw under the previous Government. I mentioned them earlier. Police community support officers are a key part of neighbourhood policing, which makes a big difference through the relationships that they and their police constable colleagues can build and in their work in crime prevention and helping to create productive activities, particularly for young people, often directing them away from crime and antisocial behaviour.

From April 2013, funding for PCSOs will no longer be ring-fenced. In my view they are essential to the success of neighbourhood policing, but given the massive cuts being made by the Government, it will be very difficult for chief constables to keep the current number of PCSOs. On Merseyside, only one local authority has been able to continue its funding of PCSOs in support of the police authority funding. Local government has also been clobbered by this Government of course, and it is no surprise that councils such as mine in Sefton had to end their funding for PCSOs several years ago.

In 2011, a Unison campaign to protect PCSOs in Lancashire obtained more than 5,000 signatures from the public and created supporting motions in the House of Lords. Council leaders responded to such a groundswell of opinion throughout Lancashire by agreeing to continue to support funding to keep PCSOs on their streets.

What is happening to police services, as the police make the cuts imposed on them? Some 75% of front desks have closed in Merseyside and Lancashire alone, resulting in significant loss of direct service to communities and of long-serving staff who have built up local knowledge and connections that will not be replaced. In my constituency, front desks in both Formby and Maghull have closed. Many people, especially elderly people, feel safer when they know there is a police station round the corner that they can go to, even if they do not use it often. People do not always like to use the phone, or have a car to go to a police station miles away.

One third of custody suites have also closed throughout Merseyside. There are also concerns about forensic science and fingerprint services. The concern raised with me is that there will be a significant reduction in police staff and loss of a highly skilled work force in services that play a major part in catching criminals. Potential closure of those specialist services is in advance of a national review that is due to make its own recommendations for all forces to implement.

Next on the list are control room staff. The 999 and general inquiry services are experiencing high turnover of staff in north-west England, resulting in the use of transient, inexperienced agency workers. Forces such as Cheshire have evidence of low morale in this group, which is forced to work to unrealistic Government targets on call time allocation and other indicators. Some police services are considering outsourcing, which will increase the risk of having staff without the local knowledge and relationships needed to ensure that such work retains its focus, despite targets, on the proper response that the public need, not on statistics or profits. That reminds me that the Government are closing coastguard stations around the country, including the one in my constituency, to make way for two super-national call centres that will have no local knowledge. Service and safety are being sacrificed in the coastguard service, and it seems that the same may be happening in the police service.

Police services throughout the country have no option other than to deliver the Government’s cuts agenda. Chief constables say that many of the jobs that go in the various specialisms will be have to be done by police officers, who will therefore spend less time on the beat and more time in an office, with the added expense that that will incur. That will add to the already sizeable reductions in the number of police on the beat.

The biggest cuts have been in the poorest areas. As with the fire service and local government, the metropolitan areas have had the biggest cuts. A 20% cut in Government grant across the board hits those with the lowest council tax base hardest, because grant makes up a bigger proportion of the total finance available.

I met representatives of the Merseyside Police Federation who told me that the Government’s cuts to the force are dangerous. The federation warned me that Merseyside police will be

“significantly affected by the 20% cut in police budgets imposed upon police forces”.

The effect of the Government’s cuts on the police has been even greater in Merseyside, as I demonstrated, because of how the police budget is calculated. The ration of funding to the police is dependent on the demographics of the area. Merseyside is funded with 83% Government grant and 17% council tax precept. Surrey is funded with around 50% Government grant and 50% precept, on account of the relative wealth in the area.

The Government’s decision to slash its police funding by 20% has a greater impact on areas with more deprivation than on more affluent areas, particularly those down south. As a result, Merseyside police are being hit particularly hard by the cuts. Merseyside is set to lose 650 police officers, as well as 103 police community support officers and 452 civilian staff, because it must lose £61.4 million from its budget over the next four years.

The Police Federation tells me that Merseyside has already lost around 500 of the 600 police officers due to be lost through the process of natural wastage and a recruitment freeze. The police authority is doing its utmost to make savings to counter the loss of such a large number of officers. This week, it was announced that 40 new officers are being taken on because of the savings that have been made, but that is a drop in the ocean considering the losses that Merseyside police has experienced. Forty gains against 600 losses is a pretty bleak score card, and Merseyside police still face losses because of the huge savings in the next few years.

One of my major concerns is that the excellent work by Merseyside police officers in recent years, particularly in reducing crime rates, will be reversed. Merseyside police have taken great strides in combating crime rates over the past decade, but the Police Federation believes that it is inevitable that crime and disorder throughout Merseyside will rise, so turning round the continuous reduction that has been witnessed in recent years. I have spoken to officers who warn that the cuts are dangerous and will lead to a rise in crime. The Government need to know the damage that they are doing to policing in Merseyside. The result will be not just a rise in crime, but an increase in the fear of crime in our communities.

I said that I would look at the evidence, which is found in the figures produced by the Home Office and in what police officers say when responding to surveys. A survey by the Police Federation shows that police officers in England and Wales believe that the Government’s cut of 20% in the police budget over the next four years and the reduction in police officer numbers will have a detrimental effect on crime and result in the public receiving a poorer service. That is what police officers say. The evidence is also found in what the Police Federation says, in the experience of the public through the loss of front desks, police officers and PCSOs on the beat and in the increase in crime.

In Lancashire, the acting chief constable, Chris Weigh, told the Lancashire Evening Post that his force was taking 513 police officers off the streets and that that had led to an inevitable increase in the number of offences. The force has an annual budget of £287 million and must save £42 million over four years. Mr Weigh described how he has been tackling burglaries in the county and how his officers had tackled burglary spikes last year. He asked how much longer special operations can continue to be employed to target burglary, when resources are falling. Figures released in April show that serious acquisitive crime in Lancashire rose by 8%, house burglaries were up by 8.4%, vehicle crime was up by 6.4% and assault without injury was up by 15%. The acting chief constable said that there has been

“a genuine, real increase in offending”.

That was confirmed by the chair of the Lancashire Police Federation, Rachel Baines, who said:

“It is the inevitable result. Officers are being hit from every angle.”

In just two years, the Government have cut police numbers back to what they were nearly a decade ago, weakened police powers, undermined morale and reduced crime prevention. What is required is a change of course and for the Government to implement a proper plan to cut crime, not police officers. We need real change from the Government to make our streets safer. Neighbourhood policing must be prioritised, antisocial behaviour must be taken seriously and the causes of crime need to be tackled, with police and local authorities working together. We should ensure that there is no privatisation of core policing and that strong communities are built, with respect to all, and responsibility by all.

