Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to reduce antisocial behaviour.

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

The Government are committed to tackling the corrosive impact of antisocial behaviour. We are ensuring that the police and other agencies have faster more effective powers, that complaints are dealt with more responsibly and that the public have much clearer information about incidents occurring in their local area.

[Nicola Blackwood]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but constituents and local police have raised with me their frustration at the difficulties that local police have in dispersing groups of antisocial individuals, who cause so much misery for their victims by their actions. The Home Office has consulted on giving front-line police the power to direct antisocial individuals and groups away from specific areas, but will the Minister update the House today on whether those proposals will be implemented and, if so, when?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I certainly recognise the issues that many communities face from antisocial behaviour and the fact it perhaps was not previously taken as seriously as it should have been. We propose to combine the most effective elements of the various dispersal powers available to the police into a single simpler police power to direct people away from an area where they are committing or are likely to commit antisocial behaviour. We intend to legislate on the new powers at the earliest opportunity.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

As the Home Secretary has acknowledged, vandalism, antisocial behaviour and theft from war memorials repulse everybody, particularly in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday. Given that much of that activity is related to the illegal metal trade, why will Ministers not bring forward legislation right away? What is the hold-up?

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position on the Front Bench. I certainly agree with her that the attacks on war memorials in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday are absolutely despicable. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning those shocking crimes. The Home Secretary has mentioned a number of steps that the Government are already taking. We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to put in place an action plan. Steps are already under way and we are working with other Departments to take further action as well.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to reduce alcohol-related antisocial behaviour.

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

The Government are bringing forward a package of measures to ensure that alcohol is no longer the driver of crime and disorder that it has been over the past decade. Measures range from giving more powers to local communities over licensing decisions, to cracking down on those selling alcohol to children and trialling a sobriety scheme to reduce offending. Those provisions are in addition to the introduction of wider measures to address antisocial behaviour.

[Iain Stewart]

In 2007, just five people were prosecuted for attempting to buy alcohol under age. Will my hon. Friend set out in a bit more detail what steps he is taking to restrict the sale of alcohol in retail outlets to those who are under age?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has raised a very important point on the whole issue of the irresponsibility of alcohol being sold to children. We have taken steps to double the maximum fine to those who are selling alcohol persistently to under-age children to £20,000, and to increase the powers of the police and local councils to close such premises down permanently. We are working with other Departments, and the Department of Health is leading on an alcohol strategy that will take into account further issues. I am under no illusions about the important role that parents and schools also have, which is why further action is being taken.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Will the Minister update us on the Government’s plans to introduce a minimum price for alcohol to reduce alcohol misuse and antisocial behaviour?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have stated clearly their intention to ban below-cost sales, with the first measure being the banning of sales below duty plus VAT. I can confirm to him that those proposals will be implemented on 1 April next year.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I urge the Minister to concentrate on tough penalties for people who get involved in alcohol-induced antisocial behaviour instead of introducing this rather soppy, wishy-washy, nanny-state nonsense of minimum pricing of alcohol?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend for his typical contribution to these debates. In dealing with issues of alcohol, we need to ensure that we have robust powers to deal with alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, as we are doing. We also need to deal with pricing, which is why we are banning below-cost sales, and with prevention, which is why we will be taking further action in relation to schools, parents and the health service.

[Mr Speaker]

Michael Connarty is not here, so I call Mark Hendrick. [Interruption.] Order. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) to say that the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) wants to ask about the food industry, but the question on the Order Paper is not about the food industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

T2. What steps is the Minister taking to alert parents to signs of grooming being forced on to innocent children by either their family or close friends, which is completely unacceptable?

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

The crime of child sexual exploitation is utterly appalling and reprehensible, and I well understand why my hon. Friend is raising this issue, given the impact that such incidents have had in Derbyshire. I pay tribute to the work of Derbyshire police through Operation Retriever. I note that their work was recognised at the police review event in the past few days. Awareness-raising is done through the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre’s thinkuknow programme, which delivers prevention messages directly into schools and is helping to raise awareness of this issue among parents and young people. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has responsibility for children and families, is developing an action plan to safeguard children and young people from sexual exploitation, which will be published shortly. Raising awareness among parents of this terrible form of abuse will be an important element of that.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

T5. South Wales police have an excellent programme for tackling domestic violence, working with local authorities, health authorities and voluntary groups. What new advice and guidance will be issued to them following the statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), that the Government did not consider an investigation by the police or the police having been called out as providing sufficient clear objective evidence that domestic violence had occurred?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

T4. Organised crime costs the British economy £40 billion a year and affects families, businesses and local communities. What action is my hon. Friend the Minister taking to recover criminal assets and the proceeds of crime?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the issue of criminal finances. We are determined that criminal proceeds will be taken away from those who commit these appalling offences. In total, using powers such as asset denial and by targeting money launderers, the agencies involved denied criminals more than £1 billion last year. However, we want to take further action, which is why we are setting up the National Crime Agency, and we also want to make asset-recovery quicker, more robust and more effective in order to address the point that he rightly highlighted.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

T9. I know that the Home Secretary is reluctant to answer any questions on the UK Border Agency in advance of her statement, but does she accept that 18 months into this Government, the decisions taken on Britain’s borders are hers and hers alone, and that she should make no attempt to blame the previous Government for the mess that we see now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

One of the worst forms of antisocial behaviour that my constituents tell me about involves people’s lifestyles and actions having a really detrimental effect on their neighbours’ quality of life. What proposals are the Government bringing forward to help the police and local authorities to deal with this problem?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend has rightly said, these are local issues that deserve local solutions. There has been a consultation on speeding up the eviction of antisocial tenants; it closes today. The rights of a tenancy bring with them responsibilities, and we will be reflecting on that consultation in due course, once the responses are finalised.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

What mechanisms, if any, are being put in place to ensure that staff and their representatives are given an opportunity to express their concerns about problems with the functions of the UK Border Agency?

Alcohol (Under-18s)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) on securing this debate, and on his approach in advancing the case about parents’ responsibility in respect of their children. I also congratulate him on representing such a wonderful constituency. Many of my family members hail from the area around St Austell, and I have very happy memories of spending lots of time there during my childhood and thereafter. He is a very lucky Member of Parliament to represent such a fantastic area, with so many wonderful people, sights and places to visit.

I always encourage people to flock to the wonderful coastal resorts in Cornwall, such as Newquay, for their sheer beauty and wonderful landscape. However, I would not want their enjoyment to be interrupted or hindered by the wanton and yobbish behaviour of people who are there just to get drunk and cause mayhem in communities that have so much to offer. That behaviour must be challenged and addressed. I pay tribute to the work of the agencies in Newquay for the steps that they have taken and continue to take to ensure that the town is a very special place, the benefits of which can be enjoyed by both young and old. For many years, I have enjoyed the wonderful north Cornish coast, and I hope to continue to do so with my children.

I have heard what my hon. Friend has said and have first-hand experience of the context. He knows that I visited Newquay the summer before last, as Minister with responsibility for alcohol policy, and that I was lucky enough to spend an evening with some of the partners and agencies involved in the Newquay Safe Partnership, including Superintendent Julie Whitmarsh. I also visited the Central Inn to get a sense of the challenges and problems that the town had been experiencing. I pay tribute to what the local police, the local authority, the Newquay Safe Partnership and others have achieved in the face of the challenges involved in tackling alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder. I was shocked and disturbed by the accounts of some the worst excesses of irresponsible drinking by young people, and I was outraged to hear about the actions of irresponsible parents in, essentially, assisting that behaviour.

I have looked back at the press commentary that followed my visit to Newquay in July 2010, when I said to the Western Morning News:

“I was just astounded by this virtual mountain of alcohol that had been taken after being supplied by parents. I think it is utterly irresponsible. As a parent you have the ultimate responsibility towards your child, and thinking that they are going to be safe when they are loaded up with booze is unbelievable.”

That was my view then, and it is my view today. I endorse my hon. Friend’s approach in underlining this important issue.

I realise that the issue is complex. My hon. Friend and others have made some thoughtful and interesting points in the debate. They have scoped out the relevant challenges in this sphere for agencies and the Government, and they have underlined the responsibility that all parents have to their children. I shall try to respond to as many concerns as I can in the time allotted.

Along with other towns, Newquay faces particular problems every year. Hon. Members were right to say that those problems should not be regarded as specific to Newquay, and it would be wrong to characterise the town in that way. Alcohol misuse affects many communities—we see it in our town centres, in rural and seaside towns and in other leisure areas, too. The holiday season is particularly challenging for the west country and other coastal resorts, which have become a destination of choice for young people who want to celebrate the end of their exams or generally have a good time. Sadly, dangerous levels of binge drinking too often become synonymous with such celebrations. My hon. Friend has referred to the tragic cases of Andrew Curwell and Paddy Higgins, the teenagers who lost their lives two years ago as a consequence of alcohol misuse. Many other young people have suffered life-changing injuries or circumstances as a result of accidents.

In a broader, national context, more than 1 million hospital admissions are alcohol-related, which is twice the number of admissions in 2003. Statistics also suggest that more than 40% of violent crime is alcohol-related. With that in mind, I am not surprised by the latest statistics relating to Newquay, which show that seven out of 10 drunk youngsters in Newquay were supplied with alcohol by their parents. Like my hon. Friend, I saw some outrageous examples of parental irresponsibility during my visit to the town last summer, when parents were providing their children with excessive supplies of alcohol. In one incident, the police confiscated 370 bottles and cans from a small group of teenagers, including a bottle of 63% rum, which was believed to have been supplied by a parent. I was astounded by the virtual mountain of alcohol that I saw seized by police in Newquay and the stories that I was told about parents abusing the police simply for trying to protect their children from harm.

What can we do to tackle the problem and change such behaviour? To start, the Government take a tough stance on alcohol. We are clear that we will not tolerate the scale of alcohol-related harms that have been experienced over the past decade. That is why we passed the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, which introduces a package of new measures to rebalance the Licensing Act 2003 in favour of local communities. It gives local community leaders greater tools and powers to shape the type of night-time economy that they and their communities want to see.

We also take under-age drinking very seriously indeed and have used powers under the new 2011 Act to send out a strong signal. We have doubled the maximum fine available to the courts when sentencing irresponsible businesses that persistently sell alcohol to under-18s. However, my hon. Friend will be quick to point out that we are talking about not children who buy alcohol illegally themselves, but our response to parents who are prepared to give their children large quantities of alcohol.

As my hon. Friend has said, the law already enables the police to charge an adult with the criminal offence of buying alcohol on behalf of a child who is aged under 18. That offence carries a maximum £5,000 fine. In addition, the police can issue a penalty notice for disorder for the offence. Those powers give them an option to impose a swift financial punishment to deal with misbehaviour and provide a practical deterrent to future reoffending. The law also allows for the punishment of parents who are wilfully negligent towards their children, although, as my hon. Friend has said, only in relation to those aged under 16.

The use of such powers may not be relevant or appropriate in all circumstances, and it will depend on the facts of the case and on whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction based on the available evidence. However, those powers provide the police with an option in criminal law. It is for local police to decide their response to local crime priorities.

I hear clearly the points made by my hon. Friend about the practical application of the law and certain offences. We will continue to listen and be guided by the Association of Chief Police Officers in connection with law enforcement. He makes an important point about ensuring that the law is used effectively and robustly. However, we do not want to legislate unnecessarily or be overly prescriptive. This is a difficult problem that needs careful consideration.

Parents are well placed to introduce alcohol to their children sensibly. The answer lies in educating them and their children. That is why we endorse initiatives such as Coast Safe and why the new alcohol strategy, which I shall discuss shortly, will address advertising and so on, a concern which several hon. Members have raised. Newquay Safe Partnership has introduced innovative schemes to address the town’s problems and has worked in conjunction with Drinkaware. Some have said that the Government should go further in reflecting good local practice that works well, which was great to hear. The success of such schemes results from good partnership work such as in Newquay, which involves not only the police but trading standards, the local authority and some responsible businesses. Many hoteliers in Newquay closely co-operate with the police, and we should not lose sight of the strong partnership links that have helped to make a difference.

People argue that we should consider the raising the age limit for consuming alcohol to 21, for example, as it is in parts of the United States. We have not gone down that route, however, because many of the problems that we have alluded to relate to much younger children. It is important, therefore, to focus our attention differently, which is why the Government have not been attracted to that route.

My hon. Friend has highlighted particular sections of the 2003 Act. I will consider closely his comments on proxy purchasing to find out what advice or guidance can be provided and how to work proactively with the police in that context. I highlight the ongoing work with other Departments. The Government are working on an alcohol strategy, and Department of Health Ministers have been playing a leading role. The strategy will consider the culture of drinking in our society and how commercial alcohol advertising and social networking play a role in that culture.

