Counter-terrorism Codes of Practice

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The Terrorism Act 2000 (Codes of Practice for the Exercise of Stop and Search Powers) Order 2012 has been laid before Parliament today. This order introduces codes of practice for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, governing the use of terrorism stop and search powers. It reflects one of the recommendations from the Government’s review of counter-terrorism and security powers, published in January 2011. The review recommended that stop and search powers under sections 44 to 47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which, when and where authorised, allowed police to carry out stops and searches without reasonable suspicion, should be repealed and replaced with a more focused power. This recommendation was based on the Government’s commitment to ensure that our counter-terrorism powers are both effective and fair.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provides the police with more circumscribed powers to authorise stop and search of persons and vehicles without reasonable suspicion (section 47A) in exceptional circumstances. This places the powers provided by the Terrorism Act 2000 Remedial Order 2011 on a permanent footing. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 also changes stop and search powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 (sections 43 and 43A) which require reasonable suspicion to enable searches of vehicles or their occupants. The powers contained within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and the robust statutory framework provided by these codes, provide the police with the powers they need to protect the public while ensuring that there are robust safeguards to prevent a return to the previous widespread misuse of stop and search powers.

A further recommendation from the Government’s review of counter-terrorism and security powers was to introduce provisions contained in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 which will enable the post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects. Post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects could help in prosecutions and may encourage terrorist suspects to assist investigations. In order to allow post-charge questioning to be commenced, and to make a number of other necessary changes, three orders have been laid which make changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) codes of practice C, G and H and introduce a new code of practice for the video recording with sound of interviews carried out under section 41 of, and schedule 7 to, the Terrorism Act 2000 and post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, G and H) Order 2012 makes changes to the PACE codes of practice relating to detention, treatment and questioning (code C), power of arrest (code G) and detention, treatment and questioning of suspected terrorists (code H). Other than the changes to code H relating to post-charge questioning, the major substantive changes to codes C and H increase safeguards in the procedure to be followed by the police where a detainee changes their mind about wanting legal advice and aid the efficient operation of custody suites by clarifying what the custody officer can delegate to other staff. The changes to code G, alongside what is now section 149 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, deliver on three coalition commitments by giving guidance to police officers considering making an arrest on how to consider whether the individual was acting in self-defence, to protect another or to maintain discipline in a school.

The Terrorism Act 2000 (Video Recording with Sound of Interviews and Associated Code of Practice) Order 2012 and the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 (Code of Practice for the Video Recording with Sound of Post-Charge Questioning) Order 2012, introduce a new code of practice for the video recording with sound of interviews carried out under section 41 of, and schedule 7 to, the Terrorism Act 2000 and post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. These changes will ensure the necessary safeguards are in place to enable the post-charge questioning powers to be commenced shortly.

Home Department

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Sandra Osborne: Does the Minister think it is for the EHRC to decide completely to withdraw a service from Scotland and Wales? Surely, that is something the Government should be interested in.

[James Brokenshire]

We want the EHRC to become a valued and respected national institution. To do so, it must focus on the areas in which it alone can add value, and it must be able to demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money. We will respond to the consultation shortly. We will also appoint a new chief executive shortly.

[Official Report, 24 April 2012, Vol. 543, c. 252WH.]

Letter of correction from James Brokenshire:

An error has been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne).

The correct answer should have been:

[James Brokenshire]

We want the EHRC to become a valued and respected national institution. To do so, it must focus on the areas in which it alone can add value, and it must be able to demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money. We will respond to the consultation shortly. We will also appoint a new Chair shortly.

Justice and Home Affairs pre-Council Statement

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The Justice and Home Affairs Council is due to be held on 26 and 27 April in Luxembourg. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and I intend to attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed:

The Council will begin in mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). The presidency will invite an exchange of views by member states and look to agree the road map to ensure coherent EU action on migratory pressures. This item builds on discussions at previous Councils, with the presidency presenting its “road map” setting out strategic priorities, goals and actions to address current migratory pressures on the EU. The UK supports this work to combat illegal flows across the external border and within the EU, including combating fraud and abuse of free movement by third-country nationals.

Next there will be an update on the second generation Schengen information system (SIS II). The UK continues to support the continuation of the current SIS II project. The Commission has committed to deliver the central element of SIS II in early 2013.

The main Council will start with a “state of play” report by the presidency on the Common European Asylum System, which will set out the progress that has been made on the package to date, including the latest on current negotiations. The presidency has been mandated to start negotiations with the European Parliament on the proposals to recast the Reception Conditions Directive and the Dublin III Regulation; some progress has been made in Council discussions the Asylum Procedures Directive, but discussions continue; and the negotiations on the Eurodac Regulation remain on hold due to the majority of delegations supporting the insertion of provisions on access for law enforcement reasons that have not been proposed by the Commission. No discussion is anticipated.

The presidency is seeking to reach a general approach on the EU-PNR directive. The directive provides a framework for the collection and processing of passenger name record data by member states. The Government support this text, which achieves our primary negotiating objective: provision for data collection from flights within the EU.

The Council will be asked to consider its position on the regulation on the marketing and use of explosives precursors in the light of amendments proposed by the European Parliament. The proposal seeks to restrict access by the general public to certain high-strength chemicals that can be used to manufacture home-made explosives. The current draft of the proposal is in line with UK objectives and the Government support presidency efforts to make progress.

Over lunch there will be a discussion on terrorism, including the EU CT co-ordinator, Gilles de Kerchove. The lunch discussion provides an opportunity to share our current assessment of the threat and provide further reassurance around Olympic security. The Council will also be asked to adopt Council conclusions on de-radicalisation and disengagement from terrorist activities. The Council conclusions affirm that terrorism poses a threat to all states, individuals and communities, and seek to promote the exchange of information and best practice between member states on preventing violent extremism and radicalisation. The UK supports this text.

The Council will also be asked to agree Council conclusions on a renewed global approach to migration and mobility. The existing global approach provides the framework for the EU’s external migration policy. We consider the proposed conclusions to be acceptable, and believe they will lead to a more strategic approach, including a strong focus on enhanced practical co-operation.

There will also be a discussion on readmission agreements, with the aim of unblocking negotiations on the EU readmission agreement with Turkey. The Government support the presidency’s intention to finalise that readmission agreement, and believe that this should occur as part of a broader EU dialogue on partnership with Turkey to address issues across the JHA field, including drugs and terrorism, as well as tackling illegal immigration.

The Justice day will begin with a presentation by the Commission of its proposal for a directive on the confiscation of criminal assets, which aims to establish minimum standards in the freezing and confiscation of the proceeds and instrumentalities of crime in the EU. The directive currently includes the inclusion of non-conviction based confiscation powers (which enable the confiscation of the proceeds of crime when criminal conviction is impossible), which is an approach the UK has advocated.

The presidency will seek a partial general approach on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation. The proposal aims to establish minimum EU rules concerning the definition of criminal offences for market abuse. The directive complements the broader framework for tackling market abuse, which is provided for in the accompanying market abuse regulation. The UK has not opted in to this directive.

There will be an orientation debate on certain issues for the proposed regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters. This will be the first time that this matter has been discussed at Council. The instrument aims to establish an effective recognition and enforcement process of protective/preventative orders among member states and complements the directive on the European protection order in criminal matters. The UK supports the overall policy aim of the proposal and has opted in to it.

There will be an exchange of views on certain issues on EU accession to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The accession by the EU will mean that the EU and its institutions are directly bound by the convention. This will mean that applicants will be able to bring cases against the EU instead of, or as well as, states which are parties to the convention. The Government are keen to ensure that the accession agreement is both workable and achievable, and meets the needs of the EU and its member states as well as the members of the Council of Europe. In particular the UK is seeking further clarity on what the Union’s internal rules for dealing with the EU’s participation in the ECHR should be.

There will also be an update on the implementation of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS), a computerised exchange system for criminal convictions between EU countries. The ECRIS implementation date is 27 April. The UK expects to implement ECRIS on time.

Under AOB the presidency will provide an update on current legislative proposals and Hungary will provide information to the Council on the remembrance for victims of totalitarian regimes. Hungary is to host this year’s events to commemorate the victims of totalitarian regimes in Europe.

Over lunch, there will be a discussion on “Justice for Growth”, which is the Commission’s term for a range of civil law instruments that it considers will contribute to the EU’s growth agenda.

Stephen Lawrence

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on whether she will establish a public inquiry into recent allegations that corruption within the Metropolitan police force interfered with the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

May I first apologise to the House for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who is overseas on Government business?

It is a matter of deep regret that it took 19 years to achieve convictions for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. In the years since he was murdered, the Lawrence family fought tirelessly for justice and, without their efforts, it is unlikely that either Gary Dobson or David Norris would have been convicted. I hope that the verdicts in January will finally have delivered some comfort to the Lawrence family.

Allegations of corruption in the murder investigation have been looked at on two previous occasions. They were examined by the Macpherson inquiry, which concluded that

“no collusion or corruption is proved to have infected the investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder.”

The allegations were also looked at by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2006, which again was unable to find any corruption in the original murder investigation. Following the convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris, further allegations of corruption have come to light. As a result, the solicitor acting on behalf of Mrs Lawrence has written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asking her to set up a public inquiry.

Allegations of police corruption must always be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. It is essential that we ensure that the actions and behaviours of any corrupt police officers do not undermine public confidence in the police’s ability to respond to, investigate and fight crime. The Metropolitan police are currently carrying out an internal review into these corruption allegations and we await their findings. I would like to reassure Members of the House that my right hon. Friend is treating these issues with the utmost seriousness. She is currently considering her decision and has offered to meet Doreen Lawrence to discuss the issues further. My right hon. Friend will keep the House updated.

[Clive Efford]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, as far as it goes. The murder of Stephen Lawrence, and his family’s campaign for justice, led to the Macpherson inquiry, which was a landmark for policing in this country. One of Macpherson’s conclusions that remains in doubt relates to whether police corruption hampered the inquiry into Stephen’s murder. We have now seen fresh evidence that might call that conclusion into question.

Over the past two months, I have tabled questions on two occasions but have been fobbed off with holding answers. Yesterday, however, reports in the press that had clearly been sanctioned by the Home Office suggested that the Home Secretary had told the Lawrence family that she shared their concerns. If that is the case, can we take it that the Minister accepts that there is evidence of police corruption that is worthy of further inquiry?

There is also speculation that one of the Secretary of State’s reasons for not setting up an inquiry is cost, and it has been stated that there could be swifter and cheaper ways of dealing with the matter. According to reports, the police have taken six weeks and still cannot confirm whether all the relevant documents relating to Operation Russell were sent to the inquiry. In the light of that, will the Minister tell us what constitutes “swift” in the context of an inquiry? We cannot have any more bluster and delay. There has been far too much since the moment Stephen Lawrence was murdered.

Stephen’s family are asking for an inquiry into this matter. Will the Minister now answer my questions? Does he accept that only an independent, public inquiry will satisfy public concerns over the new allegations? Does he also accept that, as there has already been too much delay, such an inquiry should be expedited as quickly as possible, either by reconvening the Macpherson inquiry or by setting up a new inquiry team to follow on with its work?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and underline the seriousness we attach to the current allegations. The Home Secretary is looking very closely at this matter, but wishes the Metropolitan police’s internal review into the current allegations to conclude to inform her determination of what next steps are appropriate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those investigations should be carried out by the Metropolitan police swiftly in order to inform further consideration of whether a public inquiry is or is not appropriate.