I welcome the Minister to his post today. I hope that his response will provide confidence to my community and others around the country that he will listen and act, not only on the points that I have made today, but on what the police and public say about the need to reverse police cuts.

Olympics (Security)

Alun Michael Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. She is right that we would not want to put our military personnel into these circumstances without their having been trained, because they are not usually required to undertake some of these duties. The training will be there.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is clearly in the Home Secretary’s job description to look unruffled when faced with a shambles, and she is getting plenty of practice. Very simply, if the operation was planned as meticulously and monitored as carefully as she claims, how did it go so badly wrong?

[Mrs May]

As I have said, and as the right hon. Gentleman has repeated, we have been monitoring this situation, but, of course, it is only at this point, when the scheduling of staff for the Olympic games comes through fully, that these sorts of issues start to arise. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to have been talking to G4S and LOCOG throughout this period, which we have been doing. We have ensured that contingency arrangements are in place in case there are any difficulties. When we were advised yesterday that the guarantee was not there of the numbers that we needed, we did what was absolutely right and appropriate: we said that we needed to put extra contingency arrangements in place and we did so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alun Michael Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I welcome that initiative, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. It is a very good example of how police forces are using innovative means to maintain, or indeed increase, their presence in local communities. Setting up such booths in supermarkets can bring a large number of people into contact with the police—far more than might choose to visit a police station.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I declare an interest as a candidate to be a police commissioner in south Wales. Does the Minister not accept that the best way of empowering police officers to reduce crime is to prevent reoffending? Instead of concentrating on bureaucratic requirements, such as having several reports before action can be taken, will he strengthen the use of antisocial behaviour orders, which have succeeded in preventing reoffending?

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are strengthening the powers available to the police with new tools to deal with antisocial behaviour. Police and crime commissioners will play a lead role in giving a voice to the people and will be under statutory duties to co-operate with other elements of the criminal justice system to ensure a focus on preventing crime and reducing reoffending.

Home Affairs and Justice

Alun Michael Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

In justice and home affairs, the coalition Government achieved a great deal in the first parliamentary Session. We legislated to bring in elected police and crime commissioners, giving proper public accountability to policing. We brought in reforms to reduce reoffending and started paying by results. We rolled back unwarranted state intrusion into private lives through the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. We placed successful investigation and prosecution, once again, at the heart of our strategy for countering terrorism. We reduced the cost of legal aid, while protecting the vulnerable.

In the second Session, we are bringing forward further reforms to strengthen public protection; to better tackle serious crime and defend our borders; to make justice swifter, fairer and more comprehensive; to maintain and modernise our communications data capabilities; and to improve the oversight of the security intelligence agencies that keep us safe.

The Gracious Speech included the Crime and Courts Bill, which was introduced into another place earlier today. Current estimates suggest that serious, organised and complex crime costs our country between £20 billion and £40 billion a year. Law enforcement figures suggest that there are more than 7,000 organised crime groups that impact on the UK, involving about 30,000 individuals. Even those figures may underestimate the impact. Behind those statistics is the human misery that serious and organised crime inflicts on our communities. The drug dealing on street corners, the burglary and mugging by addicts, and the credit card fraud that robs so many are all fundamentally driven by serious, organised and complex crime.

As well as growing, that threat is changing. That means that our law enforcement response must also change. Visible neighbourhood policing is vital, but it will not deal with the cyber-criminal who is raiding bank accounts directly from overseas. Arresting drug dealers is important, but it will not stop the flow of drugs from abroad. Vetting and barring are important, but they cannot protect a child from the dangers that lurk online. To deal with those new threats, we need a new crime fighting force—a force that is capable of working across police boundaries and organisational divisions; a force that can defend our borders and deal with the economic consequences of complex crime; a force that protects children and vulnerable people and is active in cyberspace. That crime fighting force will be the National Crime Agency.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Home Secretary has used the phrase “serious and organised crime” a number of times. Is she aware of the high reputation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency internationally in south America and many other places around the world that are involved in combating the people trafficking and drug trafficking to which she has referred? How will she ensure that, with the changes in organisation and the new name, we do not lose the brand and the reputation that have been built over many years?

[Mrs May]

I am well aware of the good name that SOCA has across the world. When I visit other countries, I try to speak to local SOCA liaison officers, where we have them, and I have met some of our liaison officers from south America when they have been in the UK.

I know the value that other law enforcement agencies across the world place on the work that SOCA does. That is why the National Crime Agency will build on the good work that SOCA has developed. SOCA will become the serious and organised crime command within the NCA, so we will develop the good work that has been done. I believe that being within the NCA will give SOCA a greater ability to deal with these issues. Linking SOCA with the border police command, the economic crime command and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre will give us a greater ability to act across the various types of serious and organised crime. Criminals do not compartmentalise their crime. Serious and organised crime groups are often involved in many types of crime and we need to reflect that in our law enforcement capability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has got it in one: this is, precisely, about maintaining a capability that exists today in a changing technological world.

[Alun Michael]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am being very generous in taking interventions today.

[Alun Michael]

The Home Secretary is, indeed, being very generous, but these are very important points.

I accept that the intention is as the right hon. Lady says, but there is a great danger that measures will be introduced that do not keep pace with technological change and that are not future-proofed. There is also a danger that the industry will not be engaged with properly, and that we therefore fail to address fully the ways in which modern technology functions. Will the right hon. Lady undertake to use the skills, abilities and experience of people in this House and in the industry, in order to ensure that the legislation that is designed is absolutely right?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman makes the valid point—which, if I recall correctly, was similar to a point he made when I appeared before the Home Affairs Committee—that there is expertise in this House. We will look for ways to engage with those who have an interest in these matters. We do, of course, engage with industry, because, in respect of this Bill, it is important for us to be able to understand where the technology is going and the prospects for its future development.

The police and other agencies will have no new powers or capabilities to intercept and read e-mails or telephone calls. All such requests will always require a warrant signed by a Secretary of State. There will be no changes in these arrangements, and we envisage no increase in interception. Finally, to reiterate the point I made in response to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), let me make it clear that there will be no giant new Government database containing the data behind all e-mails and phone calls, which was what was proposed by the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

The Minister shakes his head, but I urge him to look at the exchanges between members of the Committee and Mr Winsor.

[Alun Michael]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Does he acknowledge that at one point Mr Winsor said he had given a definition of front-line policing in his earlier report, although there is not, in fact, anything like an adequate definition there of what he means by front-line policing, never mind a definition that could practically be used, if we are to use that term?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). If I may summarise what she has just said, it is that if we do not address child development, education and mental health, a heavy price will be paid in the criminal justice system and by victims. She is right: prevention is better than cure.