The chief medical officer has published guidance for parents, health professionals and young people emphasising the importance of parents in shaping behaviour. I agree that schools have a clear responsibility to prevent drug and alcohol use as part of their wider pastoral role, which will be supported by the revised, simplified schools guidance that the Department for Education is working on.

I am conscious that time is defeating us. I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. The Government are conscious of the issue, and the new Department of Health-led strategy, which will emerge soon, will touch on a number of the themes that he has rightly brought to the attention of the House. This is work in progress and more remains to be done, but the Government are taking things forward.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I rise to speak to new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Clive Efford) and for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and the others listed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, who originally tabled new clauses and amendments on behalf of the shadow Home Office team, has been promoted to the shadow Cabinet. If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, I will begin by paying tribute to him for his sterling work in the police field during his time in this brief. Once upon a time, he was the Policing Minister. I succeeded him in government as the Policing Minister, he succeeded me as the shadow Policing Minister in opposition, and I succeed him again as the shadow Policing Minister. Between us, we have several years of service, but not continuously. I wish to place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for his work in raising what we accept are politically contentious issues at a time when there is real concern about the future direction of policing and there are real differences between the Government and the Opposition. However, I hope I can say, on behalf of the Government as well as the Opposition, that he exercised those duties in a fair and equitable way.

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

I, too, put on record, in the nicest possible way, my best wishes to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). He and I had some frank exchanges over the years, but I certainly mark out the good-natured way in which we were able to reconcile our differences at times, and I welcome him to his new responsibilities.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the Minister’s support for my comments about my hon. Friend. I assure the Minister that I will try to kick him very hard on some of the political issues, but I hope that we can enjoy a similar relationship to that he had with my predecessor. Having dealt with the hon. Gentleman from the Government side of the Chamber when he was in opposition, I am sure that we will have a positive relationship.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), who has joined the shadow team and is graciously supporting me in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

In summary, the new clause is saying, “Let’s have an assessment before going down this much more detailed road. Let’s look at what the police and local authorities need to do to ensure that we have CCTV that meets our objectives of catching criminals, supporting the reduction of crime and increasing confidence.” The genuine concerns of Members about how CCTV is used should also be met. My worry is, albeit without having seen the guidance in detail, that the code as drafted will put off local authorities and the police using CCTV. Ultimately, that will potentially lead to a rise in crime. I commend new clause 16 and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role. I know he dealt with CCTV issues during his time as Policing Minister, so I recognise that he was examining regulation during his time at the Home Office. He acknowledge some of the challenges and issues surrounding CCTV and its use, and the need to continue to command public confidence so that CCTV can achieve the results we want, which are to protect the public and ensure that those who commit crimes are brought to justice.

The right hon. Gentleman may be reassured about the Government’s approach—I acknowledge that he has not been in his position very long, so he might not have had the opportunity to read the consultation document on the code of practice—if I quote what the consultation document says at the outset:

“We do not intend therefore, that anything in our proposals should hamper the ability of the law enforcement agencies or any other organisation, to use such technology as necessary to prevent or detect crime, or otherwise help to ensure the safety and security of individuals. What is important is that such use is reasonable, justifiable and transparent so that citizens in turn, feel properly informed about, and able to support, the security measures that are in place.”

It is that context of ensuring trust and confidence and moving forward on that basis that will allow us to ensure that CCTV is able to fulfil the important purposes he mentioned.

In the aftermath of the disorder in August, I went to see the Metropolitan police CCTV centre. I was struck by what I saw of the work undertaken there to identify the criminals who had been engaged in looting and other disorder in our communities, and I saw how the work was followed through to ensure that those responsible were brought to justice. The Government recognise the important role that CCTV can play.

From the way the right hon. Gentleman introduced the new clause and amendments, I gained a sense that he felt slightly uncomfortable about some of the provisions. I understand his desire to probe and to go back over some of the debates we had in Committee, and I accept that he might not have had the opportunity to review and reflect on the Committee reports, but I can tell him that a number of the issues he has brought to our attention this afternoon were considered in detail in Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman asked why, at this stage, the code of practice is to apply only to public authorities and the police. We want to take a measured approach: we want incremental change rather than a sudden significant shift, in order not to undermine the purposes of CCTV that he has identified. We want to provide a regulatory framework that allows CCTV to operate and to achieve the desired result of ensuring that the public have trust and confidence in the system.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

In 15 years of being a political animal—I was a councillor before I came here—the only complaints that I have received about CCTV have related to private use. As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) pointed out, there can be knock-on effects for next-door neighbours. I think that the Government are doing this the wrong way round: they should try to regulate use by the private sector and private residents before trying to deal with the public sector.

[James Brokenshire]

There is a potential issue of trust and confidence in the public sector as well. In a review of Project Champion, which involved the use of CCTV cameras in Birmingham, Sara Thornton, chief constable of Thames Valley police, wrote:

“In the course of this review I have met members of the community and have read the press reports and it is clear that many people feel that their civil liberties have been disregarded. As a consequence, the trust and confidence that they have in the police has been significantly undermined.”

Our code of practice is intended to provide a framework that would initially apply to public sector CCTV cameras, but could be adopted by the private sector to raise standards more generally. The Bill provides for an extension of its ambit or remit in due course, if that proves necessary. I believe that that proportionate approach is the right way to address this important issue.

[Keith Vaz]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, because I clearly remember our debate in Westminster Hall about the surveillance state and his Committee’s earlier consideration of the issue. I well understand the importance that he attaches to the subject.

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) referred to the statement made by the coalition. The last time the Select Committee considered this issue, we noted that there were 1.85 million cameras in existence, but the number has probably risen since then. Do the Government have a target for the number of cameras, or will a different criterion be used? We keep hearing about how their use will be rolled back, but we are keen to know how many will be rolled away.

[James Brokenshire]

It is not a simple question of numbers, but a question of people’s trust and confidence in the use of CCTV in their neighbourhoods and communities. That is the relevant factor and it is reflected in the approach that we adopted in the consultation, whose findings we have published and the responses to which we are now examining. It is a question of whether the public trust what is there. We want CCTV to be seen as a positive benefit that will aid security.

Several years ago, a report by the Home Affairs Committee articulated very well the concerns expressed by, for instance, the Information Commissioner about

“sleepwalking into a surveillance society”.

It was felt that the system had grown up over the years without a proper regulatory framework, but of course there are provisions relating to the Data Protection Act and the information published by the Information Commissioner himself. We want to bring those elements together to create clear guidance and a regulatory framework to which public authorities and the police must have regard, to ensure that that trust and confidence exist.

We must also look at value for money and effectiveness. As the right hon. Gentleman says, there are a lot of CCTV cameras. We must ensure that they are harnessed and used as effectively as possible and that standards are applied. The interim CCTV regulator appointed under the previous Government has focused on that and taken the standards issue further. It is on that basis that we need to look at regulation and trust and confidence, as well as how we can ensure cameras are used more effectively in the fight against crime.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The code of practice says that only local authorities and police forces

“will be required to have regard to the code in their use of surveillance camera systems”.

Will private sector retail cameras also be covered? They might intrude on public spaces. What might be the implications for the use of such cameras in relation to incidents such as the recent riots in London, Birmingham and the cities of the north?

[James Brokenshire]

At this stage, we take the view that public sector cameras in the purest sense—those of local authorities and police—should be covered, but we intend that any standards set may be rolled out further in due course and that other providers of CCTV services should consider the code of practice and perhaps adhere to it on a voluntary basis. That is why I have referred to the process being incremental. We want the introduction of regulation to be handled in a measured way, in order to avoid some of the negative consequences to which the shadow Minister alluded and to ensure that CCTV provides protection and assurance to the public.

It is worth highlighting that we have undertaken a public consultation, which has now been completed, to garner feedback from all the different stakeholders. I might point to the evidence given in Committee by Deputy Chief Constable Graeme Gerrard, who is the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on CCTV. He talked about the work the previous Government did in 2007 on producing a national CCTV strategy, and emphasised that that addressed

“standards around images, the retention period for images, the quality of images and ensuring that systems are fit for purpose. We also requested some sort of framework for regulation and a sort of oversight body for CCTV.”

He added:

“So in principle, we are supportive of what is being suggested.”—[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2011; c. 16, Q34.]

The House should be aware that there has not been a headlong rush to try to undermine CCTV and its benefits. Rather, we have tried to ensure trust and confidence in its use, both now and in the future, by providing a regulatory framework that gives the protections that many of our constituents have lobbied us about. This is not a kneejerk reaction or an attempt to get rid of lots of CCTV cameras. It is an attempt to give confidence in the use of CCTV cameras, reflecting on initiatives such as Project Champion, by putting in place a regulatory framework.

Let me deal briefly with the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Amendment 20 is a response to a similar amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). Clause 29(6) defines surveillance camera systems for the purposes of chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill. In addition to CCTV and automatic number plate recognition systems, the definition includes

“any other systems for recording or viewing visual images of objects or events for surveillance purposes”.

The hon. Gentleman questioned the need for the reference to “objects or events”. Having considered the issue further, I am satisfied that nothing hangs on these words, and that, as he suggested, they are more likely to confuse than enlighten. Our amendment therefore simply removes the offending words.

Amendments 31 and 67 simply debar the surveillance camera commissioner from also serving as a Member of the House by adding the office to the list in schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975.

In essence, the Opposition amendments seek to replace the proposed surveillance camera code of practice with guidance that will simply provide information about how CCTV can prevent and detect crime. Moreover, they would remove any form of parliamentary scrutiny, and they would remove the duty on the police, police and crime commissioners and local authorities to have regard to the code, and on the surveillance camera commissioner to provide advice about the code, including on changes to it. Taken together, the amendments would remove the code of practice and the framework that we believe is important in order to deliver on those issues that I have highlighted, such as giving trust and confidence to communities about how CCTV is being operated. That is why we do not believe that the amendments are necessary, and I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) will consider the measured and proportionate approach that the Government are taking and will feel minded not to press his amendments to a vote.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

Before I sit down, I shall give way one last time.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank the Minister for being very generous with his time. I just wanted to ask about the use of mobile CCTV cameras by police forces for crowd control purposes, particularly outside football grounds. Fortunately, parties on both sides of the House have introduced legislation and given powers to the police to reduce the amount of hooliganism. What will be the implications of the Bill for mobile CCTV usage by police to reduce crowd hooliganism, in any sport?

[James Brokenshire]

It will depend on the nature of the CCTV use—whether it is covert or overt, and whether, if it is covert, it falls within the separate regime under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The code could apply to overt CCTV but, as I have highlighted this afternoon, the actions we are taking are not intended to diminish the effectiveness of the police. From my visit to the football policing unit, I recognise how CCTV and video camera evidence can be very powerful tools in dealing with football hooliganism and those who shame the legitimate football supporters who are proud to support their clubs. I recognise the importance of putting our focus on football policing and how CCTV can play an important role. Given my comments, I hope that the right hon. Member for Delyn will not press the Opposition amendments to a vote.

[Keith Vaz]

May I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) on assuming the position of shadow police Minister? We remember his many contributions over the past few years as the police Minister in the Labour Government. May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) on joining our home affairs Front-Bench team? I had the pleasure of interviewing her when she came before the national executive committee of the Labour party as a candidate. Although I thought that she was an outstanding candidate and that she would have a glittering career, not even I could have predicted that within 18 months of her election she would be sitting on the Front Bench speaking on behalf of the Opposition on home affairs.

I do not think that there is a lot that divides the two Front-Bench teams on this issue. Although my right hon. Friend is trying to make a great divide between the Government and the Opposition, I heard nothing in the Minister’s speech to suggest that there is going to be a bonfire of cameras. Members on both sides of the House accept that there will always be circumstances in which cameras are necessary and desirable.

This country has 1.85 million of these cameras, one for every 32 citizens. When the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the previous Parliament produced a weighty report on the surveillance society, we were concerned that the country was, in the words of the commissioner,

“sleepwalking into a surveillance society”.

When considering this subject it is important that we balance what our constituents want with the general civil liberties issues. Cases of this kind always involve a balance. When we ask constituents, they say that they want more and more CCTV cameras. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about his constituents in Northern Ireland. The shadow Minister talked about Mr Hayes and his balaclava, and he will obviously be one of the great features of this debate. I can talk about my constituents in the Northfields estate, as every time I go to a public meeting in that estate they want cameras put up because they feel that that is the only way to reduce crime. That must apply to every Member of this House: local residents feel that one of the best ways of catching criminals is for CCTV cameras to be put up in the neighbourhood.