I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that this matter will be looked at speedily and closely by the Home Secretary, who will continue to have discussions with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. It is essential to have trust and confidence in the policing provided within London and in the rest of the country. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Home Office has not sought in any way to brief this out, and that any decisions made by the Home Secretary should be reported to this House first. I can assure him that this matter will be dealt with entirely appropriately to provide the necessary reassurance on this significant matter—to him, to his constituents and to the Lawrence family.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I hope that my hon. Friend will, in time, be able to give fuller replies to the questions put by the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), to whom I pay tribute, along with John Austin, for calling for the original inquiry.

I suggest that the Home Secretary or my hon. Friend consult the original commission—including John Sentamu, now Archbishop of York, and Dr Richard Stone—and acknowledge that, although we recognise that possible criminal proceedings may follow in this case, it was possible for criminal convictions to take place after the original Macpherson inquiry.

We all know that most police want to nick criminals and bring them to justice, and that most police officers are not racist by institutional or any other means, but those who are need to discover that the time has gone when the colour of someone’s skin should be viewed as more important than the colour of their eyes or their hair.

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s last comment: racism has no part and no place in the policing of our country. I pay tribute to the important steps that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has taken in underlining that message and to some of the actions that he is already taking to ensure that that message on policing in London is sent out loud and clear, including the introduction of CCTV cameras into some vehicles to provide greater transparency and accountability. These are issues that the Home Secretary is taking into careful consideration. As I said, she wishes the response of the current corruption investigations conducted by the Metropolitan police to be reported to her; she will then be able to determine the appropriate next steps in that regard.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Minister has confirmed the evidence given by the Home Secretary to the Select Committee on Home Affairs this morning on this very point. Doreen Lawrence has written to me and other members of the Committee about the issue of an inquiry. What concerns me is the fact that the inquiry conducted by the Metropolitan police is an internal one. In order to satisfy the public and all those Members who have been aware of this issue over a long period, would it not be better if this were conducted not by an external force, but by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, so that the Lawrence family can feel that a proper look has been taken before the issue of a public inquiry can be decided on?

[James Brokenshire]

The appropriate course of action is for the Metropolitan police to conclude its current investigations appropriately, but as speedily as is practicable. Following the receipt of that report, the Home Secretary will determine what further action may be appropriate to give necessary reassurance about the process to the family and to the community. My right hon. Friend will then consider whether a public inquiry is or is not appropriate in the light of the responses she receives from the Metropolitan police.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

The whiff of corruption has long hung over the investigation into Stephen Lawrence’s murder, and I hope very much that, as a result of these inquiries, the truth about just how incompetently it was conducted will finally emerge. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that having faced the charge of institutional racism, the Metropolitan police have risen to the challenge and have left no stone unturned in trying to bring the killers finally to justice, and does he share my confidence that this inquiry will be expedited with accuracy?

[James Brokenshire]

I think we should recognise the steps that have been taken since the Macpherson inquiry to try to root out racism in the Metropolitan police and, indeed, in other police forces, but there is clearly more to be done. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner said recently:

“We have a duty to challenge or report any behaviour by colleagues which is less than the high standard demanded by the service and Londoners themselves”.

He added:

“ You cannot avoid that duty. Nor can I."

He also said:

“I will not stand for any racism or racists in the Met.”

I entirely endorse that message.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I welcome the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), and also his persistent campaigning and determination to secure justice for Stephen Lawrence on behalf of his family.

Stephen Lawrence was murdered in an unprovoked racist attack 19 years ago on Sunday. The country was shocked both by the murder and by the failure of the initial investigation to bring Stephen’s murderers to justice. It is only the determination and dignity of the Lawrence family that has persisted, and has led to the two recent convictions.

Two new allegations of police corruption in the original inquiry have been reported in the media. Those allegations are very serious. The first is that information on corruption was available, but was not passed on to the Macpherson inquiry. The second is that additional witness testimony about corruption in the original inquiry is now available, and must be looked at afresh.

I urge the Home Secretary to go further than simply organising an internal Met review. The new information should be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission immediately so that it can pursue a full criminal investigation of the allegations. I also support the call by Doreen Lawrence, and by my hon. Friend, for a public inquiry, perhaps through a reconvening of the Macpherson inquiry. We need to know not simply whether criminal corruption was involved, but whether information was withheld from the original inquiry and whether that has implications for the inquiry’s conclusions. A public inquiry could also take the opportunity to review the progress that has been made in implementing the 70 recommendations of the Macpherson report.

There have been progress and change over the last decade, but people are still rightly concerned about the recent serious allegations of racism against individual officers, which are now being investigated. The Minister quoted the new commissioner, who has rightly made clear his determination that there should be zero tolerance of racism in the Met and, of course, any force. In support of his work, a new inquiry could review the progress that has been made and could also make further recommendations.

Confidence in the police must be complete, and the mistakes of the past cannot be left to fester. We owe it to Stephen’s memory to ensure that these allegations are investigated in full now.

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s recognition of some of the important steps that have been taken since the initial Macpherson inquiry. I think it essential for us to emphasise that racism has no place or part in modern policing, and to be robust in confronting issues of corruption.

It is notable that some of the more recent claims, cases and allegations involving racism in the police have come from within the force itself. That, I think, underlines the fact that the police are taking these issues much more seriously, and are ensuring that officers who engage in unacceptable behaviour are dealt with appropriately.

The right hon. Lady has identified some of the serious new allegations made about the original Macpherson inquiry and also about the availability of information or otherwise. It is precisely those matters that the Metropolitan police are examining. The Home Secretary is awaiting their response before considering any appropriate next steps and whether a public inquiry is needed to give the necessary reassurance to the Lawrence family, the community and the public. It is therefore appropriate that the investigation be undertaken appropriately, but also with due speed, to ensure that we can take the necessary action and that the necessary support and safeguards are put in place. We therefore look forward to receiving that report from the Metropolitan police, so that the Home Secretary can then determine what is appropriate in the context of the next steps.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital for public confidence in the Metropolitan police that any instances of racist behaviour by individuals in the organisation should be dealt with and be seen to be dealt with?

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely agree, which is why the cases are being considered by the Metropolitan police. Also, there are separate, ongoing investigations into other allegations by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. However, it is important that we take broader steps to deal with issues of corruption. The Government have set in train a number of inquiries and reports, and we shall be following through on that, underlining the point that if such incidents are not dealt with appropriately, they undermine the very confidence in the police service that we all want to enable it to get on with the job of protecting our communities.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the circumstances of the death of Stephen Lawrence echo down the years. He will know—and I remember—that in the early years after the death, it was impossible to get interest in the case, either in this House or in the media. In fact, the then Conservative Government refused an inquiry over and over again. Given the history of this case and the slowness of the past Government to act on it, does the Minister agree that in order to give closure to the Lawrence family, affirm the importance of public confidence in the police, and say to the wider society, “Racist violence and collusion with racist violence in these current, difficult economic circumstances will not be tolerated,” it is important that the coalition Government should bring forward an inquiry in which everybody can have confidence?

[James Brokenshire]

I accept the hon. Lady’s general points about the need for public assurance. Our judgment is that it is appropriate for the Metropolitan police to investigate the current allegations of corruption, and that once that has been provided, it is absolutely right and proper for the Home Secretary to look at that and consider whether a public inquiry is or is not required to provide the necessary reassurance to the public.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

We must listen to the Lawrence family. They have lived with the tragic death of their son and with police incompetence for nearly 20 years. Will the Minister comment on whether a public inquiry might also need to consider earlier cases of police corruption, such as that involving Daniel Morgan?

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly pay tribute to the work of the Lawrence family. As I think I said in my opening response, I am sure that if it were not for their tireless fight for justice, we would not have seen the convictions that we have. I do not want to speculate on what the response may be once we see the outcome of the response from the Metropolitan Police Service. However, let me say to my right hon. Friend that the Government take the issue of corruption in the police service extremely seriously. That is why we have established the Leveson inquiry, why the Home Secretary commissioned the Independent Police Complaints Commission to provide a report on corruption in the police service, and why she commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to consider instances of undue influence, inappropriate arrangements and other abuses of power in police relationships.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister update the House on investigations involving the other defendants in the original trial? Will he also say why the Home Secretary has such confidence in an internal review given all that has happened in the Met in relation to allegations of corruption, and why in this case it is not thought that the IPCC should be engaged in any review?

[James Brokenshire]

In response to the right hon. Gentleman’s first question, what I can say is that the police have been very clear that investigations in relation to this matter continue, and it is right and proper that all appropriate lines of inquiry are followed through. I say in response to his second question that I think it is appropriate for the Metropolitan Police Service to be able to look at this matter and provide a response, and then for the Home Secretary to determine what the next steps should be.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The vast majority of serving Metropolitan police officers abhor racism in all its forms, but clearly there are still pockets of concern. What discussions have taken place with the commissioner on protecting whistleblowers who bring such matters to the attention of senior police officers, because officers must be protected and feel confident about reporting misdeeds?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point: police officers should be able to air their concerns and be confident that those matters will be dealt with appropriately. A number of recent cases have been brought as a direct consequence of reports being made by police officers. I hope that that will continue and give confidence that if matters of this kind are referred, appropriate action will be taken clearly and robustly.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

While recognising both the progress that has been made in the Metropolitan police since the Macpherson inquiry and the determination of the current commissioner to root out corruption and racism in the Met, as a south-east London MP—whose constituency is very close to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who raised the urgent question, and in whose constituency Stephen Lawrence was murdered—the Minister will, I am sure, recognise that the legacy of this case has had a corrosive effect on the local community’s confidence in the integrity of the police, and that nothing less than a genuinely independent examination of these latest allegations will suffice.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I am under no illusions as to the impact this appalling case has had within the south-east London community, and more broadly, and the need for proper examination. That is what is happening in the current corruption investigation that the Metropolitan police are undertaking. We judge it to be appropriate for that to be followed through, and for the report on that to go to the Home Secretary and for the Home Secretary to decide what steps might then be appropriate in the light of that report.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

In my constituency, many young people from the black and minority ethnic community do not believe the police force is their police force. One of the principal reasons is that they think racism still manifests itself in a minority of police officers. Regardless of the Home Secretary’s deliberations and decisions, does the Minister agree that the true cost that should be paid is for senior police officers to get hold of these individuals and sack them for gross misconduct?

[James Brokenshire]

Any allegations that have been made should be investigated properly and thoroughly, and anyone found to be responsible for wrongdoing should be dealt with in the firmest and most robust way. I think it is appropriate that matters are allowed to be investigated, but I do not in any way underestimate the seriousness of the issues at hand, the need for matters to be resolved speedily and the need for the public to have the necessary confidence in the police.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)? What we do not want is a rerun of what occurred after the murder, when all attempts to get an inquiry were dismissed. I was one of those who, along with my hon. Friend, was urging such an inquiry at the time. Was not the inquiry set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) fully justified? Just imagine what the position would have been if it had not been established. I hope the Home Secretary will seriously consider the latest requests from the family.