I have declared my intention to stand for selection as the Labour candidate in the election for police and crime commissioner for south Wales. I am not sure whether a formal declaration of interest is required. One friend said that in Sir Humphrey’s terms, it was courageous to stand for an experimental role at a time of draconian cuts in police cash and numbers. I do so in the belief that the role will be difficult and challenging, and that it cannot be left to chance. The commissioner will have a contribution to make on the issues that I want to raise.

The Government are taking big risks with police finances and numbers. There is real anger among police officers, who are represented outside the Houses of Parliament today, and among many others who have already left the police force although they did not wish to do so. That is why the shadow Home Secretary was able to wipe the floor with the Home Secretary earlier.

The problem goes beyond statistics on cash and police numbers. The Government are making major changes in the policing landscape. It is a muddle. Against the background of cuts that are being made too far and too fast, we have the loss of senior and experienced police officers. Last year, there were riots in a number of English cities and we still do not know enough about why they happened. We did not have a report of the sort Lord Scarman produced after the riots in the 1980s, and although the Home Affairs Committee has issued a good report it does not enable us to predict what might trigger similar events in the future. What is certainly true is that the loss of police officers, especially those who are senior and experienced, will make it difficult to deploy police in the numbers and at the speed they were needed last August should such events happen again.

It is unhelpful to have so much talk about the front line—a term that ignores the important roles played by people in the background who undertake work on terrorism, child protection and internet-related offending. I am disappointed that, as my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said, it is far from clear what Mr Winsor means by the front line in his report, or what the chief inspector of constabulary or Ministers mean by that term.

My right hon. Friend referred to the reputation that the Serious Organised Crime Agency has earned in such places as Turkey, Colombia and the USA, as I have been able to hear for myself. I reinforce his request that the Home Secretary try to find some way of retaining that branding. Why not call that division of the agency the serious and organised crime arm? That would allow the branding to be retained, if not in this country at least in our relationships with forces abroad.

A more problematic issue is that we are unclear where the many responsibilities that lie with the National Policing Improvement Agency will end up. The Home Affairs Committee has asked many questions about that, but the answer we receive is “We’ll let you know in the fullness of time.” That is not good enough.

Much has been said about the intention to create a new professional body for policing. It sounds fine and dandy. Why should there not be a body for policing just as there is for workers in a variety of other professions, including medicine? The problem is that there is no clarity about what that professional body will be. It cannot be a body that is “owned” by chief police officers—a successor to the current arrangements for representing chief police officers. It needs to be able to focus on professionalism and training. We have seen very little so far about the resources, the structure and the arrangements that would be necessary for creating that body. It is an aspiration, but we have seen no details of what would deliver professionalism and help to reinforce the need for professional police officers to feel professional and respected and to be respectable in the work that they do.

I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) on the need for opportunities and a clear future for our young people. In that connection, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire made some pertinent comments. If that need is not addressed, we will build up problems for the future.

My decision to stand for Parliament resulted from deep frustration at working with unemployed young people and young offenders in the 1980s, during the time of the Thatcher Government, which to my mind was a complete and utter disaster. I felt that something had to be done to take a grip on the failures that that Government were creating, both in terms of building a strong economy and addressing the needs of young people. I am afraid that, under the current Government, we seem to be going at an accelerated pace down the road the Thatcher Government took us, and which the years of Labour government, thank goodness, managed to reverse to a considerable extent.

I want to say a word or two about antisocial behaviour, because that is the issue that affects many individuals, families and whole communities. In tackling antisocial behaviour, the antisocial behaviour order is a very important instrument. It was deeply disappointing when, in July 2010, the Home Secretary, in the words of the headlines, declared a death knell for the antisocial behaviour order. Little has been done since then either to deliver on that “promise”—if it was a promise; I would see it as more of a threat—or to deal with antisocial behaviour. Doing away with antisocial behaviour orders would not be a sensible contribution to tackling antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour orders have been effective when used properly and intelligently, and I am pleased to say that in my area, the South Wales police and the local authorities that they work with have developed ways of using them that have been effective in protecting local communities.

The antisocial behaviour order is a simple and effective measure and it is regrettable that instead of improving its use and effectiveness—there is certainly potential for doing that—the Government are allowing it to be strangled in bureaucracy and red tape and undermining its effectiveness. I remind the House that the purpose of the order is to prevent and stop a series of events that damage the lives of local people.

It is a matter of fact that many people’s lives are ruined by a series of low-level nuisance activities—very often ones that do not quite reach the point where a prosecution or a serious police investigation is justified, but which nevertheless are ruining the lives of neighbours and individuals in the community. It is not a question of one serious incident; it is more like a movie film of minor irritation and low-level nuisance. It is a fact that antisocial behaviour orders have worked well in nipping that sort of activity in the bud.

The National Audit Office and the Audit Commission said in their report that our approach to antisocial behaviour worked, with 65% of the NAO’s review sample desisting after the first intervention and 93% after the third. That is an outcome to be desired because it stops the activity, and it is a fact that criminal records create an obstacle to employment and rehabilitation. By allowing things to continue, by not nipping things in the bud, one makes it more likely that offending will continue and an individual life will be ruined. The answer is not to ignore or condone that activity but to stop it. That is why the antisocial behaviour order is a civil order, based on evidence of nuisance activity to the civil burden of proof. Making such an order does not lead to a criminal conviction; if the individual ceases that activity, nothing follows. There is not a conviction. It is not something that stands in the way of their resuming a useful life. A breach of the order leads to prosecution on the basis of the criminal test of evidence and to a criminal conviction, but is not the aim of the order. The aim is to stop bad behaviour, and properly used the order has been enormously beneficial. I say to the Home Secretary: stop messing about with the antisocial behaviour order. Tidy up the system—increase its efficiency and by all means simplify it—but do not throw out the baby with the bath water by getting rid of the antisocial behaviour order.

Another gap in the Queen’s Speech is anything to deal with violence against women and domestic violence generally. We have been promised legislation in Wales, but there is nothing on that subject in the Queen’s Speech. That is another example of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales tackling an issue that is not of itself part of the criminal justice system, but where effective legislation would prevent people from coming into the criminal justice system through their offending. Many incidents of domestic violence, often against women but also directly and indirectly damaging to children, go unreported, perhaps until a wife or partner has been through seven, eight or more violent incidents. Prosecution and conviction are important, but that simple fact demonstrates the urgent need for systems of early support and intervention to be in place. Such systems require specialist support services, which may cost money in the short term, but save money in terms of police time, court and legal costs and NHS costs—repeated injuries can incur significant costs. Early intervention can help to avoid the family break-up that becomes inevitable following repeated and escalating violence.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the situation will get worse now that the Government are withdrawing legal aid for victims of domestic violence?