The problem for local authorities and the police is to ensure that there is a balance. There cannot be a CCTV camera everywhere that people want one. They must be fit for purpose and they must contain film because, as we heard from the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), in some cases the cameras do not work. Criminals will not necessarily be put off when they see a camera that does not move. In this Chamber, every time somebody moves from one position to another, the cameras move their little heads and follow the Members as they speak. It is very important that cameras are fit for purpose. When they are put up—especially when new cameras are erected—they must pass a test: do they benefit the local community and will they result in criminals being caught? If they are merely being put up for the sake of it, are they necessary? That is the test that we must all follow.

I was glad to hear from the Minister that he is interested in regulation and that there is a desire for a code of practice. I was also glad to hear that from the shadow Minister, although I was concerned by his proposal that the body that monitors the code should be HMIC. In his modest and boyish way, he said that he did not write the amendment, so he was not necessarily 100% clear as to why that body was the HMIC, but there is a danger in placing too much on the shoulders of the HMIC and poor old Sir Denis O’Connor and his fellow inspectors. I think there are only about a dozen of them in total, with one vacancy now that Mr Hogan-Howe is the new commissioner. We should be wary of placing more responsibilities on organisations. The decision was made before my right hon. Friend took office, so to speak, and we do not know why the HMIC is given that role, but I take his point that an organisation needs to monitor what is going on.

We must be very clear that we have probably reached our limit as far as cameras are concerned. With millions of cameras in this country and a large amount of personal information being gathered about individuals, we should be cautious.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 14—Extension of pre-charge detention—

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by order extend the permitted period of detention under section 41 and Schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to 28 days if the Attorney General has certified that exceptional circumstances apply;

(2) An order made under subsection (1) shall expire three months after commencement;

(3) The Secretary of State must arrange for a statement to be made to each House of Parliament as soon as possible once an order under subsection (1) has been made.

(4) A review of each order made under subsection (1) must be conducted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, or a person appointed by him, and each review must be published as soon as any risk of prejudice to judicial proceedings has ceased to exist.

(5) Every year, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report listing any orders made under subsection (1) since the commencement of this section, or since the date of the previous report as the case may be, explaining what exceptional circumstances applied in each case; and if—

(a) six weeks have elapsed from the report being laid, without the report being approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, or

(b) either House of Parliament declines to approve the report by resolution

this section, and any order made under subsection (1), shall cease to have effect.

(6) When an order under subsection (1) is in force, a High Court judge may extend the period of detention without charge of any person arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 up to 28 days if he is satisfied that—

(a) the person has been lawfully arrested on reasonable suspicion of having committed a specified terrorist offence;

(b) it would be exceptionally difficult to decide whether to charge the suspect with a terrorist offence unless the suspect were to be detained without charge for more than 14 days;

(c) there are reasonable grounds for expecting that it would be possible to decide whether to charge the suspect with a terrorist offence if he were detained without charge for more than 14 days but no more than 28 days; and

(d) the public interest in the administration of justice would be undermined if the suspect were to be released without charge.

(7) An application to the High Court under subsection (6) requires the authorisation of the Director of Public Prosecutions.’.

Government amendments 79, 80 and 75.

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

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

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

[Alun Michael]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Nicola Blackwood]

Will my hon. Friend give some indication of the role that operational independence will have in considering when investigations have become so complex and difficult that the police will require the extended period in order to complete their investigations?

[James Brokenshire]

I will cover that point in further detail in the latter part of my contribution, but I will say that the distinction between individual cases and legislating for the generality, and the need to make a clear distinction between the two, was something that the Joint Committee rightly scrutinised in that context. We believe that it is possible to draw the distinction between an individual case with individual circumstances, and legislating on a need to extend pre-charge detention from 14 days to 28 days as a principle. In order to plan for such circumstances, the Government have published, but not introduced, draft emergency legislation that would increase the maximum period from 14 days to 28 days, which has been subject to the scrutiny of the Joint Committee.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I have heard the words “exceptional circumstances” used. Am I right in saying that including those words strikes the right balance between defending civil liberties and protecting the British public?

[James Brokenshire]

I think that is right. In many ways it is why the Government have taken the approach that we have. Ultimately, it would be for the House to decide whether the circumstances justified the introduction of the emergency legislation. That is an important protection, and represents the underlying distinction in the Government’s approach.

Hon. and right hon. Members who sat on the Public Bill Committee will recall that we had extensive debates in Committee on what the maximum period should be, in what circumstances the Government might seek to extend that period, and what kind of contingency mechanism they might employ to extend the maximum period. As I said then, the Government have prepared draft fast-track legislation, which at the time was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Joint Committee undertaking that scrutiny reported in June, and I am grateful to Lord Armstrong of Illminster and the other members of the Committee for their careful consideration.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does the Minister believe that habeas corpus itself is in any way affected by the proposals before the House in the new clause, and does habeas corpus not, as Lord Steyn has said repeatedly, supervene against any other jurisdiction, provided that its operation is not excluded by statute?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that that is a particular concern for my hon. Friend, but we do not think that it is engaged in that way. I know that he has introduced a Bill previously on this subject, but the clear advice I have received is that the answer is no.

Although the Government still believe that fast-track legislation is the most appropriate contingency mechanism for increasing the maximum period of pre-charge detention, we recognise that, as the Committee pointed out, that approach would not be feasible during any period when Parliament was dissolved. No contingency mechanism will be perfect or able to meet all operational needs while at the same time satisfying every concern that Parliament and the public might have, but we recognised the point raised by the Committee about what would happen if Parliament were dissolved. New clause 13 has been introduced to address that specific concern.

I am aware that the Committee concluded that the Government’s intention to rely on fast-track legislation for other periods was not appropriate, citing potential problems with parliamentary debates and possible difficulties with recalling Parliament during a long recess. New clause 14, tabled by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), attempts to deal with that issue by introducing an order-making power to increase the maximum period of pre-charge detention, which would be available when the Attorney-General certified that exceptional circumstances applied. The new clause also includes a number of proposed safeguards relating to that power, including retrospective parliamentary approval and a number of conditions that would have to be satisfied before a High Court judge could approve any individual applications for extended detention up to 28 days.

I very much welcome the continuation of the debates that the right hon. Gentleman and I have had over terrorism legislation, and many of the themes that come through in this debate were apparent in our debates on the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, the enhanced regime and the provisions that it introduced. I think that it is right and proper that we have the debate on the issue in this Bill, particularly as the Joint Committee’s investigation related to the emergency draft legislation to which the Bill is in essence connected with regard to an increase from 14 to 28 days. However, we believe that the exceptional nature of these powers to extend the maximum period beyond 14 days means that, where feasible, the principle of 28- day detention should be debated and approved by Parliament.

In response to the Joint Committee’s report, the Home Secretary said:

“An order-making power of the type described in the Committee’s report”—

and in many ways reflected in the new clause that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has tabled—

“would…not be a clear expression that the ‘normal’ maximum period of pre-charge detention should be no longer than 14 days.”

She went on to say:

“28 day detention is so exceptional that I continue to believe that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate the issue first, and that the most appropriate and effective way to do this is by using emergency primary legislation.”

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

The Government have opted for legislation rather than for the order-making procedure, but by introducing new clause 13 the Minister demonstrates that the legislative approach is a principle that can be departed from in certain circumstances. The Committee found that an essential way to create a pragmatic response would be to apply the order-making procedure in all circumstances. So far, the Government’s response on the matter has been exiguous to say the least.

The first problem is that if we recalled Parliament for a statement and a debate, we would be doing something quite different from recalling Parliament in order to make primary legislation, remembering that that would have had to pass through not only this House but the other place. But there is a further point, and it seems even more significant as a matter of principle. How could one be assured that, in the course of a debate here about such primary legislation, nothing would take place that did not have the effect of prejudicing the right to a fair trial?

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

[Alun Michael]

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Nicola Blackwood]

In addition to the question of whether it is appropriate for Parliament to be the body that debates the conferring of exceptional powers, is it not also significant that what will be discussed is an exceptional threat to the nation? Is it not appropriate to recall Parliament to discuss that? Should not we be required to confer exceptional powers?

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

[Alun Michael]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

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

[James Brokenshire]

The Joint Committee set out that point very clearly in its report, and we have heard it, but we believe that a distinction can be drawn between the principle of extending 14 days to 28 days and the consideration of an individual case—and that it is entirely possible and practical for the House to do so.

I appreciate that in considering a detention of terrorism suspects (temporary extensions) Bill, Parliament would not be able to discuss matters relating to particular individuals or anything that might compromise an investigation or a future prosecution, but it is important to recognise the clear difference between Parliament's considering whether 28-day detention should be available in principle and the judiciary’s role in determining whether in an individual case to extend a detention warrant under schedule 8 to the 2000 Act. Parliament would not take a decision about an individual suspect or suspects; that would be a decision for the proper judicial process.

Parliament would take a decision about the principle of 28 days in a given set of circumstances, which would be explained in as much detail as possible. Parliament would also be able to discuss in general the issues of the threat and the reasons why an increased threat might require a longer maximum detention period.

[Mr Cash]

I am sure the Minister appreciates that he is treading a rather wobbly line, because clause 57 talks about a permanent reduction in the maximum detention period to 14 days, yet, during the rather special circumstances when Parliament is not sitting or has been dissolved, he is prepared to countenance the idea of an emergency arrangement that would produce 28 days. I happen to be in favour of more than 14 days, but is it not the case that, ultimately, the test should be what is in the interests of the security of the nation, and that, if it is good enough to extend 14 days to 28 in such circumstances, it should apply or could apply generally?

[James Brokenshire]

We come back to what I spoke about—the exceptional nature of the powers sought and the point that 14 days should be the norm. Through the new clause, we seek to address the very limited circumstances in which Parliament is not functioning, and we recognise and take on board the Joint Committee’s comments on that. In those circumstances, the Home Secretary and the Government need to be able to act in the national interest to ensure security. For that reason, the emergency order-making power in new clause 13 is limited to periods when the introduction of primary legislation would not be possible—that is, when Parliament is dissolved or before the first Queen’s Speech of the new Parliament.

As we set out in the Government’s response, published last week, to the Joint Committee’s report, we welcome two of the Committee’s further recommendations for increased safeguards, and we have included them in new clause 13. First, applications for any warrant of further detention that would see an individual detained for longer than 14 days may be made only with the personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the equivalent post holder in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Secondly, whenever an individual is detained for longer than 14 days, their case will be reviewed by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, or someone on their behalf, and a report of that review will be sent to the Secretary of State as soon as possible.

Both those changes will also be incorporated in the draft fast-track legislation to increase the maximum length of pre-charge detention to 28 days. New clause 13 and consequential amendments 79 and 80 ensure that there is an effective contingency mechanism for increasing the maximum period of pre-charge detention in the limited period during which Parliament is dissolved. It is right that we should continue to rely on fast-track primary legislation in all other circumstances. On that basis, I commend new clause 13 to the House.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I will start with some general comments and then come directly to the amendments and new clauses. Obviously, this is the first time that I have spoken about these matters in a shadow ministerial capacity, and I want to underline the fact that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition remain loyal on these issues. It is often said—just because it is a truism does not make it untrue—that the single most important thing that a Government have to do is protect their citizens, and we fully accept that.

It was said earlier that it is important to balance the security of the nation and civil liberties. I disagree with the framing of the debate in that way, because I think that the two are intertwined—someone has personal liberty only if they are safe and feel it, but they have liberty only if those particular liberties are granted to them as well. I would try to say that the two are not mutually exclusive, but intimately intertwined.

Outside London, people often think that issues of counter-terrorism are primarily the responsibility of the Metropolitan police and to do with what happens in the metropolitan areas of the country. However, I clearly remember that after 11 September, when Americans stopped flying, people were laid off at GE Aviation in Nantgarw just outside my constituency because it did not need to make any more aircraft engines. We are all intimately involved. Following the bombings in London, all the schools in my constituency cancelled their visits to Westminster for about a year, because there was a nervousness about coming up to London. We need to get these issues right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed—but we are trying to do better, and I honestly think that there is a danger. At that time, when there would be a Government but not a Parliament, we would end up with something of a constitutional crisis if the Government chose to delay having a Queen’s Speech to invoke the power, notwithstanding the other elements to which the Minister referred.

Then there is the route of emergency primary legislation. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) referred to the dangers, and he is absolutely right. Obviously, there would be a series of debates in this and the other House, because we would have to go through all three stages in both Houses. I cannot conceive of a set of debates in which one would not get close to having to argue why it was all necessary now and therefore it would not be prejudicing any potential prosecution. That is the Government’s big problem about the route of emergency legislation.

I should also say that, on the whole, emergency legislation is a bad idea. In my experience, the Commons does not do emergency legislation well, and their lordships do not do it much better. I presume that the Minister would want all three stages in both Houses in one day, or at most two. There are real problems with that, because Members would have to be able to table manuscript amendments on Report and would not be able to listen to the Second Reading debate before considering the tabling of amendments. All that would be in danger of leading to bad legislation.