[James Brokenshire]

Certainly I recognise the very important recommendations made as a consequence of the Macpherson inquiry. As I have said, the police service has taken really important steps since then to deal with racism in the police. The police service is not institutionally racist, but further steps do need to be taken. The lead that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has provided on this in his recent statements should be followed throughout the police service across the country.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Given how long it took to bring Stephen’s killers to justice, is it not important that we get swift answers to these latest allegations in a way that instils public confidence, not just for the sake of Stephen’s family, but because of the urgent need to build confidence in our police among black and minority ethnic communities and because a single allegation of corruption or racism against one officer undoes all the good work that so many officers do on our streets?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has, again, made a very important point about the impact that allegations of corruption have on confidence in our police. This is why the Home Secretary takes these current allegations extremely seriously. In this broader context, it is also why she has set in train a number of steps to provide assurance on these issues. Obviously relevant inquiries have been undertaken in respect of corruption to provide recommendations so that we can all have that confidence in our policing. So many good police officers are out there doing a difficult job day in, day out, and it is important that these matters are dealt with appropriately so that their work is recognised and they can get on with their job.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Is not the principal allegation currently that the Russell report, which investigated the behaviour of a key police officer in the original matters, was not given to the inquiry members? As the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has pointed out, it is possible to ask current inquiry members whether they got that report. Given that the allegation is that the Metropolitan police were able to suborn a public inquiry, I am deeply concerned at the extent to which the Minister seems to think it is all right to leave the timetable in the hands of the police. Can he reassure the House on this?

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly can reassure the hon. Lady as to the absolute seriousness with which the Home Secretary takes this matter; I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be having further discussions with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about the timing of the investigations, in recognition of the public concern attached to this.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On a day when some parts of the media have not necessarily had the most cordial of exchanges with politicians, would the Minister like to put on the record, with me, the thanks of many hon. Members for the work of the Daily Mail in campaigning for justice for Stephen Lawrence and his family, and trying to stamp out racism?

[James Brokenshire]

As I said, the tireless work of the Lawrence family in seeking to bring about justice has been extraordinary, and I know that others have campaigned tirelessly in support of them. Obviously, convictions have been secured and investigations continue in relation to this appalling crime. I very much look forward to the police’s further work in seeking to follow all appropriate lines of inquiry in their continuing investigations into the Lawrence murder.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Is not the nub of the issue the fact that communities often do not feel that the police are accountable to them? What measures are the Government taking to improve police accountability?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are taking a number of different steps to create greater professionalism within the police service with the establishment of the new police professional body to lead work to develop professionalism and set standards for the service. Obviously, we will also look to the introduction of police and crime commissioners later this year to provide more direct accountability between the public and the police and to ensure that the police remain in close connection with the communities they seek to serve.

[Mr Speaker]

Patience is rewarded for the representative of Bermondsey and Old Southwark.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has got the message from London MPs and from others that although we absolutely applaud the new commissioner’s robust attitude, everybody now wants the new Mayor, whoever that will be, and the commissioner to refer independently for assessment the continuing racist allegations as regards the Lawrence case as well as other racist allegations? Does he agree that the best thing the Government can do is to ensure that every one of our 43 police forces in England and Wales better reflects the community it serves, particularly in the ethnic mix at the highest level?

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. Friend has highlighted the point about the need for the police service to reflect the diversity in our communities. Although the proportion of black and minority ethnic officers has more than doubled since 2000, there is clearly more work to be done, particularly among the more senior ranks. We are examining whether direct entry or quicker progression might be able to assist in that regard. I can assure him that these matters are considered with the utmost seriousness by the Home Secretary and by me. Let me make it absolutely clear: racism and corruption have absolutely no part to play in our police service.

Association of Chief Police Officers

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Ms Clark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) on raising a number of significant and important questions relating to the Association of Chief Police Officers to which I will respond.

My hon. Friend has made a number of criticisms about the leadership of the police service in England and Wales, but I welcome his positive statement about the work of front-line officers. We must be clear that police officers and staff throughout the country have our support in their fantastic work in keeping us all safe day in, day out.

In the context of some of the specific issues that my hon. Friend raised, I am aware that Sir Hugh Orde, president of ACPO, has written to my hon. Friend about the issues he has raised, and I am satisfied that ACPO has taken and is taking those criticisms seriously. That was demonstrated by the decision of the ACPO cabinet earlier this month to conduct a review of spending on consultants within ACPO. As its president outlined in his letter to my hon. Friend, that review will also look at how financial controls have been applied over the last three years. The whole process will be subject to external scrutiny by Transparency International, and the results will be made public.

A review is the right course of action, and it is appropriate to allow it to proceed and its report to be published before commenting further on the details. I agree that every organisation that receives money must be open and transparent about how that money is spent. Sir Hugh Orde stated that clearly to my hon. Friend in his response to him, and I note that he has agreed to meet my hon. Friend to discuss any further issues in detail.

My hon. Friend highlighted a significant point about ACPO’s independence. It is a private company limited by guarantee. It is not owned or controlled by the Home Office, and is operationally independent. The discussion of ACPO’s future role and funding must be framed in the light of the wider work taking place on police reform. As part of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s intention, which is laid out in the White Paper, “Policing in the 21st century”, the Government have embarked on the most radical programme of reform to policing in 50 years. We are currently developing the bodies necessary to support and reinforce those reforms. That work will help to deal with many of the concerns raised today regarding accountability and transparency within policing in England and Wales. We are grateful that ACPO agrees that change is necessary and for the constructive way in which its presidential team are engaging with the Home Office regarding the future of ACPO.

In August 2010, the Home Secretary asked Peter Neyroud to carry out a fundamental review of the delivery of leadership and training functions in policing. In response to the review, the Government announced their intention to create a new police professional body, which presents a unique opportunity further to professionalise policing and increase public accountability. As part of that work, the National Policing Improvement Agency will be phased out by the end of this year.

The Home Secretary has acknowledged a continued need for chief constables to come together for discussion on key operational issues and also when it is in the public interest for them to do so. Indeed, we are clear that chief officers will continue to play a vital role, both within the professional body and as part of a chiefs council, which will work with the new professional body. Together, those two bodies will equip the service with the skills that it needs to deliver effective crime fighting in a changing, leaner and more accountable environment. We are currently working with ACPO and key partners to consider the precise remit of the chiefs council, its relationship with the new body and the transition of ACPO functions. The Government have agreed to continue to fund ACPO’s grant-aid during the 2012-13 financial year while those discussions take place.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Is it the Government’s intention that the two bodies to which the Minister refers will take on all ACPO’s present responsibilities, or will certain areas—perhaps co-ordination on counter-terrorism or serious crime—be the responsibility of a separate body?

[James Brokenshire]

It is precisely those issues that are the subject of the detailed discussions between the Government and ACPO. We will come forward in due course with further details of the police professional body and its precise functions. That will be the right time for the Government to set out in detail proposals for the police professional body, but it may help the right hon. Gentleman if I say this. As the Government have made clear, the challenge for the police service is to reduce crime to make communities feel safer. At the same time, forces must deliver significant savings to meet the challenges set by the spending review. Tackling those two challenges together will require transformational change; it cannot be done by relying on the existing structures at national level in policing. They require a fresh way of thinking. In particular, they require the development of a professional model for policing. At the heart of that model is the creation of the police professional body.

The new body will safeguard the public and fight crime by ensuring professionalism in policing. It will develop skills and leadership, facilitating the drive to reduce bureaucracy, and will have greater public accountability. The professional body will speak for the whole of policing and will directly support police officers at all ranks and civilian policing professionals. It will set and improve standards of professionalism in the police service and will take responsibility for specialist police disciplines. Work is under way on the detailed design of the new body.

The role of the professional body must be understood within the wider policing landscape and, in particular, the transformation in accountability that the introduction of police and crime commissioners will bring. It will need to reflect that shift in how it is constituted, in what it delivers and in how it delivers that. Its most important role will be to act in the public interest.

Key to that, and reflecting the move towards greater accountability, will be the way in which the professional body is structured. It will be chaired by someone independent of the police service, and its board will have an equal balance of police service and non-police service representatives, including police and crime commissioners. It will be open and transparent. In taking its work forwards, it will need to take into account public need in setting and inculcating standards among officers and staff. It will also need to take into consideration the cost of any changes it recommends to develop professionalism. That will form a crucial part of its ability to enhance the British model of policing by consent.

Many criticisms have been made today of the accountability and transparency of decision making by senior police officers. There are, however, clear examples of where the police have responded impressively to the need for change. This is one public service whose leaders generally recognise the difficult economic times and understand the benefits that reform can bring. Greater Manchester police, for example, have saved £62 million a year from their support functions, releasing 348 police officers from those roles so that they can get back to front-line work. Surrey police have carried out a significant restructuring, which has allowed them to commit to increasing constable numbers by up to 200 over the next four years.

Some forces are going even further, moving beyond restructuring and outsourcing, to building strategic relationships with the private sector. This is not about privatisation; policing will remain a public service. However, by harnessing private sector innovation, skills and economies of scale, forces can transform how they work and improve the service they provide to the public.

As well as saving money, our reforms are about making policing better. We are rebuilding the link between the police and the public. In November, the first elections for police and crime commissioners will take place. Elected by local people, commissioners will have the democratic mandate to set their local police force budget, and they will respond to local people’s concerns by setting the force’s priorities.

The direction of police reform provides a clear basis for the way in which the police professional body will operate. The police service is becoming more open, more transparent and more accountable to the public, and it is right and proper that that is the case.

In “Policing in the 21st Century”, we said that we expect chief police officers to continue to play a key role in advising the Government, police and crime commissioners and the police service on strategy and best practice. We will also expect chief constables to play a leading role in driving value for money and to have the capability to drive out costs in their forces.

ACPO is operationally independent of the Home Office, so it is a matter for the company directors to determine its future. ACPO has played a valuable role since it was established in 1948, providing a means for chief constables to come together to agree a common way of working in the absence of any federal policing structures. I re-emphasise that the Government fully appreciate the contribution that chief officers continue to make at a national and local level, particularly those chiefs who are directly supporting the substantial reform agenda. We look forward to building on all that ACPO has achieved.

The Government’s agenda for police reform is strong and coherent, and will free the police to fight crime at a national and local level, deliver better value for taxpayers and give the public a stronger voice.

Equality and Human Rights Commission

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) on securing this debate, and on her commitment to equality. I apologise for the fact that the Minister for Equalities is unable to be in Westminster Hall this afternoon to respond directly to the debate.

I know of the hard work done by the hon. Member in chairing the all-party group on equalities, and how rigorous that group is in its approach to equality and fairness. Although we may have differences in relation to a number of the issues that she has raised today, the Government welcome the group’s rigour because we are unequivocal in our commitment to equal treatment and equality of opportunity. That is why we have taken a number of significant steps since we were elected to tackle the barriers to equal opportunities and social mobility. Although there will be differences between us this afternoon, I think that there is common recognition of these important issues.