[Alun Michael]

Yes, indeed I do, because the provision of legal aid can help to resolve the direct problem. That measure, combined with the cuts in local government services, particularly in England, which have led in some places to the ending of support and early intervention services, mean that serious problems are likely to arise and to escalate, as my hon. Friend says.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I must put the record right on this point. The Government are not taking away legal aid for victims of domestic violence. Indeed, we are keeping it for the victims of domestic violence.

[Alun Michael]

I note what the hon. Gentleman says and have no reason to argue with him, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will be looking very carefully at the small print of the proposals and the way in which the Government take them forward.

Violence generally is not only the top priority in crime prevention, but is very expensive to society. Without going into detail, I point out again that a project led by John Shepherd of University College hospital, Cardiff, in which a clinical approach—almost an engineering approach—is used to analyse where violence happens, the context in which it happens and its causes, has led to a 20% greater reduction in levels of violence in Cardiff in the past decade than has been achieved in equivalent cities. Given our scarce resources, we must target prevention and early intervention measures and work to understand the causes and nature of criminal activity. In that way, we can reduce the number of violent incidents, which has the benefits of reducing both the number of victims and the level of violence against victims, and of making savings to the public purse in the police and criminal justice system and in the health service.

I am pleased to see the Chairman of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), in his place. I remind Ministers of the commitments they made to pick up a copy of that Committee’s report on justice reinvestment. I was a member of the Select Committee at the time that report was prepared. Essentially, it asks: are we spending money in the right ways, or are there are better ways to use our resources? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that although some lessons may have been learnt from that report, many more lessons can be drawn from it, and that in many ways, when it comes to the criminal justice system, we are not spending money in the most effective way.

The report pointed out that most of the things that really affect levels of offending are outside the criminal justice system. That signals more strongly than anything else the need for strong partnerships and joint working by the police, other organisations in the criminal justice system, and those outside. We need to use the benefits of restorative justice, making offenders face up to the impact of what they have done. There are also lessons to be learned from relational justice. Some of the issues covered by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, to do with the way that babies and young people are treated, are often about failures of relationship, as well as moral failures.

We need to refresh the partnerships involving the police, local authorities and other agencies to cut crime. As Sir Robert Peel said when he established the first police service here in London, the purpose of policing is to prevent and reduce offending. He also said:

“The police are the public and the public are the police”,

which is a bit delphic, but I think it means that unless the police and the public are in tune—unless there is a good relationship between the police and the public—policing will not be fair and will not succeed in the basic aim of creating a safer society in which offending is not taken for granted.

The Home Secretary referred to internet-related crime. I applaud the emphasis that she placed on this modern scourge, but great care is needed. We need to be sure that we do not get things out of proportion. Given the vast growth in online retailing, I am not sure that the number of offences is that out of proportion to the numbers for retail crime in our shops. We need to be sure that the big figures do not just reflect the big increase in the size of internet trading. Care is needed because legislation should be the last refuge of any Home Secretary, not the first. We should not repeat the mistakes made over decades in the offline world, as laws rarely prevent what they forbid. I therefore encourage the Home Secretary to work this out with the industry and parliamentarians. It is not good enough to have the Government and industry deal with the issue alone; Parliament has a role.

The Home Secretary has in her team the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who, in opposition, took on an important role in this House, working on internet-related issues. I suggest that she listen to him, and to the members of the Parliamentary Internet, Communications and Technology Forum or PICTFOR, which succeeded PICTCOM, the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee. PICTFOR seeks to engage Members of this House in understanding internet-related issues. As the chair of that group, I offer our engagement in response to her welcome for that comment.

I am disappointed not to see something in the Queen’s Speech about sprinklers to prevent preventable fires in houses, especially those in multiple occupation. I encourage the Home Secretary and the Ministers on the Front Bench to get a grip on their colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government. I had a meeting with a Minister in that Department who seems completely oblivious to the fact that the Department’s approach, and its refusal to accept such a change, means that it is putting its head in the sand and putting lives at risk. Ann Jones, an Assembly Member from north Wales, introduced a Measure on the subject in the Welsh Assembly, so Wales is benefiting from taking steps forward on this matter. I spent time with the police service in Vancouver and saw how it has been able to reduce not only the risk to life but the amount of damage to property through the installation of sprinklers in new properties. I encourage the Government to stop ignoring a measure that is supported by the insurance industry and the fire service, and to follow the Welsh Government and Assembly in implementing such a measure.

On Lords reform, we ought to look not only at the composition of a new House of Lords, but at better methods of scrutiny and constructive debate. Perhaps we ought to be more imaginative and think more laterally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central said—perhaps we should have a single Chamber but with different mechanisms—rather than just allowing the debate to grind on as it has for decades, which seems to take us nowhere.

My final point on home affairs relates to the Home Secretary’s reference to the item in the Queen’s Speech on enhancing border security. Frankly, the Home Affairs Committee has seen little indication of improvement in the work of the UK Border Agency and a great deal to be worried about. One of the problems is that it is not an agency at all. It is not a separate agency with its own directorate and a board to which it is accountable, but an integral part of the Home Office and, therefore, the direct responsibility of the permanent secretary, the Home Secretary and Ministers. They really need to get a grip on it, rather than thinking that a bit of cosmetics, such as dividing the Border Force from the Border Agency, will make the difference that is needed. Introducing responsibilities into the new National Crime Agency might help to make that difference, but it is confusing that that agency will have some responsibilities and that the Border Force is being taken out of the Border Agency.

To sum up, while Labour was in government crime fell by 40%, and that was not by accident. It was possible only through strong partnerships and effective policing by motivated officers. That was supported by sensible reforms, the provision of new powers, such as antisocial behaviour orders, new preventive work, especially partnership working through the youth offending teams and the creation of the Youth Justice Board, which I am glad the Government are now allowing to continue its good work, and halving the time it took to get young offenders before the courts. More could be done on that, because we still take too long to deal with young offenders. A society that fails to nip things in the bud when young offenders start offending, or even before they have been absorbed into the criminal justice system as a result of being caught and prosecuted, is condemned to live with the disastrous impact of a life of crime on victims, the community, the families of offenders and victims and, essentially, the offenders themselves. We cannot afford that and the Government should put more emphasis on the need to prevent crime in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

As I said, this is as much about how we use police officers as about the number of them.