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position and wish him well in his new responsibilities and duties. Does he accept that when the previous Government were considering the extension to 42 days, they were proposing to use exactly the same mechanism?

[Chris Bryant]

I think we have moved on somewhat; certainly I have. Also, the facts have changed. There was a time when a lot more people feared much more that we might need more than 14 days rather more frequently, but the fact is that the powers have not been used—they have not been necessary. The facts have changed, time has passed, and we need to move on. I am grateful for the Minister’s wishing me well, with a slight barb to it.

The Minister said that in the case of phone hacking the House moved remarkably swiftly. In fact, all that happened was Executive action, because the Government were finally persuaded that they should set up the Leveson inquiry. Parliament did absolutely nothing. We did not legislate; we certainly did not go through three stages of a Bill. We may end up legislating in that respect, but it will not happen for some time.

We have had the pre-legislative scrutiny process, and I am grateful to the right hon. and hon. Members who sat on the Committee. However, there is still the danger that following the moment that necessitated emergency legislation—I do not know whether that would be 10, 11 or 12 days in—we would effectively be undertaking ad exemplum legislation, which is always a mistake. I sympathise with the squaring of the circle that the Government are trying to achieve whereby we all accept that the norm should be 14 days, and while in normal circumstances we do not want all those 14 days to be used, we none the less accept that there might be some exceptional circumstances in which 20 days might be necessary. However, I believe that the Government are going down the wrong route in trying to achieve that, as does the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, which said:

“We believe, however, that the parliamentary scrutiny of primary legislation to this effect would be so circumscribed by the difficulties of explaining the reasons for introducing it without prejudicing the rights of a suspect or suspects to a fair trial as to make the process of justifying the legislation almost impossible for the Secretary of State and totally unsatisfactory and ineffective for Members of both Houses of Parliament.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Michael]

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

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

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

[James Brokenshire]

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

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

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

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

Protection of Freedoms Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The debate may continue for 45 minutes. I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of Mr Edward Leigh.

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

I beg to move,

That the Order of 1 March 2011 (Protection of Freedoms Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows—

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 shall be omitted.

2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days.

3. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the following Table and in the order so shown.

4. Each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My hon. Friend said that the Government have generously given the House two days at this stage of the proceedings. We have already lost three hours because the Government decided to make three statements to the House; with one hand they provide time generously, but with the other they take that time away.

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, there is a balance to be struck in all these proceedings. We maintain that the programme motion strikes that right and appropriate balance in respect of consideration of the Bill.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The Minister listed a number of items that the Committee rightly dealt with in great detail. However, it did not cover in any detail the issues raised in new clause 17, which is enormously important to the whole research community. Can the Minister guarantee that time will be available for a debate on that new clause?

[James Brokenshire]

We have sought to structure the programme motion to enable consideration of the Bill, and that is right and proper for Report. A priority appropriately has to be given to enable scrutiny of the Bill as drafted. Obviously, it is for the House to decide within the programme motion the extent to which it will debate particular clauses, but we have had to strike as fair a balance as we can on the provisions of the Bill to ensure that appropriate scrutiny is applied.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I appreciate that my hon. Friend is a coalition Minister and not a Conservative one; before we got into power, the Conservative party was against having programme motions.

Given that we have lost three hours or so to statements, would not a fair balance have been to have allowed us to go for three hours extra tonight? We have been away from this place for a long time; surely an extra three hours this evening would have been fair. That is what democracy is about—we are not trying to force things through. Let us have three hours extra tonight.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend takes the issues of the House extremely seriously, and I respect him for that. The Government have made important changes to how legislation is scrutinised. We are having two days on Report for the Bill, and that is markedly different from what we would have seen from the previous Government; we would have had a day for consideration of a Bill of this kind.

The terms of the programme motion will come as a disappointment to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and the other right hon. and hon. Members who have put their name to new clause 1. Despite the two days that we have set aside for Report, twice the normal allocation that we were accustomed to seeing in the last Parliament, regrettably it is unlikely that the House will be able to consider all the new clauses tabled for debate.

As I said, the programme motion has been constructed to ensure that there is adequate time to consider the key provisions already in the Bill. I believe that that is the right approach. Although this is not the occasion to consider the substance of new clause 1, which seeks to amend section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, I fully recognise that the matter is of considerable interest to a number of Members on both sides of the House. That much is clear from the number of right hon. and hon. Members who have added their names to the new clause.

We agree that the issue should be examined further. That is why, in the next few days, we will publish a consultation seeking views on whether section 5 should be amended along the lines proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. I will be happy to meet him to hear his views on this important issue. Once the consultation has concluded—it will run to early in the new year—the Government will set out their conclusions as quickly as possible, so that they can inform the debate on the issue while the Bill is in another place. I have no doubt that there will be other opportunities for the House to consider section 5, either when we next examine the Bill on its return from the other place or on some other suitable occasion. I can assure my hon. Friend that through the consultation we want to promote debate on this issue, not seek to curtail it, by widening and broadening it outside this House.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says, which helps to set in a more attractive context the otherwise uncharacteristic step that was taken by moving new clause 1 to the very end of the Bill’s consideration. Is he saying that the Government will facilitate a parliamentary opportunity to legislate if a clear conclusion emerges from these discussions?

[James Brokenshire]

The timing of the consultation is intended to be such that it can inform proceedings in the other place. There may therefore be time, in the context of the consideration of the Bill as a whole, to be able to address issues that may come through from the consultation. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough will accept the consultation as a mark of our determination to undertake a proper review of section 5 and that on that basis he will agree not to press his new clause.

We believe that the programme motion strikes the right balance. I commend it to the House and ask Members to support it so that we can get on with debating the important issues that lie within the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful for the contributions of a number of right hon. and hon. Members to our consideration of the programme motion. As I said in my opening remarks, we judge it right that the programme motion should be drafted so as to allow this House to scrutinise the key provisions that are actually in the Bill. I appreciate that a number of hon. Members would have wished to amend the Bill to include various other provisions—in particular, given the level of support for new clause 1, the amendment of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) sought to characterise that as simple or straightforward. However, I would say to him that there are complexities attached, which is why the Government would prefer to consider and reflect on the matter carefully, and to enable a public consultation to take place so as to ensure that all relevant issues are considered in the round and to inform the debate. It is worth mentioning that section 5 of the 1986 Act covers issues such as swearing at police officers and the case against the poppy burning on Remembrance day. It is therefore appropriate to ensure proper consultation before taking any action.

However, I reiterate that the intent is to move quickly to enable consideration of the results of the consultation in another place. Obviously, the consultation will provide an opportunity for hon. Members, the Christian Institute, the police and many others to set out their views, and I look forward to the debate and to meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough to hear his views at first hand.

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) mentioned the Digital Economy Act 2010. He will be aware that the Government announced in August that they did not intend to commence sections 17 and 18 of the Act. There might not be time to debate his new clause, but we are now working on a wide-scale review of the communications sector with a view to publishing a Green Paper by the spring of next year, and a draft Bill by mid-2013. Policy on tackling online copyright infringement, including site-blocking, is being considered as part of that review and, given our intention to conduct that wide-ranging review, it would be premature to act now to repeal sections 17 and 18 of the Act in isolation from any other legislative changes that might be needed.

We believe that the programme motion is right to focus on the provisions of the Bill to ensure that this House is able to apply appropriate scrutiny to the legislation before us. We have introduced important changes. I welcome the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to his new position in the shadow home affairs team—he and I have had a number of debates on these issues, in relation to the Bill and elsewhere—but I think that some of his comments were a bit rich, because I can certainly remember previous occasions on which we have had less time than we have tonight to debate important legislation. This Government have made important changes that will allow us to debate these matters for two days, rather than rushing them through in one day, as would have happened in the past. I therefore commend the programme motion to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I just wish to check on the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about that case. I believe he said that this individual had been convicted. As he knows, under the arrangements—I think that there is agreement on this point—where there is a conviction, the DNA would be retained indefinitely.

[Alan Johnson]

I did not say that this individual had been convicted. He had been arrested but not charged of a non-serious offence and his DNA remained on the database. The Minister has all these statistics—the Home Office provided me with them, so it can provide him with them too.

[Alan Johnson]

I will not concede that argument because, as I said at the beginning, our job, in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights judgment, was to come up with something that is necessary and proportionate. There has to be a logic to this; we cannot have blanket and indiscriminate retention of DNA. Because that is the requirement on us, we need to examine and research, as the Home Office and others have done, the hazard curve for those arrested but not convicted—that is the whole nature of this debate. The Government are not proposing to not keep the DNA of those arrested but not convicted, they are not proposing to take the DNA on conviction and they are not proposing to take the DNA when someone is charged. They are taking the DNA of those arrested but not convicted—innocent—for a reason; they think that it should be kept for three years, with various permutations and lots of complications. Labour Members say that six years is the correct level.

I shall give a final example, because it is important to translate all this into people rather than statistics. In June 2009, Gary Grubb attacked two women while working temporarily in Middlesbrough, indecently assaulting them both and then fleeing for South Africa. However, a DNA sample from the crime scene matched a sample placed on the national DNA database after he was arrested but not convicted for drink-driving—a non-serious offence—in 2006. He was arrested when he tried to re-enter the UK in 2010 and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He would be free today if the proposals in this Bill had been in force at the time.

Let me say to Members on the Government Benches that lots of these cases will crop up in the future and this will come back to haunt them if they decide to support what is in this Bill today. The Government are ignoring these and the many other examples of the folly of their dogmatic approach. Their attempt to take the moral high ground consists of trotting out a mantra about these measures being consistent with the principle of innocent until proven guilty. That would be the case only if DNA were taken on conviction. Everybody is innocent when it is checked against previous crime scenes—there is nothing wrong with that, apparently—and the collective view is that DNA should be maintained to match against future crime scenes for a limited period. The Government do not even seek to return to the situation pre-2003, when DNA was taken upon someone’s being charged, not upon their being arrested. The Government will continue to take DNA upon arrest, when every person from whom a sample is taken will be innocent. They now propose, under amendment 5, to introduce a convoluted, bureaucratic system to retain the DNA of innocent people where

“the retention of the material is necessary to assist in the prevention or detection of crime.”

So someone is innocent until proven guilty, unless they are innocent of a serious offence, in which case they will have their DNA retained under a procedure that is bureaucratic, convoluted and complex, and that the police are unlikely to use, as with the Scottish extension.

We are now to have the gloriously named “biometric commissioner”. I remember when my son was small buying him a bionic man—Steve Austin was “the bionic man”—and we now have the biometric commissioner. At best, he will have to open a file for each of the 17,000 suspected rapists, and the police will have to put forward a case in respect of every one of those 17,000 suspected rapists that Rape Crisis says are likely to be wiped off the DNA database. At worst, as Rape Crisis fears, those 17,000 profiles, or a large proportion of them, will be wiped.

Although all the evidence points to the need to adopt this amendment, we all need to accept that much of the research is based on projection. We do not have the six years of actual evidence required to make a proper assessment, and if we carry the Bill unamended we never will. DNA profiles for those arrested but not charged or convicted that are more than three years old will be wiped, never to be retrieved. Let us accept the amendment so that the proper assessment of all the evidence, when we have six years’ worth of it, can take place in a few years’ time. We can go from six years down to three, but we will never be able to go from three years up to six, which is why my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has implored the Government—they might be right about the three-year limit, although we doubt it, and it might even be necessary to have a limit of four or five years—to wait until we have evidence rather than projections. Is that not eminently sensible, given that we are dealing with life and death and issues that are so pertinent to criminal justice and so important to our constituents?

The role of the Home Office for the past 229 years of its existence has been to weigh the rights of the individual against the needs of society as a whole. For the Government to pursue their retention policy against all the available evidence and in the teeth of fierce opposition from the police, who will be restricted in their ability to catch criminals, and in defiance of the sensible alternative of reviewing the situation when more reliable evidence is available, is a huge, avoidable and potentially catastrophic error that they will live to regret.

[James Brokenshire]

One point of agreement between me and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) is that I think that this is a question of balancing collective protection and individual freedom. We can agree on that much, but in some ways the right hon. Gentleman is looking through the other end of the telescope. Through the indefinite retention regime that was the hallmark of the previous Labour Government, he seeks to retain data and information for as long as possible in case it becomes useful. I think he was accusing us of being dogmatic on this point in some ways, but he and his right hon. and hon. Friends come at it from the perspective that they want indefinite retention of everyone’s DNA for as long as possible. Our starting point is different. Our concept is that of innocent until proven guilty, so we come at this from a different direction.

I shall address some of the right hon. Gentleman’s direct points, but, as this is a wide-ranging group of amendments, it might assist the House if I explain the Government’s amendments before responding to those tabled by the right hon. Gentleman and others.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who played a key part in Committee. I am sure that I will welcome his contribution to the debate.