However, on our own the Government will only ever make limited progress. If we are to stamp out prejudice and give everyone the chance to achieve their potential, we need concerted action by individuals, businesses and voluntary organisations across our communities. We also need a strong and effective equality body and national human rights institution to monitor our progress, make recommendations about how we can do better and ensure the law is working as intended.

Although I recognise the EHRC has struggled with a number of issues over the past few years, I pay tribute to several of its ordinary members of staff. However, the commission has struggled with its remit and to demonstrate that it is delivering value for money. As the hon. Lady highlighted, its first three sets of accounts were qualified, attracting criticism from the Public Accounts Committee. Its helpline and grants programmes were found to be poorly administered and poorly targeted. Its conciliation service was not cost-effective, costing almost £5,000 per case—almost 10 times more than those of other mediation providers.

[Sandra Osborne]

I share the Minister’s disappointment that the Minister for Equalities is not here. She sat with me in the Committee that considered what became the Equality Act 2010. No matter what the previous Government wanted to do, she wanted to go further—how things have changed. However, will the Minister confirm the costs I mentioned, as well as the costs the Government have paid for consultancies?

[James Brokenshire]

We will no doubt come on to consultancy. One challenge the commission has faced relates to its use of interim staff, which has caused it some real issues. Over 2009-10, it spent almost £9 million—almost a third of its total pay bill—on an average of just 85 interim staff, or just 16% of its total work force for that year. There is nothing fair about that for the taxpayer.

That is why our Government-wide review of non-departmental public bodies concluded in October 2010 that the EHRC should be retained, but substantially reformed. At the same time, we announced in the spending review that we would more than halve its budget, from £55 million to £26.8 million. I know those cuts are a source of significant concern for the hon. Lady, but she will recognise, although perhaps not agree, that the Government have had to deal with real challenges as a result of the budget deficit left by the previous Government. Difficult decisions and reforms are needed to reduce that deficit.

Moreover, it is clear that even after the budget cuts, the EHRC remains well funded compared with similar bodies in other countries. As an arm’s length body, it is for the EHRC to decide how to manage the budget reductions. The location of the EHRC’s offices and the number of staff it employs at them are operational matters for the board and the management to decide after consultation with staff. If the EHRC is to deliver maximum value for taxpayers’ money, however, it must focus on its core remit—the areas where it alone can add value.

[Sandra Osborne]

Does the Minister think it is for the EHRC to decide completely to withdraw a service from Scotland and Wales? Surely, that is something the Government should be interested in.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady will be aware of the statutory functions imposed on the EHRC, as well as the duties it has in relation to devolution as a consequence, and it has underlined that it will continue to engage with local partners. Decisions on the deployment and location of staff are obviously operational matters for the EHRC, but it has specific legislative responsibilities in relation to the devolved nations, such as the requirement to have specific decision-making committees for Scotland and Wales. It remains committed to working with local stakeholders.

The hon. Lady will know that in March 2011 we set out detailed proposals to reform the EHRC to achieve the focus on its core remit by clarifying its remit; stopping non-core activities and, where appropriate, making alternative provision where those activities can be done better or more cost-effectively by alternative providers; and strengthening its governance and systems to provide greater transparency, accountability and value for money. We received almost 1,000 responses to the consultation. While I recognise that she is impatient for the Government’s response, it is right that we take the time to consider the views expressed before announcing a way forward, and we hope to respond to the consultation shortly. A number of non-legislative reforms are, however, already under way.

I am aware of the hon. Lady’s concerns about the closure of the EHRC’s helpline and the ending of its grants programmes, and I will respond to them directly. I can reassure her that people will be able to receive expert advice and support on discrimination, which is tailored to their individual circumstances, from the new equality advisory and support service that we are commissioning. She challenged me on whether there is a preferred bidder. No, there is not a preferred bidder. The procurement process for a new equality advisory and support service is continuing and no preferred bidder has been selected. The intention is that the process should be completed in May, with the new service becoming operational in September.

Central Government funding for legal advice on discrimination will continue to be available through legal aid to ensure that limited public funds are targeted on those who need it most—the most serious cases in which legal advice or representation is justified. On conciliation, the Ministry of Justice website provides information on, and links to, good quality, accessible and effective mediation for individuals in England and Wales. In addition, a means-tested service for those who cannot afford the fees is available through LawWorks. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that similar provision is also available in Scotland.

We have sought to impose tighter financial controls and to stop waste. The operational independence of the EHRC—a publicly funded body—should not be a justification for financial indiscipline. In March, a new framework document clarifying the relationship between the EHRC and the Government was agreed between the Home Office and the EHRC board. The new framework document makes it clear that the EHRC will comply with Government-wide rules on managing public money, and with public expenditure controls, where they do not interfere with the EHRC’s ability to perform its statutory functions. In addition to establishing tighter financial controls, the new framework document sets out how the EHRC and Government will work together to increase the EHRC’s transparency to Parliament and the public about how it operates.

There have been signs of progress following action by the Government. The EHRC has reduced its dependence on interim staff and now has fewer than 20 in post. It plans to have no interim staff by 1 April 2013. It is moving swiftly to deliver significant reductions to the cost of its corporate support functions through agreeing arrangements to share back-office services with other organisations. It has set out plans to rationalise its accommodation in the next 12 months, including moving out of its expensive central London offices, which will result in further savings of more than £3 million a year. In November last year, there was a significant sign of progress when its first satisfactory set of accounts were laid before Parliament.

On the telephone helpline, the hon. Lady asked whether there had been an equality impact assessment. An equality policy statement was published by the Home Office in December, and the new service will provide a better service for people from disadvantaged groups than the helpline it is replacing. We want the EHRC to become a valued and respected national institution. To do so, it must focus on the areas in which it alone can add value, and it must be able to demonstrate value for taxpayers’ money. We will respond to the consultation shortly. We will also appoint a new chair shortly. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support our plans.[Official Report, 10 May 2012, Vol. 545, c. 1MC.]

Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

2. What plans she has for the Forensic Science Service’s DNA database.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

Since April 2007, the National Policing Improvement Agency, not the Forensic Science Service, has administered the national DNA database.

[Chi Onwurah]

In announcing the closure of the Forensic Science Service, the Minister for Immigration said:

“A competitive market can help drive down prices and improve turnaround times”—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 58WH.]

Last month, a contaminated DNA sample led to the wrong person being charged with rape, and next month the manufacturing consumables DNA database will be destroyed because the private sector does not have the necessary research infrastructure. What will the Minister do to ensure that we maintain our world-beating forensic capability, both for research and criminal justice?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady referred to a specific case which she is no doubt aware the forensic science regulator is investigating. There is absolutely no indication that the case is linked in any way to the transition of services from the Forensic Science Service to commercial providers. She highlighted the need for certain electronic records to be maintained; as part of that transition, electronic records held by the FSS will transfer to the National Policing Improvement Agency by the end of this month. She asked about innovation; it is still very much part of the work that we are looking to forensics providers to do. That is why that is in the contract, and why we will follow through on recommendations.

[Mr Speaker]

We do need to speed up a bit. If the Minister could provide slightly shorter answers, that would be helpful to the House.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

In 1999, Michael Weir was convicted of the murder of Mr Harris. The only link to that crime was DNA found on a glove of Michael Weir’s. Michael Weir’s DNA was taken after he was arrested on a drugs-related charge that had been discontinued two years earlier; he had been discharged. Will the Minister confirm that under the Government’s new plans for DNA retention, Michael Weir’s DNA sample would no longer have been on the database, and Mr Harris’s murderer would never have been brought to justice?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has consistently argued for the indefinite retention of DNA profiles. We certainly recognise the importance of DNA in solving crimes. It is rarely possible to say that convictions could not have been obtained without DNA evidence, although of course the availability of DNA evidence can frequently help to focus an investigation. We have been clear on ensuring that those convicted of crimes remain on the DNA database indefinitely, and speculative searches are undertaken on each occasion.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

May I press the Minister a little further on the high-profile rape case that collapsed due to sample cross-contamination at LGC Forensics? Also, a New Scientist survey shows that three quarters of forensic scientists expect that the coalition’s closure of the FSS will cause more miscarriages of justice. Will the Minister outline the steps that he is taking to ensure that the integrity of the criminal justice system is not undermined by a lack of confidence in the available forensic science services?

[James Brokenshire]

We have absolute confidence in the provision by forensic service providers, and I know that the hon. Lady accepts that private providers are well equipped and well able to offer services to police in future. On her specific question in respect of the individual case, I repeat that the forensic science regulator, Andrew Rennison, has launched an immediate investigation into the case. The initial investigation suggests that this is an isolated case. Although we will learn any lessons to be learned from the formal inquiry, there are no indications at this stage that it undermines the use of DNA or private providers providing services to the police.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

4. What recent assessment she has made of the level of applications for production orders by police forces.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

Production orders are a valuable tool for the police to use in the investigation of serious crime, but are issued only after careful scrutiny by a circuit judge. Information on the number of production orders made by individual police forces is not collated centrally. We have not, therefore, made any assessment of the level of applications.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The use of production orders by the police, such as in the case of Dale Farm, has the potential to increase risks for journalists as they are, in effect, seen as informers, as well as undermining journalistic independence. The National Union of Journalists is worried that the use of such orders is becoming more common. Will the Minister meet me, other concerned MPs and the NUJ to discuss the issue?

[James Brokenshire]

I understand that the National Union of Journalists has mounted an appeal in the courts against the granting of a number of orders, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is difficult for me to comment on the specifics. Our understanding is that only a small minority of production orders are used to obtain journalistic material. The vast majority are made in relation to financial information. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me, I will look into the specifics that he highlighted.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking to tackle gang-related crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

6. What assessment she has made of the level of crime since May 2010.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

As the Home Secretary told the House last month, crime remains too high. That is why we are reforming the police so that they are free from unnecessary paperwork and free to fight crime. The national crime mapping website, police.uk, now provides the public with street-level information about crime and antisocial behaviour on a monthly basis, allowing them to obtain crime and policing information in a more accessible way.

[Ian Lavery]

My constituents are extremely concerned about the increase in crime, as outlined in the British crime survey, which shows an 11% increase in crimes against the person, including theft, robbery and violence against the person. When will the Home Secretary prioritise cuts against the cuts in police numbers?

[James Brokenshire]

I think I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. When we look at police forces such as his, Northumbria police, we see that they have taken some really important steps to make savings and efficiencies while cutting crime at the same time. Rather than criticising the efforts of police forces such as Northumbria, which has seen a 15% fall in violence against the person, we should be supporting the steps they are taking to find efficiencies and dealing with the problems left by the previous Government.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to join me in congratulating Derbyshire police, as crime in Derbyshire continues to fall, detection levels are at a record high, my constituents’ satisfaction with the police has gone up each year and they are meeting their savings targets.

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend on working closely with his local police force. As he has highlighted, the important thing is how police officers are used. Better deployment, better shift patterns, reduced bureaucracy and increased scope for officers to use their professional judgment are steps that many forces are taking and that this Government support.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

As far as crime is concerned, does the Minister’s boss, the Home Secretary, accept that policing, particularly on the front line, should be done by the police? The suggestion that private security firms should undertake some of those responsibilities for West Midlands and Surrey police forces is simply unacceptable: policing should remain the responsibility of the police.