[Alun Michael]

Does the Minister recall that I made the strong point that the Government are in danger of being guilty of surrendering the simple concept of an antisocial behaviour order, which has been effective in reducing antisocial behaviour by maintaining the restrictions that it imposes? Will he clear that up, remove the Home Secretary’s threat to get rid of ASBOs and simply make it easier to use that good mechanism?

[Mr Djanogly]

As I said, ASBOs are proving to have been ineffective and overly bureaucratic, and we are going to replace them with an order that is simpler to use and that works better.

May I congratulate theright hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on his support for police and crime commissioners? Although I wish him well in his campaign to be one, may I say that this is somewhat of a volte face from his position when Labour was in government?

[Mr Djanogly]

ASBOs are civil orders at the moment. [Interruption.] A breach can lead on to a criminal offence, absolutely it can.

The Government want people to have powers that really work, that can be enforced, that provide faster, more visible justice to communities, that rehabilitate offenders, where possible, and that act as a real deterrent to perpetrators.

[Alun Michael]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Surely it should be possible to correct what I am sure is an inadvertent misleading of the House by the Minister—he would not have intended to do it. The ASBO is a civil order. A breach of it is a criminal offence, tested by the criminal quality of evidence.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Further to that point of order, I call Mr Djanogly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alun Michael Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend touches on an important point. It is clearly not just about attacking the offences and identifying the offenders—it is trying to stop them offending and joining gangs in the first place. That is why support for parents and families is at the heart of this programme. We have established an ending gang and youth violence team led by a detective chief superintendent from the Metropolitan police. The team will have access to advisers from a range of backgrounds, including community activists, local authority specialists and voluntary organisations, so that we can get to the roots of the problem as soon as it starts, long before the children join a gang.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister accept that among those who are most vulnerable to being drawn into gang activity, as well as being radicalised in various ways, are those who have spent a short period in custody? Will the Minister focus on making sure that those who come out of short periods of custody are targeted effectively so that they are not drawn into such activity?

[Damian Green]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is precisely why we are not just treating this as a purely policing matter, but drawing in local authorities, voluntary organisations and other specialists, so that that kind of positive intervention to keep people on the right track and off the wrong track can be part of our overall strategy.

UK Border Agency

Alun Michael Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The precise reason for separating the UK Border Force from UKBA is to give the UK Border Force a much clearer focus on its key job of maintaining security and conducting controls at our borders. However, I am bound to comment to my hon. Friend that, as he knows well, this Government have a proper immigration policy and are doing our best to control it.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Home Secretary understand one of the points made by the Home Affairs Committee, which is that the Border Agency, of which the Border Force is a part, is not a separate agency but an integral part of the Home Office, for which she is responsible? Does she accept that communications within the Home Office, including that agency, were poor and sometimes shambolic, which is why officials frequently thought that Ministers knew what Ministers should have known? Will she now publish, alongside the Vine report, the document on which she relied in giving evidence but which she has denied so far to the Home Affairs Committee? Can we have it all out in the open?

[Mrs May]

I am interested in the comments that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the relationship between Ministers and the UK Border Agency and the UK Border Force. I return to the point I have made previously that of course what we saw was decisions being taken within UK Border Force that were contrary to ministerial authorisation, not just under this Government but under the previous Government as well.

Border Checks Summer 2011

Alun Michael Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nicola Blackwood]

I think it is important that we continue to approach intelligence-based processes rationally.

I am not opposed to the principle of giving border officials greater discretion in assessing risk. These border officials are professionals who, for the most part, work in very difficult circumstances, and even the best policy framework cannot allow for every situation and cannot replicate the experience of a border official who has their eyes and ears fixed beadily on the individual in front of them. However, that discretion must be exercised within an evidence-based policy framework that has been set out by Ministers and properly scrutinised by Parliament. As I understand it, that was the intention of the pilot but, as we have been hearing, it was not what John Vine found was actually happening on the ground.

We hear from whistleblowers in the UKBA that border checks were being relaxed at the request of BAA staff when queues were long. We hear from Brodie Clark that controls have been relaxed since 2008, not in favour of queue management but for a reason which he does not state. I look forward to hearing his evidence to the Select Committee. Rob Whiteman insists that Clark confessed that he had been relaxing the controls on a regular basis without ministerial approval. Most worrying from my perspective is that we find that since at least 2007—under the previous Government—agency operational instructions have contained a paragraph that apparently gives border force duty directors the authority to relax checks for health and safety reasons. That might be completely justifiable in certain extreme circumstances, but I do not think it is possible to get a proper picture of what has been going on with border checks without knowing how often these controls were relaxed on the grounds of health and safety, what criteria and processes were used to trigger such a relaxation, what the reporting mechanisms are and whether they have been properly followed. In particular, this raises the question of whether this power has been misused.

Although I am only too aware of the potential implications of the agency’s failure to implement border checks properly, the statistics on how many people have passed through the borders during this time are truly sobering. A measure of comfort can be taken from the fact that the chief executive did take immediate action when this came to light, which has triggered full-scale parliamentary scrutiny and three independent investigations, and I hope that they will take into account ministerial decisions and, in particular, the recent claims that border checks have been relaxed to level 2 without ministerial approval or oversight since 2008. I think it highly unlikely that that would have been the agency’s response previously; I suspect we would have come up against something closer to an attitude of, “Least said, soonest mended.”

However, when I said a “measure of comfort”, I meant a small one. The truth is that even in the relatively short time that I have been a member of the Home Affairs Committee it has become abundantly clear that the UK Border Agency is an organisation with deep-seated problems that date back well into the previous Government’s time in office, and an organisation that seems to have encouraged a culture of deniability. Again and again, the Committee has found that the UKBA has failed to record and account for its responsibilities. For example, when we asked for reasons for the 1,300 outstanding cases of difficulties with deporting foreign national prisoners, the agency could not account for 350 of those—it simply had not recorded the data. The agency was not able to tell the Committee how many individuals had been removed as a result of action taken by intelligence units in 2011, because the data for allegations and removals are kept on two different databases.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is quite accurate in what she is saying about the concerns of the Home Affairs Committee, across parties. However, would she not have expected Home Office Ministers, understanding the deep-seated concerns of Members of this House, to be absolutely on top of all the detail and to ensure that they knew everything that was going on in the Department?

[Nicola Blackwood]

I would have hoped that they were trying to get on top of it, just as I would have hoped that Ministers in the last Government were trying to do.

I realise that the picture is not all doom and gloom—the agency has made progress on legacy cases, as we have already heard today. There was a backlog of more than 450,000 asylum cases under the last Government, which has been reduced to 18,000, and there was a significant reduction in foreign national prisoners released without being considered for deportation, from more than 1,000 to just 28. However, those examples show just what a low base the agency was coming from, and how far it still has to go if there is any hope of its being properly capable of protecting our borders and assuring our national security.