[Clive Efford]

The Minister has just said that he has accepted the principle of innocent until proven guilty, but will he confirm that everyone who is arrested will, at the point at which they are arrested, have their DNA sample taken and checked against the national DNA database, so that principle does not hold? The Government accept the principle that innocent people will have their DNA retained for up to three years for various crimes, so does he accept that we are debating the principle of who should have their DNA retained for three years or for six years? On the question of people’s civil liberties, will the Minister take into consideration the civil liberties of those who might be the victims of crimes that will not be detected because of the position that the Government have taken?

[James Brokenshire]

I say to the hon. Gentleman—he and I had a fair and clear debate on this matter in Committee—that the Government take into consideration the position of the victim, which is why I said that that principle was our starting point. That is why we are adopting the provisions in the Bill. We recognise that more than 5.7 million people are on the national DNA database and about 70% of the profiles in the EU are on our national database, so it important—and our responsibility—to consider the issues extraordinarily carefully to ensure that we judge the balance correctly.

I shall go briefly through the Government’s amendments before returning to the important issues of principle and to do with the duration of retention. Government amendments 1 to 15, 33 to 38, 65, 66, 72 and 73 fine-tune the provisions governing the retention of DNA. In a number of cases, they pick up on points raised in Committee. The key amendments all touch on the role of the commissioner for the retention and use of biometric material and I shall detail those amendments first.

When we considered clause 3 in Committee, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and others expressed concern that much of the detail about the arrangements for retaining biometric material taken from those arrested for, but not charged with, a qualifying offence was left to subordinate legislation. I gave the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that the Government would take the issue away and consider it. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also raised concerns about the issue in their recent report on the Bill. We have considered the issue further and agree that it is appropriate to place such detail on the face of the Bill. Amendments 1 to 5 therefore remove from clause 3 the existing order-making power for the Secretary of State to prescribe circumstances in which such retention would be permitted and replace it with new section 63FA of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

New section 63FA sets out the circumstances in which a chief officer of police may apply to the commissioner to retain DNA profiles and fingerprints of those arrested for, but not charged with, a serious offence. The first circumstance, in new section 63FA(2), is where the victim of the alleged offender is a minor, a vulnerable adult or is “associated” with the suspect. The second circumstance, in new section 63FA(3), is where none of the criteria in subsection (2) apply but the chief officer none the less considers it necessary to retain the material to prevent or detect crime. The chief officer must give the person to whom the biometric material relates a copy of the application made to the commissioner. It is then open to that person to make representations to the commissioner within 28 days and it will then fall to the commissioner to determine the application based on these papers. Amendment 15 to clause 24 enables the National DNA Database Strategy Board to provide guidance to the police in such cases, thus helping to ensure consistency in the making of applications to the commissioner. Amendment 9 to clause 20 ensures that the provisions dovetail with the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill.

In addition to the commissioner’s review function in individual cases, we believe that the commissioner should also have a more general oversight role. Amendment 11 therefore extends the role of the commissioner to provide him or her with a general function of keeping under review the retention and use of DNA and fingerprints by police and other law enforcement authorities.

I draw the House’s attention to amendment 7, which makes two further exemptions from the normal retention rules. First, new subsection (2A) of section 63T of PACE, inserted by clause 17, ensures that the police can retain hard copies of material on case files. That is in order to ensure that a copy of the material remains available for examination by defence experts, and potentially the Criminal Cases Review Commission, in accordance with the disclosure provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. The changes are therefore intended to ensure that the provisions discharge CPIA compliance obligations. The CPIA exists to prevent miscarriages of justice and I am sure that we would all agree that nothing in the Bill can undermine that purpose.

In order to enable the police to meet their obligations, new section 63T(2A) provides for the police to retain the minimum amount of biometric material necessary. So the records on the DNA and fingerprint databases would be destroyed in accordance with the existing provisions of the Bill, leaving only hard copies on the police case file that could be examined by the defence or the Criminal Cases Review Commission as necessary.

The second part of amendment 7, which inserts new subsection (2B) of section 63T, arises from a concern raised with us by Forensic Science Northern Ireland. The service was concerned that, because of the way that PACE is drafted, all samples taken compulsorily from a suspect would be caught by the requirement to destroy them in clause 14 of the Bill. That would include material originating from another person that is evidence of contact between people and would often be key evidence in a trial examining that contact. An example may be where traces of a victim’s blood have been taken from a suspect’s hand. New subsection (2B) of new section 63T therefore provides that where material is taken from one person that originates from another it is not required to be destroyed within six months but can be retained for as long as is necessary in the same way as crime scene material can because it is, essentially, crime scene material.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will, because I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in these matters for some time.

[Steve McCabe]

The country’s police chiefs have rather helpfully told us that large numbers of those who were arrested following the summer riots were arrested because of matches against the existing DNA database. Has the Minister undertaken any work to ascertain how many of those would have escaped justice under his proposals?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman highlights a key issue—the retention of the DNA of those convicted of offences, with which I absolutely agree. Some 75% of those who were engaged in the rioting—or, at least, those who were brought before the courts—had committed prior offences. That clearly makes the point that there is a need to put the DNA of those who are guilty of crimes on the database, rather than keeping those who are innocent of any crime on it, which is the approach of the Opposition and was the approach of the previous Government. The Labour party persists in its approach of keeping the DNA and fingerprints of innocent people for many years, no matter what those people have been accused of and no matter how little evidence was ever uncovered in relation to them.

It is worth putting these issues into context. Of course, DNA is important. I fully recognise the scientific breakthrough of being able to take DNA to search against the database and, most importantly, to retain crime scene DNA evidence in a cold case database against which matches can be made. However, the collection of DNA is part of a process of investigation and is not a panacea in itself. I think that if the Labour party could have its way, it would continue with the previous approach of simply trying to put more and more data on the database regardless of people’s guilt or innocence. However, it is interesting to look at what has been the result of adding many more people on to the database. In 2004-05, 2.8 million people were on the national DNA database and in 2009-10, the figure was 4.8 million people. Now, let us look at the number of detections in those years. In 2004-05 there were 35,605 and in 2009-10 there were 32,552, so when there were 2 million more people on the database, there were 3,000 fewer detections. I therefore challenge the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle that the more people’s DNA is on the database, the more effective it is. The figures do not necessarily equate in that way, as the historic evidence shows.

[Alan Johnson]

The total number of detected crimes in which a DNA match was available fell by 11% between 2003-04 and 2008-09—that is what the Minister basically just told us—but over the same five-year period, police recorded crime fell by 17.1%. So there was an 11% reduction in DNA detections and a 17.1% reduction in recorded crime. Those are the figures that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) tried to fiddle in the previous Parliament. Burglary was down 29%, vehicle crime was down 40% and criminal damage was down 23%—so much for fewer cases being solved through DNA.

[James Brokenshire]

As a proportion of total detections, DNA detections have remained pretty static. If the right hon. Gentleman is right that the figures I gave were all down to there being less crime—I think that is his argument—what he said about DNA detections would not be the case. Some 2 million extra people have been put on to the database and if hon. Members are suggesting that that change has been positive and would generate many more detections, I am afraid to say that that is not borne out by the evidence.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I think this is quite a good indicator of how much the Labour party played with the politics of this issue when they were in government rather than dealing with the reality. The biggest handicap to the use of DNA in evidence is collection at the crime site, which is very poor. Our police have been poor at that for a long time but Labour did nothing about that throughout the entire period being discussed.

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important and powerful case about the effective use of DNA and the fact that crime scene issues can be very important in the detection of crimes and in ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way because I know that the hon. Lady has focused closely on the disproportionate impact that the DNA database can have on some minority communities. I will be very interested to hear her thoughts.

[Ms Abbott]

I will of course be supporting the amendment in the Lobby tonight, but is the Minister aware that the professor who devised the use of DNA detection processes, Professor Jeffreys, is against keeping the DNA of innocent people? He argues that the amount of DNA that has to be held for that purpose and the intrusion of civil liberties that that brings is not justified by the marginal improvements in detection.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady, who has taken a close and personal interest in these issues for a number of years, makes an important point. I know that some people will say that we should take everybody’s DNA from birth and that this would solve all the problems, but neither party seeks to make that argument here, although some people may. The issue of disproportionality is very important when considering how to strike the right balance on what the retention period should be, on how DNA is used and on the protections that are afforded. That is why we have taken the approach we have in the Bill.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will, because I know that my hon. Friend has put his name to some of the amendments.

[Mr Hollobone]

On the gap between the fall in DNA detections and the fall in crime, my hon. Friend the Minister is ignoring the deterrent effect, which my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) mentioned earlier. If one’s name is on the database, one is less likely to commit crime and therefore will not be detected, so the matches will go down less than the crime rate is falling. I think that my constituents will be alarmed that there are 23,000 people on this database whose details will be wiped if we go along with the Government’s suggestions. The former Home Secretary has pointed out that on the hazard curve, they are likely to be rearrested within that missing three-year period.

[James Brokenshire]

That point was made by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, but I pray in aid Professor Fraser’s report. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman says that the terms of reference were not wide enough and that it is not appropriate to rely on the report, but those terms of reference took account of available information and experience elsewhere when the appropriateness of the Scottish system was considered. Indeed, it was the right hon. Gentleman’s colleague in the other place, Lord Bach, who said:

“In determining the appropriateness of the current legislation, Professor Fraser considered data on reoffending rates and conducted a wide consultation. He did not uncover any evidence to suggest that this approach to retention has caused any detriment to the detection of serious crime in Scotland.”

I therefore think it is appropriate to look to Professor Fraser’s investigation, as he is a learned expert on forensics, rather than simply trying to skate over and ignore it as the right hon. Gentleman appears to be doing.

[Alan Johnson]

According to the evidence that the hon. Gentleman’s Department gave to the Home Affairs Committee,

“It has been suggested that the research carried out into the Scottish system (by Professor Fraser) did not uncover any evidence to suggest that the Scottish approach to retention had caused any detriment to the detection of…crime…However, that is to misunderstand this research which did not assess whether alternative systems would have been more effective. It was also unable to review how many serious crimes went undetected as the relevant DNA profiles had been deleted and, therefore, was not in a position to conclude whether there was any detriment to the detection of serious crime.”

That is the hon. Gentleman’s Department’s evidence to the Select Committee—collapse of stout party.

[James Brokenshire]

Again, I would point to the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, who obviously wrote the letter saying that Professor Fraser’s report came to the conclusion that there was no detriment to the detection of serious crime. As I have highlighted, Professor Fraser’s report was wide-ranging in scope. Needless to say, we have a difference of view on this important point.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In deciding whether to support the amendment or the Government tonight, I have to balance the loss of rights of those people who had crimes committed against them, or who may have crimes committed against them as a result of reducing the period of the retention of DNA from six years to three, against the injustice that might be visited on innocent people whose DNA is kept for three years longer than it otherwise would be. Can the Minister tell me, in words simple enough even for me to understand, what exactly the loss of human rights and the injustice will be to those innocent people who have their DNA kept for three years longer before it is wiped? Can he compare that with the suffering of victims who have crimes committed against them by people who will not be detected?

[James Brokenshire]

This is about getting the right people on the national DNA database. By that, I mean those who have been convicted of crimes. We should focus on those who have committed crimes; we should look at recidivism and getting persistent prolific offenders, those who have been in prison and those who have committed crimes on the national DNA database. Interestingly, that was not the approach of the previous Government; they were more fixated with keeping the innocent on the national DNA database. If we take the approach that I suggest, we can ensure that we focus attention where it is needed, and that we do our duty—this is something that I take very seriously—when it comes to protecting the public and ensuring that the police can do what is necessary. I certainly believe that the provisions before the House will enable the police to do that.

[Dr Lewis]

My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way, particularly as he knows that this will not be a supportive question. With the greatest respect, he did not answer my question, which was: in practical, simple terms, in what way will these innocent people—let us accept that they are innocent—who will have their DNA kept on record for an extra three years suffer, or have their rights infringed? Can we compare that with the suffering and infringed rights of people who will otherwise have crimes committed against them by criminals who go unpunished?

[James Brokenshire]

When I look at the Members of Parliament who contact me about the DNA database, there are not huge stacks of correspondence relating to the retention of DNA. The correspondence relates to the many people who complain about their DNA remaining on the national DNA database when they are innocent of any crime, and who say how that offends them. Let us look at some of the cases involved. GeneWatch UK has been quite helpful in highlighting the issues. There is the 12-year-old schoolboy arrested for allegedly stealing a pack of Pokémon cards; the grandmother arrested for failing to return a football that was kicked into her garden; the 10-year-old victim of bullying who had a false accusation made against her; and the 14-year-old girl arrested for allegedly pinging another girl’s bra. Those people have been arrested; their DNA would be retained under the arrangements that the previous Government seemed to laud. That issue of injustice is very much at the heart of the matter.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the hon. Gentleman place in the Library information on exactly how many letters he has received on the topic and how many complaints he has had, as compared with the number of innocent people who will be killed, raped, maimed or injured because of the proposals before the House?