[James Brokenshire]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman appears to criticise the role of the private sector and looking at ways of providing innovative services, because I know that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), applauded and welcomed that type of innovation when in government. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that where warranted officers are needed for those services, that is absolutely what will happen. Surrey and West Midlands police forces are engaged in looking at innovation in back-office services.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

Despite the Opposition’s scaremongering, visible front-line policing in the Thames Valley has risen by more than 11% in the past two years, while recorded crime has fallen by 11%. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Chief Constable Sara Thornton and her team on demonstrating that it is possible to reduce crime while cutting bureaucracy and cutting budgets?

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly do congratulate Chief Constable Sara Thornton. Thames Valley has increased its visible policing, patrol and neighbourhood officer public reassurance, and that is an example of how efficiencies and a more focused approach can be provided while cutting crime.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

7. What assessment she has made of the potential benefits of collaboration between police forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

19. What steps she is taking to tackle metal theft.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in a statement to the House in January, we are taking legislative action to tackle metal theft, including raising the financial penalties for rogue dealers, banning cash payments for scrap metal and giving the police powers to enter unregistered scrap yards. That is part of a coherent package of measures, which includes enhanced enforcement through the funding of a £5 million national metal theft taskforce.

[Jake Berry]

Rossendale and Darwen has been subjected to a spate of metal thefts, including from the mills and, on Thursday night, from a school in Lower Darwen. Will the Minister inform the House how quickly the cashless payment system will be introduced to stop this metallic crime wave?

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly recognise the impact that these crimes are having in communities up and down the country, and my hon. Friend highlights the problems in Rossendale and Darwen. Our amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill prohibiting cash payments will be debated in the Lords on Report tomorrow, and will come before this House in due course. The exact enactment date is subject to the Bill’s receiving Royal Assent, but we anticipate enactment later this year.

[Nick de Bois]

Forty Hall in my constituency is a 17th-century Jacobean mansion that is undergoing a £3 million refurbishment. There have been three thefts in the past year, including with violence against security guards. Speed of implementation is one thing, but will the Minister assure me that there will be speed of enforcement against criminals?

[James Brokenshire]

I accept absolutely my hon. Friend’s point about the need for strong enforcement, and I am sorry to hear of the problems experienced at Forty Hall in his constituency. A report was published today about threats to heritage sites. We have put forward £5 million for enforcement, which is already bearing fruit, with enforcement action taking place. For example, in the north-east more than 300 police officers and law enforcement personnel have visited scrap metal yards, £900,000 in cash has been seized, and a further operation—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is very informative, but I say to the Minister that it would be helpful if we could make some progress. Reading out great screeds just slows things down. It is quite straightforward, really.

[Caroline Nokes]

Last month, a bronze eagle statue was stolen from the memorial garden at the museum of Army flying in Middle Wallop in my constituency. The statue was placed there to commemorate brave Army aviators who had served their country. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Ministry of Justice about sentencing guidelines for those who desecrate memorials to our servicemen and women?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend highlights the significant community impact that metal thefts and desecrations of war memorials and other historical sites have had, and the often irrevocable harm that can be caused. The Bill is being considered in the other place as we speak, and the sanctions in it can lead to an unlimited fine. We will look to follow that through with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.

[Andrew Bingham]

We in High Peak have also been victims of metal theft. Last November a popular tourist attraction, the Eccles Pike topograph, was removed from near Chapel-en-le-Frith. I am pleased to say that scrap yards in my constituency were given a clean bill of health during a multi-agency operation last year. Does the Minister agree that tackling metal theft by preventing cash for scrap without questions is the best way, and will be welcomed by the honest scrap metal merchants in my constituency?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend highlights the fact that the cashless approach is essential in driving out this crime, and I underline the point that he has very effectively made.

[Fiona Bruce]

Almost every Church of England church in my constituency has suffered metal theft. Will the Minister assure me that penalties for those found guilty of acts of metal theft will appropriately reflect the huge costs to local churches in seeking to repair damage, which far outweigh the scrap value of what is stolen?

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the impact of metal theft. The new provisions include an unlimited fine, and we will look closely at their impact as they come through.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not recognise that the public may be shocked that a cashless scheme might not be cashless under the Home Secretary’s proposals, which exclude mobile collectors? If they are exempt, that will create a huge loophole in the system. Does he not accept that resident householders have access to local recycling centres, local authority kerb-side collection and retail take-back and swap, and the option of going to a reputable dealer? Is the exemption not a giant loophole and an own goal?

[James Brokenshire]

The short answer is no. Those involved in door-to-door sales will need to trade their product through scrap metal dealers, so they will be subject to the Bill’s provisions.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am afraid that that answer is not really good enough. On what basis has the Minister determined that an exemption from cashless payments should be made for itinerant collectors of scrap metal? Will that not drive a Steptoe and Son-sized coach and horses through the rules, and will not people such as his hon. Friends whose communities have lost metal in war memorials, gates and rails be appalled by the existence of that loophole?

[James Brokenshire]

I would never cast the shadow policing Minister in the role of Del Boy, but I would say to him that the provisions we have brought forward will ensure that those involved in door-to-door selling must trade through a registered scrap metal dealership. They will therefore be subject to the restrictions on cashless payment. That underlines the fact that those itinerant collectors need to be registered and approved by local authorities and police—another form or enforcement that needs to be focused on.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Protection of Freedoms Bill

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 17 and 18, and Government motions to disagree.

[James Brokenshire]

The amendments would provide that powers of entry may be exercised only with the agreement of the occupier of the premises in question or on the authority of a warrant, unless the authority using the power

“can demonstrate that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought.”

That restriction would be disapplied where the power of entry is being exercised by a trading standards officer, a constable or a member of the Security Service, or in pursuance of the protection of a child or vulnerable adult.

We are sympathetic to the objective underpinning the amendments. We all agree that powers of entry, particularly as they relate to peoples’ homes, should be subject to proper safeguards, but we believe that the blanket approach taken by the amendments is misconceived and, as such, could hamper legitimate enforcement activities and put lives at risk. The amendments are predicated on the basis that there has been an unacceptable proliferation in the number of powers of entry—some 600 such powers were created by the previous Government—and that in many cases there are insufficient safeguards attached to such powers. The Government share that analysis, which is why we have included the provisions in chapter 1 of part 3 of the Bill. The problem we have with the amendments is not their objective, but the blanket approach they adopt, even if it provides exemptions for a small number of specific bodies. We judge that such an approach would simply not work. One size, in this case, does not fit all, and the fact that the amendments include limited exemptions serves only to demonstrate that the approach taken, while it might appear superficially attractive, is incapable of withstanding close scrutiny.

In adopting the blanket approach of requiring in all cases the consent of the occupier or a warrant, the amendments fail to differentiate between powers of entry that support routine enforcement activity and those powers that protect the public from serious crime or from threats to life and limb.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Does the Home Office have any statistics on the number of times that police officers have entered using the powers that they already have?

[James Brokenshire]

What I can point the right hon. Gentleman to is the published list of the various powers of entry that we analysed, as it indicates that the total number of powers for all agencies is between about 1,300 and 1,400. That is obviously quite a significant number, hence the reason why in our judgment the analysis, the review and the measures in the Bill are appropriate, given that the proliferation has expanded considerably over the past few years. As I indicated, about 100 new powers of entry were created under the previous Government, hence the reasons for the measures in the Bill and why we feel that the mechanism contemplated by the Lords amendments does not quite fit or work in terms of what is required.

There will undoubtedly be other circumstances, not contemplated by the Lords in their amendments, in which an exception to the general rule should apply. The key point is that without examining each power individually we simply have no way of knowing whether the amendments add necessary safeguards to the overbearing powers of a state official or stymie the operation of a vital tool designed to protect the public.

Given the acceptance of the need for exemptions, it might be tempting simply to add to the list of those officials who are exempt from the requirement to obtain a warrant or the consent of the occupier, but that approach is mistaken. In recognising the need for exemptions, we should not then rush to apply blanket exemptions. Naming specific officials, in the manner of the amendments, grants such persons free rein to operate without the need to consider a warrant or the occupier’s consent, regardless of the purpose for which the officials are seeking to gain entry. That is too broad an exemption.

Interestingly, in the other place the Opposition supported the amendments, but are they really arguing that trading standards officers should, in all circumstances, be able to exercise their powers of entry without the consent of the occupier, or on the authority of a warrant? We shall have to wait and see what the official Opposition say in response to those points, reflecting on the debate that took place in the other place.

Such an exemption might also give that person immunity from the review we intend to undertake, and that simply is not desirable. We want to review all powers of entry, including powers exercised by constables and by trading standards officers, but the presence of such people in the situation under discussion proves unequivocally that the amendments do not work.

It has been suggested that amendment 17 offers the necessary flexibility by authorising entry without consent or a warrant

“where the authority using the power can demonstrate that the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought”.

But such a provision would simply create confusion and uncertainty, as it would open up the exercise of a power of entry to legal challenge by an aggrieved occupier who might argue that the requirement to enter the premises in question would not have been frustrated if he had been asked to consent or if a warrant had been applied for.

I hope that my remarks make it clear that the Government are not simply inviting this House to disagree with the amendments and then leave it at that. As I have said, we support the principle that in the great majority of cases powers of entry in respect of domestic premises should indeed be exercised only with consent or on the authority of a warrant, but the way to achieve that is through the existing provisions in this part of the Bill. Clause 40, for example, allows us to add safeguards to powers of entry such as a requirement to obtain an occupier’s consent, providing reasonable notice, or getting a warrant before entering a person’s house. The new code of practice under clause 47 will govern the exercise of powers of entry and set out further safeguards to protect the rights of individuals and businesses.

The duty to review powers of entry under clause 42 will require Ministers to examine all the powers for which they are responsible and report to Parliament on the outcome of that review. The reports of these reviews will indicate whether individual powers are no longer justified and should therefore be repealed or retained but with the addition of better safeguards.

[Keith Vaz]

Is there a timetable for the conclusion of the review of previous powers? It would be helpful to know, before we pass any further legislation, what the result of the review entailed.

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Bill, he will see that the time period contemplated is two years, in order to allow proper consideration of all the relevant 1,300 to 1,400 powers of entry. This is not something that will simply lie in abeyance. The review of all powers must be completed within two years of Royal Assent, and we have said that we will report back to Parliament every six months to provide an update on progress, so there will be a steady updating process. I hope that that gives him comfort. I also highlight to him the Home Office gateway, which provides an ongoing check and balance in relation to new powers of entry, as well as the ability to review existing powers of entry that may be triggered as a consequence.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

What ultimate sanctions are in place in the event that the two-year review is not completed by any Department?

[James Brokenshire]

The review is a specific statutory requirement, and we are focused on ensuring that it is undertaken with all due expedition. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the requirements of the ministerial code and other requirements on Departments and Ministers to abide by the law. In addition, the ongoing six-monthly review that I mentioned will enable the House to maintain pressure on Departments to ensure that the provision is being properly adhered to and followed through with the intent and spirit of the Bill.

I point out to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that we have made significant progress through the Home Office gateway, which considers all applications by Departments for new powers of entry. To date, 19 applications to create or amend powers of entry have been considered, and we have added greater safeguards in every case. Every power of entry in respect of domestic dwellings that has been approved through the gateway process has included a requirement that entry is obtained either with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. We have also taken the opportunity to scrap a number of powers.