What worries me most about this incident as much as the facts, which are worrying in themselves, is that they are indicative of a wider cultural problem within the agency, endorsed by at least some senior officials: that short-cuts and papering over the cracks are a justifiable way of dealing with the work load, and that transparency is a concept more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

The Select Committee will play a part in trying to get to the bottom of contradictory claims coming out of the UKBA. The three investigations will do their bit, but they will only get to the bottom of what happened when. Although we must pursue those issues vigorously, I do not believe that we will stop seeing scandals in the agency until we have genuine reform of both the systems and the culture of an organisation that we need to be able to trust with protecting our borders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It really is quite breathtaking to hear Conservative Members ignore the history of the shambles that was left behind by the previous Conservative Government in 1997. We all know that this is an extremely difficult issue, and it must be taken seriously. I am sorry to say that what we have heard from Conservative Back-Benchers today is a series of partisan remarks that are remarkable in the extent of the loyalty shown to Front-Benchers, who are clearly in enormous difficulty. Loyalty is admirable, but it is not very instructive and it does not contribute to getting to the bottom of an extremely difficult issue.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

Is that loyalty not also breathtaking in that it is coming from the coalition partners as well, given their record on immigration and what they did to previous Governments?

[Alun Michael]

Absolutely right. I am very disappointed that the Home Secretary is not still in the Chamber, because this debate is about her behaviour and performance. She was remarkably reluctant to take interventions from Labour Members during her speech. Normally on such a big issue—a big occasion in Parliament—the Minister concerned takes a lot of interventions. It was disappointing that she did not do so, and perhaps demonstrates her nervousness about the situation she is getting into, although she still does not seem to understand how serious her position has become.

I want to help the Home Secretary by giving her an opportunity to correct the record. On Monday, I put a question to her in these terms:

“we know who she is blaming in advance of her inquiries, but those who know the people at the top-end of the border force, and who know how that body works, say it is unthinkable that they would have taken these actions without the knowledge and approval of Ministers. That is right, isn’t it?”

She replied:

“my understanding is that the head of the UK Border Agency admitted he had taken action outside ministerial approval.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 52.]

Well, I think she meant the border force, but that is what she said. We now know that statement to be untrue. The head of the border force has made it clear that he does not accept her description of what has happened, so it would be nice if the Home Secretary could correct the record on that matter.

A further issue is the pilot. The idea that it was suspended one day early by the Home Secretary is not exactly a dramatic gesture in the direction of public concern. Apparently, the relaxation of controls was allowed everywhere under the pilot scheme—Scotland, Manchester, Northern Ireland and right across the country. That is some pilot scheme. Such an approach does not seem to indicate a calculated attempt to see exactly what is happening and evaluate it properly.

[Stephen Pound]

My right hon. Friend has just told the House that the pilot was extended to Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary did not know that—does he?

[Alun Michael]

I understand that it extended to Northern Ireland, but I also understand my hon. Friend’s point because, at the beginning of the week, the Home Secretary did not seem to know whether the pilot had been extended to anywhere other than Heathrow.

Another point is that there is one cast-iron rule at the Home Office: the need to understand that the devil is in the detail. In fact, I became quite bored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) reminding us of that on a daily basis. That was because he paid attention to the detail and expected his Ministers to do so as well. We cannot expect a Minister to know everything that officials do in their Department and its agencies, but we have the right to ask whether Ministers have asked the right questions and insisted on getting to the bottom of any important issues. During the questions and responses we have heard in the Chamber and in the Home Affairs Committee throughout this week and today, that has not been demonstrated by the Home Secretary.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any pilot scheme worth its salt must do one thing first of all: ensure that it does not put our borders at risk? Does it seem strange to him that the Government are defending what has happened on the basis that it was a pilot scheme, and that that seems to excuse people being able to get through the border system without controls?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Michael]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Home Secretary had asked the questions she should have asked as a Minister, she should have been able to answer the key questions put to her on Monday and yesterday, but she was unable to do so.

Normally, advice to Ministers would not come into the public domain, but by suspending a senior official who has a reputation as being highly committed and effective, the Home Secretary has put herself in the firing line and made it essential for all communications to be given to Parliament. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary asked her for that, but we did not get a positive response. It is time for the Minister for Immigration to tell us whether the Home Secretary is going to let us have the full information, without which Parliament will not be able to make a proper judgment on what went wrong. At the moment, we cannot make a judgment about whether the Home Secretary has told us the truth or whether, as Mr Clark claims, she has lied to MPs. We have to come to a judgment based on evidence, so it is incumbent on the Home Secretary to give us the evidence, the whole evidence and nothing but the evidence.

The Home Secretary knew of the Home Affairs Committee’s concerns about UKBA to which the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) referred. In the report that we published on Friday, we said:

“Immigration is an issue which affects the safety, the social cohesion and the economy of Britain as well as its standing on the world stage. For that reason we will continue to hold sessions with the UK Border Agency every four months or possibly even more frequently.”

That was the level of concern. Surely the Home Secretary, who had herself been questioned repeatedly by the Select Committee, should have understood how serious the issue was and would have had herself and her Ministers all over the agency like a rash ensuring that they knew exactly what was going on.

The Home Secretary said that she was explicit about what the pilot would cover and what it must not cover. How has muddle and misunderstanding arisen if she was so clear? We need to know. Her answers were not full and complete. Let us see all the exchanges and see what happened. Giving that information only to an internal inquiry, as she implied today, is not adequate; it needs to be given to Members of this House—to the members of the Home Affairs Committee, in particular, but also to Members of the House as a whole. The Home Secretary has a lot of questions to answer; she has gone no way towards answering them today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips]

I am not voting for the motion—let me deal with that point first—because it is entirely premature, as I have made clear. On whether the papers should be produced to the House, which is what most of the motion calls for, the answer is obviously no. The papers need to go before the inquiry. I have no doubt that after the inquiry has reported, a statement will be made to the House. I express no view at the moment about whether the report will be published. My view, which I will share with the hon. Gentleman, is that it ought to be published so that the House knows what it says, suitably redacted if necessary to protect the advice to Ministers that is not generally produced in this House, or indeed at all. That is necessary given the form of government that we have.

In the time that remains to me, I will briefly answer those three questions. What happened here? There was a limited pilot that was agreed to by the Home Secretary, which meant that under limited circumstances European economic area national children, travelling with their parents or as part of a school group, would be checked against the warnings index when assessed by a border force—

[Alun Michael]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Phillips]

I will give way.