[James Brokenshire]

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to try to take us down that path. I am speaking honestly and fairly about the correspondence that comes from hon. Members on both sides of the House on the injustice that some minority communities feel in particular. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has highlighted how acutely many communities feel about the issue.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question of judgment and balance. The Labour party, when in government, did not focus properly on putting the guilty on the database. We are focused on doing that, and on not retaining all the DNA of those innocent of any crime. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle may perhaps suggest that privacy is in some way a science, but it is not. Liberty cannot be decided on by testing in that way. It is a question of judgment and looking at the evidence, and reaching a conclusion on how to strike the balance fairly between collective protection and individual liberty.

As for what has been said about the previous Government’s proposals, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle may pray in aid all sorts of things, but there was very limited support for the idea that six years was appropriate. We believe that the protection given by the Scottish model means that that is the right approach, and it strikes the right balance, and I therefore commend it to the House.

[Mr Hanson]

I confirm to the Minister that this is a matter of judgment—a judgment as to whether one is on the side of victims and the prevention of crime. There are very difficult issues that the Minister knows we have wrestled with to do with balancing civil liberties with the protections that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) has so eloquently spoken about today. I pay tribute to him; he has made a compelling case that Government Members ignore at their peril. I do not say that to the Minister in a threatening way; I am simply saying that I suspect that there will be people who are victims of crime because he rejects my right hon. Friend’s amendment this evening.

The Minister will know that my right hon. Friend and I included the provisions that we are discussing in the Crime and Security Act 2010 after considerable thought and consideration of the European judgments that were brought against us. We tried to balance the civil liberties of the British people with their ability to secure their future, free of murder, rape and crime. The Minister will know that there are balances to be struck; ministerial life is about balances. I accept the point made by the hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), and for St Albans (Mrs Main): if the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend is accepted, there will be people whose DNA is on the database for three years longer than the Government propose. Those people may not commit a further crime, and they may well feel aggrieved, but the purpose of the House is to protect the rights of citizens as far as we can.

When my right hon. Friend and I were in government, and were Ministers in the Department in which the Minister is now privileged to serve, we felt that, within European law and within the rights of protection of those liberties, we should try to extend the window of opportunity so as to protect as many people as possible, by ensuring that DNA was collected. We have to balance the aggrieved feelings that the hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned with the rights of citizens as a whole. There will undoubtedly be people who feel aggrieved, but we have to accept those consequences. Ministerial life is about making not just judgments, but the right judgments. On this occasion, the Minister has got that judgment wrong.

Britain is leading the world in DNA technology, which provides critical investigative leads. The DNA database provides the police with almost 3,300 DNA matches per month. There were 832 positive matches on the DNA database in cases of rape, murder, and manslaughter and other serious crimes in 2009. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned his concerns; Chris Sims, the chief constable of the West Midlands police, who leads on the issue not for the West Midlands but for the Association of Chief Police Officers, has said that much more detailed information is important to ensure that we protect the public from serious crime. There is no dispute about the fact that three years should be included in the Bill—both sides have accepted that. We are arguing for the maximum envelope that we introduced in 2010, which will protect future victims of crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

11. What steps she is taking to reduce antisocial behaviour.

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

This Government are clear that reducing antisocial behaviour is core business for the police and their local partners. Current action includes highlighting effective practice that will help professionals to improve their response to victims and communities, setting out proposals for more effective powers, and making more data available to the public.

[Karen Lumley]

We know that nearly two thirds of under-16-year-olds breach their antisocial behaviour orders. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that despite the protests of the shadow Home Secretary, ASBOs will be replaced with effective sanctions that will actually tackle antisocial behaviour?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has made an important point about the measures available to professionals on the front line who are dealing with antisocial behaviour. We are keen to ensure that they have discretion to deal with problems in their localities, and can act speedily to bring relief to communities that are suffering from such behaviour. That is the focus of the Government, that is what we have been consulting on, and we will present our response to the consultation in due course.

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

The Met have said that ASBOs have been a valuable tool in combating violence and antisocial behaviour on the part of gangs. Following the August riots, will the Government ditch their plans to weaken the ASBO regime through proposals to remove the criminal sanctions and introduce far lighter penalties for those who flout the law? Do communities not deserve to be protected by the full force of the criminal law?

[James Brokenshire]

I am sorry to tell the hon. Lady that I think she has completely misunderstood the situation. We are ensuring that antisocial behaviour measures are effective and will provide relief for communities. As for the need to combat gangs, we are ensuring that injunctions are available to support the police and communities and enable firm and clear action to be taken against gangs, and we will have rolled them out to all communities by the end of this year. Those are practical measures to bring relief to communities, which is what the Government are determined to do.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the introduction of police and crime commissioners will help to ensure that the police focus on local policing priorities, such as antisocial behaviour, that matter in neighbourhoods such as those across my constituency?

[James Brokenshire]

With a mandate that will respond to local concerns and priorities, I have little doubt that police and crime commissioners will focus on how their local police forces address antisocial behaviour and will ensure that the necessary strategies, funding and resources are made available. Our reforms are designed precisely to ensure that local communities’ views are heard very loudly and clearly. That is at the heart of the reforms, and I am sure that police and crime commissioners will have antisocial behaviour at the top of their agendas.

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

The Minister is using some robust words, but he does not seem to understand the point. Antisocial behaviour orders are a preventive measure but they need the back-up of a criminal sanction to make them effective. That has worked across the country. Does he not listen to the police, who say it is an essential element in tackling antisocial behaviour?

[James Brokenshire]

The Association of Chief Police Officers has been clear that it supports

“a simplification of the tools and powers available to frontline practitioners, making it easier for them to do what works best.”

That is the action we are taking to help the police and communities, and to bring relief against antisocial behaviour, which, sadly, the last Government failed to do.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

12. What procedures are in place to repatriate illegal immigrants whose treatment in NHS hospitals has been completed.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 4—Section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers): supplementary provision.

New clause 7—Annual renewal

‘(1) Except in so far as otherwise provided under this Clause, Clause 2 and all other consequential clauses in this Act will expire at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument—

(a) repeal Clause 2 and all other consequential clauses in this Act; or

(b) provide that Clause 2 will not expire at the time when it would otherwise expire under subsection (1) of this Clause but will continue in force after that time for a period not exceeding one year.

(3) Before making an order under subsection (2)(b) of this Clause the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Independent Reviewer of Counter-Terrorism Legislation;

(b) the police; and

(c) the security services.

(4) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under this Clause unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.

(5) Subsection (4) of this Clause does not apply to an order that contains a declaration by the Secretary of State that the order needs, by reason of urgency, to be made without the approval required by subsection (4).

(6) An order under this Clause that contains such a declaration—

(a) must be laid before Parliament after being made; and

(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which the order was made, ceases to have effect at the end of that period.

(7) Where an order ceases to have effect in accordance with subsection (6), that does not—

(a) affect anything previously done in reliance on the order; or

(b) prevent the making of a new order to the same or similar effect.’.

Government amendments 11 and 13.

Amendment 8, page 15, line 41, clause 27, leave out from ‘Act’ to end of line and insert

‘will come into force on 1 January 2013’.

Amendment 20, page 15, line 41, clause 27, leave out from ‘Act’ to end of line and insert

‘will come into force the day after the Home Secretary reports to Parliament to confirm that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) below have been complied with—

(a) no later than one month after the day on which this Act is passed, the Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism will produce a report to the Home Secretary detailing the additional required resources (“required resources”) that will be needed to manage the increased risks arising from the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the passing of this Act;

(b) no later than two months after the day on which this Act is passed the Home Secretary will agree with the Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism the required resources under paragraph (a) and the timetable for such required resources becoming deployable for use in implementing and managing measures relating to TPIM notices;

(c) this Act cannot come into force until the required resources as agreed under paragraph (b) above are made available and ready for deployment.’.

[James Brokenshire]

In starting our consideration of the Bill, we will be reflecting on a number of points and issues that were debated in Committee. I look forward to continuing some of the debates that we had with Members who were part of that Committee, and with other Members joining today’s consideration.

This group contains two related but distinct sets of amendments. The first deals with expiry and renewal of the legislation, and the second with its commencement. On expiry and renewal, the Government new clauses and amendments return to an important matter that was raised on Second Reading and in Committee: the duration of the Bill’s provisions and whether they should be subject to any form of sunset or renewal.

A number of arguments have been advanced. The Government previously set out their view that the Bill is the product of a lengthy and considered review, that it makes significant improvements to the control orders system, and that it establishes a framework that ought to be able to operate stably and effectively on a permanent basis. The point has been well made that we are legislators, and that we are fully competent to review the necessity of legislation, and to amend or repeal it if it is no longer necessary or if changes are needed. However, it has also been argued with some force that the nature of the powers in the Bill makes some form of regular review appropriate, both to reflect the weighty responsibility on Parliament when it accords the Government such powers, and to focus minds on the need to ensure that the legislation remains in force only as long as is necessary.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

If this Bill is the product of a long and considered review, why did the Government think it necessary to publish an alternative Bill last Thursday night?

[James Brokenshire]

I will come to that point during consideration of further amendments, but I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Government’s counter-terrorism review—which specifically contemplated the necessity of enhanced measures, should exceptional circumstances require them—and to the specific paragraphs and references in that review. That is why I have said that the product of this legislation has been subject to that careful consideration.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I believe that this is the hon. Gentleman’s first time at the Dispatch Box with his new responsibilities as counter-terrorism Minister, so may I congratulate him on his appointment and on taking on that portfolio?

I am concerned about Lord Macdonald’s role in the Government’s latest suggestions. He was their reviewer of counter-terrorism policy, he produced a report and there were differences between him and the Government on a number of important points. Has he had the opportunity to comment on the Bill? Has the Home Secretary spoken to him about the substance of what is before the House today?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that Lord Macdonald produced a separate report alongside the counter-terrorism review document to which I have alluded. That analysis and ancillary documentation fitted alongside the review, which was published earlier this year. We will deal in further detail with the points I made about the Bill’s provisions and with the concept of the need for exceptional emergency measures when we discuss the second group of amendments.

[Keith Vaz]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I am sorry if I have not satisfied the right hon. Gentleman’s inquiries.

[Keith Vaz]

The Minister usually satisfies them, but on this occasion he has not. What was Lord Macdonald’s role in these new proposals? Has he had an opportunity to look at them and comment on them? That is all I wish to find out.

[James Brokenshire]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the foreword to Lord Macdonald’s report said that he was invited

“to provide independent oversight of the Review”.

That is the role that he conducted. He was asked to

“ensure that it is properly conducted, that all the relevant options have been considered and the recommendations are balanced.”

That was the role he was required to carry out in the counter-terrorism review, which, obviously, led to the preparation of this Bill.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way one further time and then I will make some progress.

[Dr Huppert]

I am not comfortable with the draft Bill, but will the Minister accept my congratulations on moving the Government forward from the position set out in comments made by his former colleague, Baroness Neville-Jones? She said that this emergency power would be discussed only with the Opposition and would not be scrutinised by Parliament, so will he accept my congratulations on moving to a much more democratic process?

[James Brokenshire]

We have made it clear that the draft Bill will be subject to review and scrutiny by a Joint Committee of the House, and we believe that to be the right way forward.

Let me return to the new clauses in this group. We have carefully considered the various debates in Committee on the length and duration of the Bill. An amendment was tabled that would have introduced an annual renewal of the powers, equivalent to that currently contained in the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 in relation to control orders. An amendment with the same effect is before us today as new clause 7. Members of the Committee will recall that we had a helpful debate and that I made a commitment to consider the matter further and return to it. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and other members of the Committee for the manner in which that discussion was held and for the points made. In line with that commitment, I reflected carefully on those points, noted the feelings and introduced new clauses 3 and 4. They specify that the operative powers under the Bill will expire after five years, unless they are renewed by the Secretary of State, by order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

There would also be an order-making power to repeal the powers or to revive them when they had been allowed to expire without their having been renewed. We consider that that approach strikes the right balance. It ensures that there will be a statutory requirement regularly to review the need for the legislation and each new Parliament will have the opportunity to debate it in the context of the situation at the time and to take its own view. We do not believe, however, that such a review is necessary annually.

The requirement for a review every five years, rather than every single year, as with control orders, seems to us to strike the right balance. It will avoid what the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) referred to on Second Reading as

“the constant arguing and bickering on this issue year after year when we should be seeking consensus in the face of the terrible threats that terrorists bring”.—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 84-85.]