I hope that that reassures right hon. and hon. Members that we are serious about ensuring that powers of entry are subject to appropriate safeguards and that we are committed to rolling back intrusive state powers and strengthening the privacy of home owners and businesses.

When taken together, the gateway process and the measures that I have outlined add up to a significant commitment to tackle what we have recognised to be a significant infringement of the rights of home owners. I have also made it clear that we cannot, in every case, demand that entry is effected only with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. I put it to the House that our approach will ensure that the necessary safeguards are put in place to protect home owners, while providing greater legal certainty and ensuring that the police and others can act swiftly to protect the public. I therefore have no hesitation in inviting the House to disagree with the Lords amendments.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this short debate.

Lords amendments 16 and 17 were supported in another place by Lord Selsdon. I welcome the debate about powers of entry and look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that I will put to him. When both I and Lord West were Ministers in the Home Office, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), commissioned him to write a review of entry powers. The report that Lord West produced was overtaken by events with the general election, but I will refer to it with regard to the matters before the House.

The genesis of the Protection of Freedoms Bill lies in a document published in 2010 called “Modern Conservatism: Our Quality of Life Agenda”. I hope that the Minister will not think this too harsh, but I thought that, on balance, it was a rather tawdry document and I disagreed with almost every word of it. I do not say that very often or very lightly. The Lords amendments, which were passed with the support of the Opposition in another place, as the Minister said, would hold the Government to account for what they said they would do in that document. It stated that a Conservative Government, who I accept are upon us, would

“cut back the intrusive powers of entry into homes. Public bodies (other than the police and emergency services) will require a magistrates’ warrant, and approval for such a warrant will be restricted to tackling serious criminal offences or protecting public safety.”

This is an area of private grief between Government Back Benchers in another place and the Government. The Lords amendments would allow the Government to deliver on one of their major promises. That is something that the Government have failed to do on many occasions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker]

When I look at Lords amendments 16 to 18, my instinct is certainly to support them, but after many, many hours in Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister, I know that he has a thoroughgoing commitment to progress towards liberty, so I assure him of my future support for simplifying powers of entry. As I have said previously to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is in her place, when the knock comes on the door, householders should be able to know whether the person knocking has a right to enter, or whether they are permitted to refuse entry. However, having sat through both the Public Bill Committee’s evidence sessions and heard contributions from Opposition Members, I know that the Minister has met the forces of reaction. I encourage him not to succumb to reactionary opposition or to the notion that certain powers should be elevated over liberty in the interests of security or expediency. I am confident that he will be steadfast in the cause of liberty, so I will support the Government.

[James Brokenshire]

I rise to respond briefly to a number of the points raised. Let me assure my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Wycombe (Steve Baker) of this Government’s commitment and resolve to roll back the arms of the state that may seek to intrude into private life.

The measures before the House this afternoon are important. They underpin our focus on ensuring that powers of entry are proportionate, appropriate and respect the right to be able to enjoy one’s home without undue interference. The House will also recognise, however, that there are certain circumstances in which such intervention might be appropriate—to protect health, to prevent harm or to ensure that criminals are legitimately brought to justice. That is why we are undertaking the review that I have outlined this afternoon.

I assure the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that I understand his desire to get on with this. We have said that we will report back to the House on a six-monthly basis, and I anticipate that that will involve a joint report on behalf of all the relevant parts of the Government Departments undertaking the review, to provide an update on the progress and the steps that are being taken. We intend the review to be Home Office-led and it will be undertaken in large measure by officials, but they will be responsible to Ministers, and I assure the House that Ministers will be driving the process forward, recognising the House’s strong feelings about the importance of liberty.

It was a bit rich of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to suggest that we were trying to kick this matter into the long grass and to defer or delay it. On the contrary, we are legislating through the Bill, we are taking action and we are setting out a clear process to roll back powers of entry, which grew enormously under the last Government. The fact that 600 new powers of entry were created during their period in office underlines the fact that due regard was not given to the implications of those measures. I am proud that this Government are introducing a clear mechanism to review the impact of powers of entry and the necessity of their remaining on the statute book or being made subject to further safeguards. The measures in the Bill will allow that to be done.

I very much welcome the support that has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon. I know that the right hon. Member for Delyn will want to ask what target we have set, but I hope he has realised that we are not a Government who arbitrarily set targets. We will look at this matter in a measured, considered way and decide what is in the best interests of liberty and the protection of freedoms in relation to safety and security, as well as of the freedom from the intrusion of an overbearing state.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way, having made a challenge to the shadow Policing Minister.

[Mr Hanson]

I sense that the Minister is about to finish his speech. Before he does so, will he try to answer the question that I put to him earlier? In the event of a Secretary of State not meeting the duty set out in clause 42, what sanctions would be available to address their failure to meet that target?

[James Brokenshire]

I think I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman’s questions fairly and squarely in terms of the statutory requirement on which I hope the House will legislate. I hope that that measure will go on to the statute book. The Bill represents a significant step forward—one that the previous Government failed to take during the 13 years in which they were creating 600 additional powers of entry. I note that he is seeking to push and challenge us on this, but I must point out that the Bill represents a significant step forward. Ministers will be bound by the provisions, and they will take the new responsibility extremely seriously.

I hope that the House is minded to disagree with the Lords in their amendments this afternoon. That in no way implies a lack of commitment, resolve or focus on the Government’s part to ensure that powers of entry are properly examined and, as appropriate, scaled back to ensure that they properly protect without intruding, and that they are not retained on the statute book if they are not necessary.

Lords amendment 16 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 17 and 18 disagreed to.

A New Clause

Stalking

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment (b) to Lords amendment 51.

--- Later in debate ---

Persons arrested for or charged with a qualifying offence

[James Brokenshire]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 3, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 4 to 8.

Lords amendment 9, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 10 to 15, 19 to 29, 56, 62, 64 to 66, 70 to 101, 114 to 116 and 134 to 137.

[James Brokenshire]

The amendments relate to the provisions in parts 1 to 4 of the Bill. Some are of a minor and technical nature, but some are of more substance; given the number of amendments in the group, I propose to focus my comments on the more substantive amendments. We are returning to themes and issues that have been debated at length in the House. Obviously, we judge that improvements have been made in the other place. We very much look forward to debating those issues, as well as the amendments to the Lords amendments proposed by the Opposition.

Amendment 1 takes account of the change in part 5 of the Bill to the definition of “vulnerability”. The new definition is intended to be more straightforward for the police to understand and apply. It relates to the ability of the police to retain the DNA profile of someone who has been arrested but not necessarily charged, and to a measure built in to provide certain safeguards where there was some proximity between the person arrested and the possible victim of a crime. Part of that relies on the definition of “vulnerable adult”. The definition originally applied in clause 3 was taken from the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. As that Act and definition are amended by the Bill, the 2006 Act definition is no longer suitable because it focuses on the care or treatment being provided to the individual, rather than on the characteristics of the person themselves. For the purposes of clause 3, a different definition is needed, which is why we have imported the definition from the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which links vulnerability to the ability of an individual to protect themselves from violence, abuse or neglect, and which we feel fits more neatly the purposes of clause 3. As I have said, the provision is intended to provide a further safeguard where the police arrest someone for a violent or sexual offence, if there is proximity to the victim.

Amendment 2 introduces a limited exception to the general rule, brought forward from the previous Government’s Crime and Security Act 2010, that all samples will be destroyed within six months of being taken. I think both sides of the House agree that DNA samples should be destroyed as soon as practicable, and a six-month window was felt to be appropriate. However, the Government tabled amendment 2 in the other place in response to representations from prosecutors at the Crown Prosecution Service. They told us that, in a limited number of cases each year, it would be necessary to retain individual samples in order to deal with any subsequent challenge by the defence to the comparison made between the DNA of the individual and that found at the crime scene—in other words, to provide reassurance in relation to criminal prosecution. Prosecutors expressed concerns that if they could not retain samples in these cases, they might unable to withstand such a challenge and that acquittals on technical grounds might result.

It might assist right hon. and hon. Members if I give an example of the type of case where such an issue might arise. A crime scene stain could well contain a mixture of the blood of both a stabbing victim and their attacker, and perhaps a third person such as an innocent house-mate of the victim. In such case, the quantity of material from the victim is likely to exceed significantly that from the attacker and the innocent third party. Without retaining the reference samples from all three individuals, the chemistry and analysis used to derive the three individual profiles, and thus make a match to the suspect, might be open to challenge in court.

Lords amendment 2 therefore creates a safeguard by inserting a mechanism into clause 14 to enable the police to decide very early in a case, before any samples have been destroyed, to make an application to the local magistrates court to retain all the individual samples in the case for 12 months. In the majority of cases, 12 months should be long enough to identify a suspect and complete the pre-trial disclosure process, as part of which it would be established whether the defence intended to mount a challenge to the derivation of the DNA profiles and/or the matches that may have arisen; if not, the material would be destroyed at that point. If the derivation of the profiles remained at issue, a further application could be made to the trial judge to retain the material for an additional 12 months.

Lords amendment 3 updates the existing exclusions from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to ensure that the new regime in part 1 of the Bill does not apply to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 or the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, both of which have bespoke retention and destruction regimes in schedule 1 to the Bill. In case the shadow Policing Minister is wondering, I will come to the Opposition’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 3, but I will go through the Government’s amendments before dealing with the Opposition amendments.

Lords amendments 73 to 83 to part 3 of schedule 1, relate to the retention of DNA profiles and fingerprints as set out in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, as opposed to those that fall under standard PACE regimes. Specifically, amendment 73 ensures that new section 18 of the Counter-Terrorism Act applies only to biometric material that is held by a law enforcement authority under the law of England, Wales or Northern Ireland, that is not subject to existing statutory restrictions, and that is held for the purposes of national security. The remaining amendments also clarify the scope of the application of the provisions amending the retention regime under section 18 of the 2008 Act. They extend the list of existing statutory restrictions set out in the Act and permit law enforcement authorities to retain anonymous material indefinitely. The amendments would essentially prevent the premature deletion of profiles, before a proper investigation into who the sample belongs to has taken place.

The separate issue of biometrics in schools is dealt with by Lords amendments 7 to 14. The Government consider a child’s biometric information to be highly personal and sensitive, and as such, it should be afforded greater protection. We debated these issues at length in Committee during the Bill’s earlier passage through this House. There is general agreement in both Houses that schools and colleges should be required to obtain the consent of a child’s parents if they wish to take and process a child’s biometric information. We listened carefully to the concerns raised about how the proposal to seek the written consent of each parent would impose an unreasonable additional burden on schools and colleges, and that it could discourage schools and colleges from using biometric recognition technology. Lords amendments 7 to 14 would remove the requirement for both parents to give consent, and provide instead for schools and colleges to be required to notify both parents that they intend to take and process the child’s biometric information. As long as no parent objects in writing, the written consent of only one parent will suffice.