[Alun Michael]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is saying what the limits were. Can he enlighten us about whether he is speaking from the Whips’ brief or whether he has seen all the exchanges and information on what limits were applied?

[Stephen Phillips]

I am speaking from my notes for the purposes of this speech. I am a little tired of Opposition Members intervening to make some point when I am trying to assist the House by saying what I understand the position to have been.

[Alun Michael]

On what basis?

[Stephen Phillips]

I know it in part because I read the evidence that the Home Secretary gave to the Home Affairs Committee, and indeed watched most of it.

I will state what appears to have happened on the basis of the evidence that we have at the moment. We do not have all of it because of the prematurity of this debate and because we have not heard Mr Brodie Clark’s side of events. Mr Clark, according to his boss, accepted that he went beyond what he was permitted to do under the terms of the pilot and what had been agreed by the Home Secretary. It was for that reason that he was suspended, not by the Home Secretary, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said, but by his boss, as the Home Secretary has made perfectly clear and as his boss has confirmed, after it became apparent that the terms of the pilot had been exceeded.

UK Border Force

Alun Michael Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

From the Home Secretary’s very defensive responses, we know who she is blaming in advance of her inquiries, but those who know the people at the top-end of the border force, and who know how that body works, say it is unthinkable that they would have taken these actions without the knowledge and approval of Ministers. That is right, isn’t it?

[Mrs May]

As I said in my statement, my understanding is that the head of the UK Border Agency admitted he had taken action outside ministerial approval.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Alun Michael Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The coalition’s programme for government committed the Government to reviewing counter-terrorism legislation. Included in this broad review was the issue of pre-charge detention. The Government are committed to making our counter-terrorism powers fairer and more effective, and they announced in January 201l that, following the results of the review of counter-terrorism and security powers, the limit on pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects should be reduced to 14 days. The 28 days order was always meant to be an exceptional provision; it had become the norm. The Government are not prepared to allow this to continue. The last 28 days order was therefore allowed to lapse on 24 January. The maximum limit for pre-charge detention is now 14 days.

There was a recognition—I will come on to this in the context of the counter-terrorism review—that it might be necessary in an emergency, in exceptional circumstances, for pre-charge detention to be extended back up to 28 days, and it was for that reason that the Government introduced fast-track legislation to pre-legislative scrutiny. I will come on to the pre-legislative scrutiny in due course, recognising that right hon. and hon. Members from the Joint Committee are here this evening, and I look forward to their contributions in this debate.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to clarify one point that is not dealt with in the Home Secretary’s response to the Committee’s report, although it was dealt with when she came before the Committee to give evidence. It is silent on a point that is central to the issue—the fact that an extension of detention can be made only if more time is required for investigation and in order to bring cases before the court, and is not intended to be some form of preventive detention. Will the Minister confirm that that is still the Government’s view? It frames the whole of the discussion from that point on.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the evidence that the Home Secretary gave to the Joint Committee, and I am happy to confirm that that retains and maintains the Government’s position on the use of the fast-track legislation and the emergency provisions that we have talked about.

New clause 13 introduces an urgent order-making power for the Secretary of State temporarily to increase the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects under schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 from 14 days to 28 days in very limited circumstances.

An order may be made only where the Secretary of State considers that to be necessary, by reason of urgency. This is an emergency power exercisable only when Parliament is dissolved, or in the period before the Queen’s Speech following the Dissolution of Parliament.

As I have said already, the counter-terrorism review that the Government initiated, which reported at the start of the year, concluded that the limit on pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects should be set at 14 days and that this should be reflected in primary legislation, which is what we have in the Bill. The counter-terrorism review, after examining the options for dealing with the emergency situation, stated that emergency legislation extending the period of pre-charge detention to 28 days should be drafted and discussed with the Opposition but not introduced, in order to deal with urgent situations in which more than 14 days is considered necessary, for example in response to multiple co-ordinated attacks and/or during multiple, large and simultaneous investigations. Lord Macdonald, who was the independent reviewer of the Government’s counter-terrorism analysis, agreed with that, stating:

“It is my clear conclusion that the evidence gathered by the Review failed to support a case for 28 day pre-charge detention. No period in excess of 14 days has been sought by police or prosecutors since 2007, and no period in excess of 21 days has been sought since 2006…I agree with the Review’s conclusion that the risk of an exceptional event, requiring a temporary return to 28 days, is best catered for by having emergency legislation ready for placing before Parliament in that eventuality. This is the option most strongly supported by the evidence gathered by the Review.”

[Alun Michael]

I am following the logic of what the Minister says very carefully. He referred to multiple attacks and multiple investigations. Does he accept that multiple attacks in themselves would not justify the use of the power, and that it is the weight of investigation and preparation of cases that would be the trigger? I know that this sounds a little like dancing on the head of a pin, but I hope that he will accept that clarity here is crucial to an understanding of what the Government intend.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman will obviously have seen the Home Secretary’s response to the Joint Committee’s report. In relation to legislating for exceptional circumstances, the Committee agrees that it does not make sense to have an exhaustive list. She set out three broad scenarios in which a longer period of pre-charge detention may be necessary in response to a fundamental change in the threat environment: first, when the police and Crown Prosecution Service anticipate that multiple, complex and simultaneous investigations would necessitate 28 days’ detention; secondly, during an investigation or series of investigations—but before arrests—that were so complex or significant that 14 days was not considered sufficient; and thirdly, during an investigation but after arrests had taken place. That was how the Home Secretary framed it, and that is the scenario and the analysis that we would point to in this context—although the Joint Committee did set out some other thoughts on exceptional circumstances, which the Home Secretary and the Government welcome as a helpful guide for supplementing the analysis that she set out in the three points to which I have already alluded. Therefore, I think that it is helpful to Parliament to have the additional points referred to in the Joint Committee’s report available to inform consideration in this regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Parliament has shown itself capable in the past of conducting debates about sensitive issues and of being recalled quickly in exceptional circumstances. The current consideration of issues such as phone hacking illustrates how Parliament can consider and discuss very sensitive issues, and Parliament’s response to the riots over the summer also highlighted the fact that it is possible for the House to be recalled and to return at very short notice.

We return, however, to the principle that maintaining 14 days in primary legislation, rather than having a general order-making power, represents a clear expression of the very exceptional nature of the powers sought, gives Parliament the opportunity to debate the issues and, crucially, avoids 28 days becoming the maximum by default, as it appeared to be under the previous Government.