The Bill will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, according to the usual timetable, which will allow such a settled position to be reached. That is in contrast to the control orders legislation that it replaces, which was pushed through with little opportunity for debate, making annual renewal an appropriate safeguard—but one that we do not believe is necessary for this Bill.

Renewal every five years therefore provides an appropriately balanced approach. It reflects not only the seriousness with which we take these powers and the need to build in effective safeguards to ensure that they do not remain in force longer than necessary but the competence of this House and the other place to apply intense scrutiny to legislation and to arrive at a position that will not need to be reviewed annually. It also recognises the sustained nature of the threat and the fact that, sadly, these measures are likely to continue to be necessary for the foreseeable future.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for accepting the idea I floated in Committee. Will he give me some reassurance that if in five years’ time he and his party are part of the Government they will approach the question in the spirit of carrying out a full review, as this Government did? That would enable detailed analysis and preparation before any further votes were taken.

[James Brokenshire]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, one Parliament cannot bind another. It would not be appropriate for me to suggest or require that a future Government act in a particular way when addressing such points. It would be reasonable and appropriate, however, to consider these matters carefully and in a measured and appropriate way, examining the security issues at that point in time in the same way as this Government sought to do in our counter-terrorism review, which led to the creation of this Bill. We consider that a five-year renewal period, allowing each Parliament the opportunity to take a view on this important issue, strikes the right balance.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) in welcoming this measure. May I probe the Minister a little further on the spirit of the renewal every five years? Will he give some guidance about whether, in his view, we should have a thorough and complete review of these measures every five years rather than sending them through on the nod for another five years, saying that they seem to be working? Many of us would have liked to have seen the Government go further to undo some of the damage done by the previous Government and it is important that we hear whether the Minister anticipates the review every five years to be more thorough than the annual on-the-nod review.

[James Brokenshire]

As I said to the hon. Member for Cambridge, I would certainly anticipate a considered review of counter-terrorism powers when the time arrived. That would be the appropriate way to proceed and to examine the renewal. The time period will also allow further and broader consideration of the security position at that point and of what measures might be required, necessary and appropriate to deal with the risks, challenges and issues that face our country.

I do not wish to detain the House, but I should explain briefly that amendments 11 and 13 make necessary technical changes to clauses 19 and 20 in consequence of Government new clauses 3 and 4. Amendment 11 ensures that the Secretary of State is not under a nugatory duty to report on the exercise of her powers under the Bill at a time when her powers have expired or been repealed. Similarly, amendment 13 ensures that the independent reviewer is not under a duty to report on the operation of the Act for periods when the operative powers are not in force.

Amendments 8 and 20, which were tabled by the Opposition, relate to when the Bill may come into force —currently, the day after it receives Royal Assent. It has been suggested, and I have consistently and strongly refuted such suggestions, that the police and the Security Service will not be ready to implement the new system when the Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent because the additional investigative resources that will complement the new system will not be in place. On that basis, and on the basis of wider suggestions that the powers under the new system will be insufficient to protect the public, it has also been suggested that the new system should not be introduced before the 2012 Olympics.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recall that when Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osborne gave evidence to the Committee, he said:

“To get the resources that we anticipate we need will take more than a year, in terms of being able to get people trained and to get the right equipment. Until we have got that, we will not be able to start to bed things in and see how it works and how it transpires”?—[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 9, Q27.]

Clearly, the Minister is rejecting DAC Osborne’s evidence that it will take more than a year to get the agents trained to have the necessary skills and to get the electronic equipment that will be required to meet the increased risk that will inevitably be caused by the Bill. Does he believe that Mr Osborne is entirely incorrect?

[James Brokenshire]

I will certainly come to that point because it is at the crux of the amendments relating to this part of the Bill and to the points that the right hon. Lady and other right hon. and hon. Members made in Committee. The Metropolitan Police Service has confirmed that arrangements will be in place effectively to manage the transition from control orders to TPIM notices when they become effective. During the summer I had a number of conversations with the Metropolitan Police Service and I went to see the team that has responsibility for managing those who are subject to control orders and for managing terrorists who have been released from prison and are subsequently being managed. It has been very humbling to see the work that they do on a weekly basis to ensure that we are all properly protected. I have spoken personally to those who will be involved in managing the transition and the new regime. I cannot go into detail about the plans that are at hand, but I assure the House that I have been impressed by the range of excellent work that is under way. I reiterate that the Metropolitan Police Service has confirmed that arrangements will be in place effectively to manage the transition from control orders to TPIM notices when that change takes place.

[Hazel Blears]

I have no doubt that the Metropolitan Police Service is doing everything it can to try to ensure the risk to the public is properly managed—it would absolutely be committed to doing that. However, we have on record DAC Osborne’s evidence to the Committee that it would take more than a year to get these resources into place. If the Minister is now saying that the Metropolitan police have revised their view and that it will not take a year, may we have something similar in writing, as evidence, for all Members who are concerned about these matters, so that we can see that DAC Osborne’s original statement was incorrect?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Lady has consistently made this point and we debated this issue at length in Committee, but I have been quite clear to the House about the statements that the Metropolitan Police Service has made to the Home Office. It has confirmed that arrangements will be in place effectively to manage the transition from control orders to TPIM notices. I am being quite specific and explicit in relation to that and the work that has been undertaken to prepare for that transition. Although I accept the points that the right hon. Lady has made, I have been quite clear about the assurances that we have gained in that regard and, similarly, the work that the Security Service has developed in its detailed plans for its additional allocation over the next four years, which it too is implementing.

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

The Minister will recall from Committee that one of the issues regarding additional resources was the fact that we are talking not just about money but about the extra surveillance officers who will be required to meet the increased risk under the TPIMs regime, which did not exist under control orders because we had relocation and longer curfews. DAC Osborne was clear that it takes about a year to train the extra surveillance officers. Will the Minister explain how that will be truncated and how the training will now take less than a year?

[James Brokenshire]

Let me make it clear that the additional resources are not simply about providing additional human surveillance capacity. The police and Security Service will use the additional money to enhance their use of a range of covert investigative techniques, including human and technical surveillance. It is not simply about that one point. Although I am unable to go into the detail of the preparations that are in hand, the police service and the Security Service have been engaged in work to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to provide us with the assurance that the TPIMs regime will work as we intend, so that we as a Government can fulfil our responsibilities and provide assurances on this important point.

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

This crucial point came up in Committee. I understand what the Minister is saying. He sought reassurances from the Met, as we would expect, but we had the evidence of DAC Osborne. If the process is to work, surely we should have before us a letter of confirmation from the Met stating what the Minister is telling us and assuring us that the Met have revised their position as set out in DAC Osborne’s evidence to the Committee, and that they are happy with that. I fully respect the Minister’s word and I understand what he is saying, but for the benefit of the process that should be put in writing from the Met to the Committee or to the House.

[James Brokenshire]

I have made clear the assurances that we have received. I know how the hon. Gentleman approaches these matters, and we have had numerous debates on numerous issues over the years. We have sought assurance. In preparing the Bill and the change to current practice, the Government have proceeded by seeking to assure ourselves that appropriate measures are in place to mitigate the risk posed by those who are suspected of being involved in terrorism but cannot be deported or prosecuted. As I have said consistently in relation to TPIMs, the legislation and the enhanced capabilities that the police and the Security Service will have ensure that there is a balanced package of measures that will operate as we intend. We are satisfied that the preparations in hand will lead to the changes envisaged by the Bill following Royal Assent.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for the visit that he made to the Metropolitan police, but his assurances this afternoon go nowhere near far enough. Since his visit to the Metropolitan police, has he had a chance or has his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had a chance to talk to the Prime Minister about the matter? On 11 August, when Parliament was recalled, I asked the Prime Minister to consider delaying or preferably cancelling the new provisions, particularly in relation to relocation. The Prime Minister said:

“I will certainly look very carefully and closely at what he says.”—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1074.]

I have not had a chance to speak to the Prime Minister about that, but I am sure the Minister has. Will he update us?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman had that exchange with the Prime Minister and has subsequently written to him. He raised the point in a fair and balanced way and, from my reading of the record, the Prime Minister said that he would look carefully and closely at what he said. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have looked carefully and closely at what he said, but the approach that we are taking is as I have set out in relation to the Bill and as I set out this afternoon.

Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that we cannot provide detailed breakdowns of what money we provide for specific security activities. This could provide detailed information about our capabilities and techniques, which could undermine national security. But the Government continue to consider that the TPIMs regime and the additional resources for the police and Security Service for covert investigation provide an acceptable balance between the needs of national security and civil liberties, and that the overall package mitigates the risks that we face. Indeed, the additional resources for covert investigative techniques could increase the opportunities for the collection of evidence that may be used in a prosecution.

It would be irresponsible of the Government to introduce the new system when it was not safe to do so. I am sure that there is absolute consensus on that, and I appreciate that the proposed changes are intended to ensure that the Government are not able to take such a risk with public safety, but I have been clear in what I have said and about the assurances that we have obtained, and, on the introduction of the new regime, the Government would not take such a risk if they were not satisfied about the steps and approaches being taken by the Metropolitan Police Service and Security Service.

I have moved new clause 3, and I look forward to further debate about the other new clauses and amendments.

[Shabana Mahmood]

May I welcome the Minister formally to his place? It is a pleasure to continue on Report the debate that we had in Committee.

I shall speak to new clause 7 and amendment 20, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Government’s movement in relation to the introduction of new clause 3 and new clause 4, which, as he explained, envisages a five-year sunset clause and moves us somewhat further on than did our debate in Committee.

New clause 7 would replicate the position under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which brought in the control order regime, and the amendment would limit to 12 months the powers under the TPIMs regime and would, therefore, require their annual renewal by Parliament.

Our new clause began in Committee as an amendment, which I moved, and was based on oral evidence given in Committee by Liberty, Justice and others. It was introduced to reflect our concerns that the Government’s legislation will mean fewer checks and balances on what are exceptional measures. Many in the House agree that they are undesirable and in an ideal world we would not have to have them, but they have proved necessary, given the serious terrorist risks that we face.

I do not often agree with Liberty, particularly on control orders, because our starting points for the debate are different, but I was struck by its evidence in Committee, when the organisation made it clear that it would rather—to be fair to Shami Chakrabarti, she said that she would choke on these words—take existing control orders, with their annual renewal, meaning a 12-month limit on their power, over the new TPIMs regime. The reasons for that—and why I agree with that position—primarily relate to the importance of bringing such exceptional measures back to the House for regular, annual review and, if Parliament deems it appropriate, for renewal.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that a small number of people are affected at present, but I see this as the slippery slope—away from what should be an open legal system in an open and liberal democracy. That is why I am not happy about the TPIMs process, any more than I was about control orders. The very least that we can do is to review the legislation every 12 months. I would rather we did not produce this legislation at all, and instead promoted open criminal law to deal with criminal acts that damage our society.

[James Brokenshire]

Let me begin by addressing the points made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who cut to the heart of a number of arguments surrounding this Bill and the measures that we judge appropriate. We would all like to live in a world where the measures contemplated in the Bill were not needed. The sad reality is that they are, as a continuing threat will be posed to this country and its citizens by people who we cannot prosecute, deport or take other action, against, so preventive measures are required. I wish that that were not the case but it is, which is why we are introducing the measures in this Bill. They follow on from the counter-terrorism review and are in recognition of this continuing risk to the citizens of this country. The Bill is certainly not about protecting the security services; it is about protecting the public. That is the driver behind these measures.

Let me deal with the duration of the legislation and the Government’s sunset clause. Our starting point was that this legislation was not being considered in a fevered state but in a measured way so, like other legislation, it did not require a sunset clause. However, we listened carefully, we reflected on the Bill’s measures and the impact they could have on individuals, and we judged it appropriate that each Parliament should be able to review the measures in the context of the security situation at the time and consider whether their continuation was appropriate. That is why we have introduced the five-year sunset clause in the way that we have.

It has been interesting to hear this evening’s debate about annual renewal. The hon. Member for Islington North has been a consistent participant in these debates—I respect the contributions that he has made year on year—and he implied that some of them have been “perfunctory”. That is not what we would wish in relation to legislation such as this, which is why the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) about the need for a serious and considered review of legislation was well made and strongly put. We took that approach when we sought to conduct a counter-terrorism review in preparation for this Bill.

I understand the point that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) makes. In some ways, she sympathises with the line of argument taken by the hon. Member for Islington North. She makes a point about Executive action, but I repeat that circumstances and situations continue to arise that mean, sadly, that legislation of this type is necessary and continues to be required. She made a point about secret evidence, and the Government will shortly be introducing a Green Paper to consider further its use in court and to consider this matter in further detail, given a number of associated issues that have been raised.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister explain why he is so certain that the TPIMs regime will be effective, given that it is very similar to the control orders regime and nobody who has been placed under a control order has ever subsequently been prosecuted for a terrorism offence?