We believe that Lords amendments 7 to 14 strike a sensible balance between ensuring that the views of both parents continue to be taken into account and preserving their right to object, as well as ensuring that the administrative burden on schools and colleges is not too great. The amendments also bring the consent requirements in the Bill more in line with all the other forms of consent that schools and colleges are required to have. The main difference in this instance is the express provision to notify both parents of a child, and the stipulation that if any parent objects, the processing of their child’s biometric information cannot take place. The amendments in no way lessen the key purpose of this part of the Bill, which is to ensure that children’s personal and sensitive data are properly protected.

The amendments to part 4 of the Bill relate to pre-charge detention. Lords amendment 27, which is a response to a further recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, relates to clause 58, which contains a power for the Secretary of State to increase the maximum limit of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 28 days for a three-month period in circumstances where Parliament is dissolved or in the period before the first Queen’s Speech of the new Parliament. The Committee previously considered a similar order-making power in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. That Act contains a duty for an order made when Parliament is not sitting to be laid as soon as practicable afterwards. To ensure consistency across these two pieces of legislation, and in keeping with the Committee’s recommendation, Lords amendment 27 requires a draft of a clause 58 order to be laid before Parliament once it has reassembled following a general election.

Lords amendment 28 is designed also to respond to an observation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee by removing any requirement for an order that revokes a 28-day pre-charge detention extension to be approved by Parliament. The extension by order of pre-charge detention to 28 days would be exceptional, as we have said previously; therefore revoking the order would simply return the pre-charge detention arrangements to the status quo.

Lords amendments 29 and 101 are a response to a recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights on stop-and-search powers. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the police officer who is considering whether to authorise the use of stop-and-search powers under section 47A of the Terrorism Act 2000 is reasonable in his or her consideration of the necessity of using the powers, as well as in his or her suspicion that an act of terrorism will take place. The Government believe that the amendments made in the other place have improved the relevant provisions of the Bill, and I commend them to the House.

Let me turn to the Opposition amendments in the group, starting with amendment (a) to Lords amendment 3. On our reading, it would effectively disapply all the substantive provisions of chapter 1 of part 1 of the Bill in cases of an alleged offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In practice, if a person was arrested for, or charged with, any offence under the 2003 Act, there would be no requirement to destroy DNA samples and no time limit on the retention of DNA profiles or fingerprints. It is interesting that, with amendment (a), Labour appears to be changing the position it held in government, when Ministers appeared to argue that a six-year limit was appropriate. They also said that they acknowledged the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the S and Marper case, and their proposals in the Crime and Security Act 2010 were intended to follow through on that.

When the Bill was last before this House, we discussed at some length whether it was appropriate to retain such material for three or six years. Now the Opposition apparently wish to ignore even their own previous analysis, and instead go back to keeping everything for ever in cases involving offences under the 2003 Act. Before, when we challenged the Opposition on this, they said, “No, no, it is not our intention to keep DNA profiles for ever. We wish to stick rigidly to the six-year rule,” so it is interesting—and notable, given their statements that they are now moving more in the direction of protecting individual liberty—that they are now reverting to type and seeking to retain indefinitely the DNA profile of people who might be innocent of any crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, and as I have said, I look forward to hearing the Opposition’s clarification on the amendment.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the Minister clarify what would happen if one or both parents have refused permission for biometric data to be taken from their child, but the child wishes to consent? Would the child have the right to have their biometric information taken?

[James Brokenshire]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, the provisions relate to the consent of the parents. They say that the consent of one parent is required, but it is left open to the other parent to object, and such an objection would stand. If need be, in the light of the arguments that the right hon. Member for Delyn makes for his amendment, I will provide further clarification.

Finally, I turn to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 28. The amendment is a response to an observation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that questioned the necessity of an affirmative procedure for an order revoking a temporary extension order. In the Government’s response to the Committee, we concluded that it was not necessary to subject a revocation order to parliamentary scrutiny, given that it would be neither appropriate nor meaningful. The Committee did not take issue with that conclusion. It would be perverse if Parliament were in the position of debating and voting on a revocation order when it had not had the opportunity to approve the original temporary extension order, given that the order had been revoked before it had been approved. Any such debate would be likely to be academic because a temporary extension order lasts for only three months, and there is therefore a strong possibility that an order would have expired before any debate had taken place. Furthermore, a revocation order will simply return the maximum period of detention to 14 days, the maximum period already approved by Parliament, which negates the need for parliamentary approval of a revocation order. That remains the Government’s view, and I hope that the House will not support the Opposition’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.

[Mr Hanson]

As the Minister has said, we are indeed traversing old ground that is familiar to me, to him and to his officials. The initial discussion on DNA retention had its genesis in the debates on what became the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was produced during what I shall have to call the dying days of the last Labour Government. At that time, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and I, the then Policing Minister, wrestled with the issues on DNA retention. We looked at them in great detail, and made an assessment of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on these matters.

We also considered how we could maximise the envelope that was available for the retention of DNA. That was a matter of judgment. We wished to ensure that we had the greatest possible ability under the legal requirements set down under those European Court judgments to maintain the retention of DNA so that we could use it to catch criminals who had committed crimes or who could potentially commit further crimes. We made the assessment—rightly or wrongly; we believe rightly—that there were between 20,000 and 23,000 individuals who might well have committed crimes during the six years. With the shorter period that the Minister is proposing in the Bill, such people will not now have to face that judgment. The police might not be able to use the DNA samples any more when the Bill comes into force, as the DNA profiles will no longer be in place. This is indeed old ground.

The 2010 Act was the subject of a difference of opinion between me and the then shadow Minister, and that difference has not changed in the subsequent two years. Happily in many ways, I was not party to the Bill’s initial consideration in Committee, as I was at that time shadowing Treasury Ministers. I returned in October, however, to find that the Government were intent on progressing the change in the DNA regime. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who was a Home Office Minister at the time. Let me say that as a name for a Bill, the Protection of Freedoms Bill is one of the greatest misnomers ever in my near 20-year career in this House. It unpicks the impact of Labour’s 2010 Act. In so doing, I believe it puts at risk individuals in our communities who could have been helped and supported and could have been protected from becoming victims by the provisions of the 2010 Act.

Our amendment (a), to which the Minister has referred, is meant to provide a device to allow us to debate some of the serious offences that would be impacted by the Government’s proposed changes to the DNA regime. We have argued strongly—it is a matter of judgment—that the Crime and Security Act 2010 was the best way to meet our European obligations at the same time as trying to protect civil liberties and ensuring also that the British people would be free of murder, rape and crime. There are balances to be struck in ministerial life, which is always about balances. When I was in government with my fellow Ministers in the Home Office—the Department that the present Minister is now privileged to serve—we felt that under European law and paying respect to the protection of liberties, we should try to extend the window of opportunity to protect as many people as possible by ensuring that DNA samples were collected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I wish to raise one specific issue in relation to Lords amendment 3, and I put on the record my interest as a life member of the Magistrates Association. Ministers propose that the possible holding of DNA on the database beyond the period covered by the legislation could be agreed on application to a district judge. My understanding is that they have drawn on the experience in Scotland, where agreement from the sheriff and the sheriff courts is required. Has consideration been given to extending that provision to cover justices of the peace who are members of the lay magistracy? Unlike in Scotland, the magistrates court works as a single bench; there is no hierarchical difference or difference in terms of courts between district judges and lay magistrates.

[James Brokenshire]

We have carefully considered the issue of the balance between the lay magistracy and the more professional judiciary. On the specific issues in question, we judge that because of the likely number of cases and the role required, the current measures are the right ones. However, we will continue to keep this under review as the legislation comes into effect and is applied.

[Kate Green]

I thank the Minister for that assurance, and I certainly hope the situation will be kept under review. District judges are paid members of the magistracy, and I am sure the Minister is not suggesting that there is less professionalism in the quality of judgments of the lay magistracy.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I shall comment briefly on the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has tabled about human trafficking. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 49 recognises the important role of the rapporteur. Opposition Front Benchers feel that the Government’s suggested way forward is not acceptable and that an independent rapporteur should report to Parliament annually, so we support that amendment. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 50 sets out the important role of the legal advocate in ensuring that children who have been trafficked are properly looked after if they come to the attention of the authorities. Again, Opposition Front Benchers offer their support for that important amendment, which would ensure that we complied with the conditions set out in the relevant directive.

[James Brokenshire]

In many respects, I am speaking on behalf of the Minister for Equalities, who is also responsible for criminal information; she would wish to be here if it were not for a family emergency.

This group of amendments relates to parts 5 and 7 of the Bill. Part 5 will implement our reforms to the disclosure and barring arrangements, which will scale them back to common-sense levels. The Lords amendments to part 5 address a number of concerns raised by hon. Members in our earlier deliberations on its important provisions. We have had useful debates on the issues in this House and the other place, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) welcomes Lords amendments 33 to 36, which amend clause 67 and relate to the criteria for automatic barring by the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

Our review of the disclosure and barring scheme concluded that it did not make sense to bar somebody if they had never worked, and are unlikely ever to work, in regulated activity. We recognise that this change to the barring arrangements was a matter of concern to hon. Members in this House and in another place, and to partner organisations. We therefore brought forward the amendments, so that people convicted of the most serious offences, such as the rape of a child—in such cases, representations are not allowed—are barred automatically, whether or not they have any link to regulated activity. In all other cases, a person will be barred only if they have been, are, or might in the future be involved in regulated activity. Should they ever apply to work in regulated activity, their details will be passed to the Independent Safeguarding Authority or the disclosure and barring service, which will consider them for barring at that point. I welcome what the hon. Lady said in that regard.

On amendments 30 and 31, obviously there continues to be a genuine difference between the two sides of the House. I listened carefully and intently to what the hon. Lady said. Amendments 30 and 31 amend clause 64, which amends the definition of “regulated activity” and introduces the concept of regular and day-to-day supervision of individuals whose work would be regulated activity if unsupervised. We previously debated at length the appropriate level of supervision; the Opposition suggested that it should be “close” and “constant”; notwithstanding what the hon. Lady has said, we still believe that that formula is unworkable in practice.

When the Bill left this House, it already made provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the meaning of “day to day supervision”. Amendments 30 and 31 require the level of supervision to be reasonable in all the circumstances for protecting children. That qualitative threshold, coupled with the statutory guidance, will assist employers and voluntary organisations in making appropriate judgments as to which of their supervised staff or volunteers fall within or outside the scope of regulated activity. The hon. Lady’s amendments to Lords amendments 30 and 31 would remove the definition of “day to day supervision” in clause 64 and replace it with:

“constant monitoring by an individual engaged in a regulated activity who is on the same site and able to maintain close visual and audio contact with the individual who is under supervision.”

Such constant monitoring is, in our judgment, likely to be impossible in practice. A trip away from a classroom, perhaps for a comfort break or something like that, would be enough to cause someone to fall foul of the amendments. The effect of the amendments would be to reinstate all supervised people within regulated activity.

I appreciate that this is a point of difference between us, and I know that the hon. Lady has considered the issue carefully, but as we have said, we believe that although it is right that all paid staff and unsupervised volunteers in specified places such as schools, and unsupervised staff in other places who carry out activities such as teaching and training, should be within regulated activity, it is not proportionate to include other staff in those areas within regulated activity. Lords amendments 30 and 31 make it clear that the test of supervision is whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances for child protection, so if supervision is not reasonable, the person falls within regulated activity, but if it is reasonable, there is no need for them to do so. Our judgment is that that is right, in order to empower employers to make decisions, to reduce unnecessary burdens on employers, and to remove barriers to volunteering. If a grandparent whom a head teacher has known for years wants to help out with reading at their local school, why should the head teacher have to check their barred status, if he or she knows that they present no risk?