[Alun Michael]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I do not think that anybody is arguing for access to periods in excess of 14 days in normal circumstances. The principle that he underlines is absolutely right, but the problem with a debate by the House of Commons is that the evidence of the need for a longer period will be based only on a specific case or number of cases. If we have a massive number of cases, we will get away from the individual case, but that is an unlikely circumstance, and if the need for detention beyond 14 days relates just to one case, or to two or three, it is almost impossible to envisage a debate that would not refer to them—so what would be the point of such a debate?

[James Brokenshire]

That point was considered in the counter-terrorism review, and the view clearly expressed was that the debates and consideration would need to be handled carefully, but in our judgment that does not make the process impossible; far from it. Indeed, as I have told the House, Lord Macdonald, in his review of counter-terrorism, said that that was the appropriate way to proceed, reflecting what I have said about telegraphing very clearly the norm: 14 days, rather than 28 days. Therefore, we judge that this measure is the appropriate way forward, but no contingency mechanism will be perfect and meet all the needs of everybody. We do believe, however, that it is workable and practical, and underlines most clearly the norm for pre-charge detention.

[James Brokenshire]

I have already said that on this matter neither I nor the Home Secretary feel that crystal ball-gazing is appropriate, but we are looking at exceptional circumstances, and as I have said the process can be handled and managed by the House. We have seen circumstances in which matters have been handled sensitively, and, although we recognise that that issue is a factor, we think that it can be addressed through the consideration of emergency legislation and the recall of Parliament.

Importantly, we have allowed scrutiny of the draft Bill, its operation and functions, so, if it is necessary to take legislation through the House, such deliberation and consideration will be aided by the scrutiny and exceptional work that the Joint Committee has already undertaken.

[Alun Michael]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he is dealing with important issues. He is right about scrutiny, but it cannot simply be the threat that leads to the power before us being brought in. That would apply to prevention of terrorism legislation, to the Emergency Powers Act 1964 and so on, but in relation to this power only the investigation and preparation of specific cases and the need for additional time can justify the use of such legislation. The House can be sensitive and, in some circumstances, speedy, but surely the Minister accepts that in the consideration of such matters there is a fault line which is problematic for the Government and for the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need shorter interventions, as we still have a lot of business to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 13. I welcomed the Government’s review of counter-terrorism security powers, which concluded that the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorists should be 14 days. I had anticipated that conclusion, but I had not anticipated that the review would further conclude that there might be exceptional circumstances in which it was necessary to increase the limit on pre-charge detention to 28 days. I cannot foresee the exceptional circumstances in which that might be needed, but I suppose that exceptional circumstances are, by definition, very hard to foresee.

Once the review had concluded that there might be such exceptional circumstances, measures had to be put in place, and I support the Government’s approach to fast-track primary legislation. My concern is that, if we had not done that, we might not have had in place the necessary safeguards to ensure that we would seek an extension to 28 days only in exceptional circumstances.

Clearly, this is not as elegant a solution as simply opting for 14 days. In requiring the additional step, we must ensure that pressure is maintained during the first 14 days to ensure that cases are very actively pursued. I have been told that, in some cases, there has not been quite the necessary degree of energy and commitment during those 14 days. Creating a significant hurdle for exceptional circumstances that requires a parliamentary legislative process should ensure that the necessary safeguards are operated, and it reflects the fact that we have not used 14 days since 2007.

I welcome what the Government are doing. They have identified the need for emergency legislation to be available not only while Parliament is sitting but when it is in recess, and the issue that was correctly identified with regard to Dissolution has also had to be addressed. I am happy to speak in favour of new clause 13 and to welcome it this evening.

[Alun Michael]

The Minister responded reasonably to interventions earlier and I welcome the tone with which he has responded to the debate. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was absolutely right that the Government have dug themselves into a hole, and we are trying to help the Home Secretary and the Minister to climb out of it.

The Minister accepted that the powers in the emergency legislation cannot be triggered on the basis of the threat level, but only by the need for extra time for specific investigations. The debates on emergency legislation would therefore either be so general and free from evidence as to be meaningless in terms of scrutiny, or be about specific cases, in which event they could be prejudiced. The right way is for a clearly exceptional power to be set out in primary legislation, with a high bar and stringent requirements to make abuse virtually impossible. As the Government have set their face against that approach, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and the rest of us have tabled new clause 14, which is a reasonable attempt to find a way around this that would not be damaging to the reputation of the Government, this House or the legislative process.

I urge the Minister, if he can do nothing else, to say that he has heard the debate and to give an undertaking to think further on these points, which are made not to cause difficulties for Ministers, but to try to enable the Government to get us to the right place as far as principle and law are concerned.

[James Brokenshire]

We have had a good debate on the new clauses. I again pay tribute to the work of the Joint Committee for scrutinising the emergency legislation and, in many ways, for the nature of the debate that we have had this evening.

It is correct to say that there is no perfect solution to any of the scenarios raised—I have said that in respect to the manner in which we have considered this issue, too—but it ultimately comes down to the judgment about settling on 14 days. We have heard contributions from all parts of the House acknowledging that 14 days is now the accepted period for pre-charge detention; that is a recognition on both sides of where to strike the appropriate balance. I very much welcome the comments that have been made about that. If 28 days is absolutely the exception, the structure that we create must recognise that. That is why, although I accept both the help and assistance that has been proffered across the House this evening and the work of the Joint Committee, we have resolved in reflecting on the issue that the structure that is being created with the draft emergency legislation, along with new clause 13, is the appropriate way forward.

At one stage there was a suggestion that, for example, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 might provide a mechanism for dealing with the issue. That was not the view of the Joint Committee, which is a view that we share. However, it is appropriate that exceptional circumstances may justify a 28-day detention, and the Home Secretary’s letter set out those three scenarios. They are: a fundamental change in the threat environment; an investigation or series of investigations—albeit before arrest—that were so complex or significant that 14 days was not considered sufficient; and a scenario that arose during an investigation but after an arrest had taken place. Those are the three elements of exceptional circumstances which we have focused on for when powers might need to be sought to increase the period.

However, as other Members have said, we hope that that scenario would not arise or ever exist. Goodness only knows, that is not something that we would wish to contemplate, but we have to contemplate it, hence the reason why we have drafted the emergency legislation and the new clause before the House. We believe that the structure being created is reliable and available, and that the House is able to make the distinction and understand its role, as contrasted with that of the judiciary; hence the reason why I commend new clause 13 to the House and urge Members to reject new clause 14, although I recognise the important points that the Joint Committee made. In many ways we have reflected on that and have sought to incorporate certain of the Joint Committee’s recommendations in the new clause, but on balance and after careful consideration—