However, I repeat the assurances given by my ministerial colleague, Lord Henley in another place: supervised people who work regularly and closely with children will remain eligible for enhanced criminal record certificates, and our guidance on supervision will make it clear that it is best practice to request such a certificate when employees or volunteers are unknown to the organisation, or if checks are needed for new posts or staff moves.

It might make sense for me to talk about the Opposition’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 48, because there is a strong link between that amendment and their amendments to Lords amendments 30 and 31. The effect of the amendment to Lords amendment 48 would be that the definition of “conviction” in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 included a person’s inclusion on an ISA barred list. I presume that the intention is that the information should then be included on criminal record certificates.

We have debated the issue of barred list information before. The Government do not think it right to include barred list information on enhanced criminal record certificates, except for posts falling within regulated activity, and a few compelling exceptions, such as when people are applying to foster or adopt a child.

Employers in regulated activity must know about a bar because of its legal effect; otherwise, there is no need to know because it relates to a different area of work and in practice would lead to individuals being excluded from areas of work to which their bar does not apply. In most cases, the information which led to the bar will be available on an enhanced criminal record certificate. When it is not, as Lord Henley also confirmed last week in another place, we will use secondary legislation to allow the ISA to give the police the information which led to a bar so that they can disclose it on an enhanced certificate, if it is relevant to the post applied for.

Bars may apply, for example, because there is a criminal conviction, but equally a bar may apply because someone has been dismissed by their employer in respect of a particular case. In those circumstances the ISA would be able to give the police the relevant information. The police would then be able to determine, through an enhanced check, whether its disclosure was appropriate. We think that that provides an important safeguard.

[Diana Johnson]

With the experts at the ISA making a judgment about whether someone should have barred status, why is another layer of bureaucracy introduced by giving that information to the police to allow them to make a further judgment about whether that should be disclosed to a school, for example? Why do we not trust the ISA to make the right decision and disclose that?

[James Brokenshire]

This is where we differ on the appropriate way to treat the bar. We believe that if there are circumstances which would otherwise not necessarily have been disclosed for the ISA to make that judgment, it is appropriate to allow that information to be disclosed to the police and for the police to consider the application that they have received on an enhanced check and to judge whether the disclosure of those facts and circumstances is right in that case.

I appreciate that a difference exists between us. We do not see that as bureaucratic. It is about respecting the purpose of the bar and ensuring that on an enhanced check, if the ISA holds relevant information, it can be provided to the police. We have made that clear through our assurances in another place. I hope that that gives greater reassurance on a matter about which I know the hon. Lady feels strongly.

[Meg Munn]

I am concerned that the measure is becoming bureaucratic. We know that when systems are not clear, there is a greater likelihood that people will not follow them properly. Although the Minister may be certain in his own mind that the theoretical operation of the process is justified, is he equally certain that it will be operated in a way that does not allow information that should be shared to fall through the gaps?

[James Brokenshire]

We intend that the ISA should provide that information to the police, as I explained. We will be very focused on the way in which the measure is implemented to ensure that that reflects our intentions and that the police have the relevant information for an enhanced check. I recognise that there is a potential point of difference between us on this, but I hope I have explained some of the additional safeguards that we are putting in place.

From what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said, I do not think the other amendments are contentious. Amendments 37 and 38 to clause 77 would make it clear that the new duty on the ISA—and, in future, the disclosure and barring service—to pass barring information to the police will include passing the whole of the children’s and adults’ barred lists, as well as information about a particular person. This will ensure that the police can obtain real-time access to barring information for safeguarding purposes.

Amendment 40 to clause 79 would make changes to the proposed arrangements for the issue of a single criminal record certificate under that clause. Amendment 40 provides a facility for the Secretary of State to send to a registered body a copy of a criminal record certificate only where the registered body uses the new updating service, as introduced by clause 82, and is informed that a new certificate should be applied for—in other words, that there has been new information since the most recent certificate. If, once that new certificate has been sought, the registered body informs the Secretary of State that the individual has not sent it a copy of the new certificate within a prescribed period and requests a copy of the new certificate, the Secretary of State must comply with that request.

However, a copy of the certificate will not be sent if prescribed circumstances apply. Principally, these will be when the individual has challenged the information on the new certificate. This change will be particularly relevant to large organisations that consider certificates centrally, which will be able to advise their local branches of any issues arising.

Amendment 41 would insert a new clause into the Bill which will strengthen the current powers of the Criminal Records Bureau to refuse to register an individual or organisation as a registered body. Amendment 48 inserts a new clause that will ensure that cautions, reprimands and warnings are recorded on the police national computer in exactly the same way as convictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

With the leave of the House, I shall briefly respond to the hon. Lady’s two points about trafficking.

On the first point, about the requirement for a rapporteur under article 19 of the EU directive, we still take the view that the requirement can be met through the inter-departmental ministerial group, but we recognise that the group needs to be reviewed to ensure that it can perform the rapporteur function effectively, and its next meeting, in April, will do just that.

It is also important for me to make it clear that the directive does not stipulate that the national rapporteur or equivalent mechanism be independent of government, but the Government fully recognise that in signing up to the EU directive we must comply with the requirements therein.

In response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I can confirm that it is intended that there will be an annual report on the group’s activities in that regard. I hope that that is helpful to him.

[Mr Bone]

The Minister has given me half the assurance I sought. The other half was about having not just the report, but having it debated in Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Unfortunately, the second point is outside my gift and within that of the business managers, but I certainly assure my hon. Friend about the publication of the report, and I hope that my comments on the rapporteur function are helpful.

Secondly, on the hon. Lady’s point about the assurance made by my noble Friend Lord Henley in the other place, the Government intend that we should ask the Children’s Commissioner for England to help to identify where improvements can be made to the practical care arrangements for trafficked children in the way that the hon. Lady highlighted.

I pay tribute to the work of the Children’s Commissioner. The hon. Lady highlighted the work on sexual exploitation, and I know about the very important review that the commissioner is undertaking. I had the privilege to discuss the issue with her at the start of her report, when I had ministerial responsibility for policy on the sexual exploitation of children, and I for one underline her comments on what I am sure will be an extremely important and valuable report. In the context of my noble Friend’s assurance in the other place, therefore, what I can say is that the issue is being considered extremely carefully, and discussions are under way on the scope and time scale of the review, but at this stage I am unable to give the hon. Lady the complete assurance that she looks for in the second of her two amendments. The matter is being looked at extremely carefully and closely in order to give effect to the statements that my noble Friend made in recognising the importance that we attach to receiving such input from the Children’s Commissioner.

[Keith Vaz]

Will the Minister respond to my hon. Friend’s excellent point about the appointment of guardians? It was an excellent point that reflects the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee when we produced our major report two years ago on human trafficking. The appointment of a guardian would provide the best possible protection for such children in care.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and for the reason he cites we asked the Children’s Commissioner to review the practical care arrangements for trafficked children. We said that the right step at this stage was to seek that input, rather than to seek to legislate, recognising equally that several local authorities are already undertaking some very good practice.

I recognise that, in respect of the hon. Lady’s amendments, that might not be sufficient, but it was important that I respond and set out those points to the House this evening.

Question put, That amendment (a) to Lords amendment 30 be made.

Opt-in Decision (Parliamentary Scrutiny)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

In his written ministerial statement on 20 January 2011, Official Report, column 51WS, the Minister for Europe outlined the coalition Government’s commitment to further strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of JHA opt-in decisions. This included a commitment, where there is strong parliamentary interest, to set aside Government time for a debate in both Houses on its proposed approach.

The Government have decided to offer debates in Government time on the following proposals, which it is anticipated will be published in 2012:

Home Office dossiers

A draft directive establishing minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking (with a proposal on information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances, if published as a part of the package);

A draft regulation to reform Eurojust’s structure; and

Draft directives creating minimum rules for the confiscation of criminal assets and arrangements for the mutual recognition of confiscation orders.

Ministry of Justice dossiers

A draft directive on data protection in policing and criminal justice;

Measure E on the road map on criminal procedural rights—a draft directive on special safeguards in criminal procedures for suspected or accused persons; and

A draft directive proposal on the compensation of crime victims.

Measures may be added to or removed from this list depending on the level of parliamentary interest which is generated by the published proposal. It is also not always possible to predict, ahead of analysis of the final proposal, whether the opt-in will apply. The Commission’s timetable may also change. Parliament will be kept informed of any changes, which will be discussed with the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and the House of Lords European Union Committee.

It should be noted that this is a list of proposals that are offered for debate in Government time. It does not rule out the possibility that the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee or the House of Lords European Union Committee may call for debates on other proposals.

European Union Justice and Home Affairs Measures

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

We believe that European Union measures that impose justice and home affairs (JHA) obligations only apply to the UK if we choose to opt in to them. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, there have been a number of JHA proposals that repeal measures that we are currently bound by, and replace them with new ones. We have not opted in to all of the replacement proposals and there has been a question as to whether the measures that we currently do take part in (the “underlying measures”) would still bind us once the replacement has entered into force.

The policy we inherited from the previous Government was that the UK was not bound by an underlying measure when we did not opt in to a measure repealing and replacing that underlying measure. Following a review of this policy, the position of the Government is that:

the UK considers itself bound by an underlying measure when we do not opt in to a

new measure that repeals and replaces it; and

article 4a of the title V opt-in protocol (protocol 21 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union) should be interpreted as applying not only to amending measures but also to repeal and replace measures.

Our position has been reinforced by the fact that the Commission has started to introduce express wording in repeal and replace measures which makes it clear that the underlying measures will continue to bind us if we do not opt in. It is highly likely that the Commission will in future routinely insert such language into new measures.

We acknowledge that this new policy carries a small risk of the UK being bound by arrangements which no longer operate in relation to the EU as a whole but continue to apply as between the UK and Denmark (and sometimes Ireland). This would happen when only the UK and Denmark (and sometimes Ireland) remain bound by an underlying measure following a “repeal and replace” proposal. However, we already accept this position in relation to amending measures as a consequence of article 4a of the title V opt-in protocol. Article 4a of the title V opt-in protocol provides that the UK remains bound by an underlying measure where a new measure amends it unless

“the non participation of the UK and Ireland in the amended version of an existing measure makes the application of that measure inoperable for other Member States of the Union...”

In such cases, the measure would cease to apply to the UK.

Our decision to accept that we continue to be bound by an underlying measure where it has been repealed and replaced has a direct read across to the interpretation of article 4a of the title V opt-in protocol. Our view is that a broad interpretation of article 4a is the correct one and that repeal and replace measures should be considered to be a type of amending measure for the purposes of article 4a. In practical terms, if we accept that the UK continues to be bound by the underlying measure where we do not participate in the new ‘repeal and replace’ measure, we believe that we must also accept that, in such cases, the UK would cease to be bound by the underlying measure where it was deemed to be ‘inoperable’.