[James Brokenshire]

In some ways, this relates to the package of the measures before us. This is about not only this Bill, but the capabilities and resources being made available to the police and security services to allow them to monitor people and seek to bring them to justice. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, and it is our preferred option, that people who commit acts related to terrorism should be prosecuted and brought to justice in the normal way. However, the Government need to assess risk and seek to protect the public, and we judge that, for a number of reasons, it is not possible to achieve that aim in all circumstances. That is why preventive measures of the type contemplated in this Bill are required and will continue to be needed for the foreseeable future. We therefore argue that it is for Parliament to consider, on a per-Parliament basis, the necessity of these types of measures. I am aware that the hon. Lady has raised the issue of bail in this context, and we considered it in the counter-terrorism review. However, we had clear guidance from the police who recommended against bail being available for terrorist suspects because of the risk to public safety that might be involved.

[Mr David Davis]

If I may, I will pursue the point raised by the hon. Lady. Will the Minister tell us why he thinks that the number of convictions in this country is so low? In the 10 years or so since 9/11 there have been about 230 convictions relating to terrorism offences, which is less than 10% of the number in the United States during the same period, and similar comparisons can be drawn with other countries. Why does this country have such a low conviction rate compared with everybody else?

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. Friend has taken a very consistent line on ensuring that those suspected of terrorism offences are brought to justice and that the courts are used appropriately. We need to do all we can to ensure that that happens, which is why we are taking forward measures such as post-charge questioning, which he has advocated clearly, and why we are continuing to examine the way in which intercept evidence might be usable in the courts and how the Privy Council review continues in relation to that. I agree with him that we need to be looking at a package of measures, that this is not about one instrument in itself and that it might be appropriate to take a range of steps. I would not want to suggest in this evening’s debate that this is about one issue. The Government are taking forward a range of measures as part of their counter-terrorism review and this Bill is just one part of that.

[Richard Fuller]

Before the Minister moves on, may I ask about the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)? The hon. Lady mentioned that there had been no convictions of people on control orders. By supporting the Government today, we will be extending the TPIMs regime by five years. What comfort can the Minister give us that that record of no convictions will be improved by a more thorough prosecution of the evidence and by bringing to trial the people under control orders? Can he say anything to give us some assurance that that system of containment rather than prosecution will change to one of prosecution and bringing to justice rather than one of just containing a problem and leaving people on one side?

[James Brokenshire]

I would point my hon. Friend in the direction of the Bill’s provisions, which clearly underline our desire to prosecute people when the evidence is available. That is part and parcel of the additional investigative capabilities intended to be available to the police and the security services. I believe that this approach will contribute to our being able to achieve the sorts of steps that he is advocating in terms of seeking to prosecute where there is admissible evidence that could be brought before the courts.

I deal now with some of the other issues raised in this useful and constructive debate, which has been a symbol of some of the other consideration of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge raised the issue of Libya and he will doubtless have heard clearly the comments made by the Prime Minister during the statement preceding this debate. It is the Government’s long-standing policy not to comment on intelligence matters, but I can make it absolutely clear that the Government’s clear policy is not to participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment for any purpose.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

May I just finish the point? We have published the consolidated guidance to intelligence personnel, including on the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees. The Government took early and decisive action to set up the Gibson inquiry, precisely to examine whether Britain was implicated in the improper treatment of detainees so that we can better understand what happened and allow all involved closure.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for giving way and I am grateful to him for allowing this point to be made. Is he concerned that the exchange of letters made by former Prime Minister Blair with a number of countries that allowed removal to those that had not signed the convention on torture should be ended? We should only ever remove people to a country that recognises the relevant sections of that convention and that would not carry out the death penalty against those people.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Prime Minister said in his statement about the investigation being undertaken by the Gibson inquiry. These matters will be looked at closely, but I certainly do not intend to expand this debate to cover them in such a way because time is pressing and we have a number of other issues to do with this mini-debate to get through.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked me about a couple of issues. The first was to do with the role of Lord Macdonald, who was not appointed to review counter-terrorism legislation generally or on an ongoing basis but was asked to oversee the counter-terrorism review, which completed in January. It is obviously open to him to look at and comment on the draft Bill; we have published it with the purpose of allowing it to be considered.

Let me turn to the central issue raised by those on the Opposition Front Bench as well as other Opposition Members. I want to make it very clear that the TPIM system will provide appropriate, proportionate and effective powers for dealing with the risk posed by suspected terrorists whom we can neither prosecute nor deport. The new system introduced by the Bill will be accompanied by an increase in funding for the police and security services to enhance their investigative capabilities. As I have said, this will complement the new regime and, we believe, maintain public confidence. To repeat what I have said, the Metropolitan Police Service has confirmed that arrangements will be in place effectively to manage the transition from control orders to TPIMs. I have heard what Opposition Members and other Members have said and I can say to the right hon. Member for Leicester East—or I would have done, if he was in his place—that I will take the issue away and consider further with the police what further information may be provided.

As right hon. and hon. Members will recognise, there is a challenge here and we do not provide detailed breakdowns of what money we provide for specific security activities as that would provide detailed information about our capabilities and techniques that could undermine national security. There is a delicate balance to be struck, but I will certainly consider carefully the comments that have been made during this debate and consider with the Metropolitan police what further information might be appropriate.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for the indication that further written evidence will be available. I am still minded to press amendment 20 to a vote later this evening, but I have been advised by the Clerks that if new clause 3 is passed we cannot have a vote on new clause 7. May I clarify that although we would have liked to vote on annual renewal—we still believe it is an important measure—we will not oppose new clause 3? However, Labour Members will take the issue forward when the Bill reaches the other place.

[James Brokenshire]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s clarification of the official Opposition’s stance. I have given the House clear assurances about the preparations for the transfer from control orders to TPIMs and we will reflect on the debate further, but we believe that the Government’s amendments for the review are appropriate, and, on the basis of the assurances we have received, we do not believe that the Opposition amendments are required. Even at this stage, I ask the hon. Lady to reflect on the debate and to consider withdrawing those amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 3 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers): supplementary provision

‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers expire or are repealed under section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers).

(2) A TPIM notice which is in force immediately before expiry or repeal is to—

(a) continue in force for the period of 28 days beginning with expiry or repeal; and

(b) be treated as if revoked by the Secretary of State at the end of that period.

(3) Subsection (2)(a) is subject to—

(a) any variation under section12(1)(a) or (b), and

(b) any revocation or quashing.

(4) Except as provided for in subsection (5) or (6), TPIM proceedings may neither continue nor be begun after expiry or repeal.

(5) TPIM proceedings of a kind set out in subsection (7) may continue, or be begun, after expiry or repeal, but only for the purpose of determining one or more of the following matters—

(a) whether a TPIM notice should be quashed;

(b) whether measures imposed by a TPIM notice should be quashed;

(c) whether to make a declaration under paragraph 4(4) of Schedule2.

(6) Proceedings for an award of damages or other relief arising out of any TPIM proceedings of a kind set out in subsection (7)(a) to (c) may continue, or be begun, after expiry or repeal.

(7) The TPIM proceedings referred to in subsections (5) and (6) are—

(a) a reference made under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 before expiry or repeal;

(b) a hearing in pursuance of directions under section 8(2) or 8(5);

(c) an appeal under section16;

(d) an appeal, or further appeal, relating to a decision in any proceedings mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c).

(8) If, after expiry of the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers, the powers are revived under section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers)(2)(b)—

(a) all TPIM notices, including any which were in force before expiry, are to be taken into account in determining whether there is new terrorism-related activity for the purposes of section3(6);

(b) the expiry of those powers does not prevent them from being exercised after revival in relation to any TPIM notice which—

(i) expired or was revoked before the expiry of the powers or during the relevant 28 day period, or

(ii) is, in accordance with subsection (2)(b) of this section, treated as if revoked at the end of the relevant 28 day period;

and for this purpose “relevant 28 day period” means the period of 28 days beginning with the expiry of the powers that is mentioned in subsection (2)(b).’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures

‘(1) If the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary to do so by reason of urgency, the Secretary of State may make a temporary enhanced TPIM order during any period that—

(a) begins with the dissolution of Parliament, and

(b) ends with the first Queen’s Speech of the Parliament which first meets after that dissolution.

(2) A temporary enhanced TPIM order is an order which makes provision for, or in connection with, giving the Secretary of State power to impose enhanced measures by notice on individuals whom the Secretary of State is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, are, or have been, involved in terrorism-related activity.

(3) An enhanced measure is a requirement, restriction or other provision which is of any of the following kinds—

(a) a restriction on an individual in relation to the residence in which the individual resides, including—

(i) a requirement to reside at a specified residence in the United Kingdom;

(ii) a requirement not to allow others to reside at that residence without the permission of the Secretary of State;

(iii) a requirement, applicable between specified hours, to remain at that residence;

(b) a restriction on an individual in relation to leaving a specified area;

(c) a requirement, restriction or other provision which corresponds to provision within any of these paragraphs of Schedule1—

(i) paragraphs 2 to 6;

(ii) paragraph 7(1) and (2) and (4) to (6);

(iii) paragraphs 9 to 12;

(d) a requirement, restriction or other provision which corresponds to provision within paragraph 8(1) of Schedule1 (as read with paragraph 8(3) of that Schedule), including—

(i) a requirement not to associate or communicate with other persons without the permission of the Secretary of State, which includes provision allowing the individual (without seeking permission) to associate and communicate with such persons or descriptions of persons as the Secretary of State may specify;

(ii) a requirement to give notice to the Secretary of State before associating or communicating with other persons, which includes provision allowing the individual (without giving notice) to associate and communicate with such persons, or descriptions of persons, as are specified.

(iii) a requirement of the kind referred to in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8(2) of Schedule1, which may in particular relate to association or communication which is allowed by virtue of provision of the kind referred to in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) above;

(e) provision which corresponds to provision within Part 2 of Schedule1;

and for this purpose “specified” means specified by the Secretary of State in an enhanced TPIM notice.

(4) Except as provided for in subsections (5) to (10), the provision made by a temporary enhanced TPIM order must correspond to the relevant provisions of this Act.

(5) A temporary enhanced TPIM order—

(a) must secure that enhanced TPIM notices and standard TPIM notices are separate notices;

(b) must secure that, at any particular time, an enhanced TPIM notice and a standard TPIM notice are not both in force in relation to a particular individual; and

(c) may secure that the application of a temporary enhanced TPIM order to a particular individual does not affect the application of this Act to that individual (and vice versa).

(6) The provision of a temporary enhanced TPIM order which corresponds to section 3 must include appropriate variations from the provision contained in that section to secure—

(a) that condition A is replaced by a condition which secures that the enhanced TPIM power may not be exercised in relation to an individual unless the Secretary of State is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity; and

(b) that condition D is replaced by a condition which secures both—

(i) the same result as condition D, and

(ii) that the enhanced TPIM power may not be exercised in relation to an individual unless some or all of the measures imposed by the enhanced TPIM notice are measures that may not be imposed by a standard TPIM notice.

(7) The provision of a temporary enhanced TPIM order which corresponds to section5(1) must include appropriate variations from the provision contained in that subsection to secure that each enhanced TPIM notice ceases to be in force at the time when the enhanced TPIM power ceases to have effect in accordance with section (Temporary power: supplementary provision)(1) (subject to earlier revocation or quashing of the notice).

(8) The provision of a temporary enhanced TPIM order which corresponds to Schedule 1 must include appropriate variations from the provision contained in that Schedule to secure that it is enhanced measures which the Secretary of State has power to impose.

(9) A temporary enhanced TPIM order may make appropriate provision (including appropriate variations from the provision contained in the relevant provisions of this Act) in consequence of, or in connection with, the creation, in accordance with this section, of the enhanced TPIM power.

(10) A temporary enhanced TPIM order may make appropriate provision for the purposes of securing that transitional and saving provision relating to a temporary enhanced TPIM order ceasing to have effect may be made (including provision for enhanced TPIM notices to continue in force for a period, which does not exceed 28 days, after the enhanced TPIM power ceases to have effect).

(11) The provision that may be made by a temporary enhanced TPIM order includes—

(a) provision amending any enactment (including an enactment contained in this Act);

(b) provision applying (with or without modifications) any enactment (including an enactment contained in this Act);

(c) provision conferring functions on the Secretary of State or any other person (including, in the case of the Secretary of State or any other Minister of the Crown, functions of a legislative nature).’.—(James Brokenshire.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[James Brokenshire]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 6—Temporary power: supplementary provision.

Amendment 1, page 22, line 31, in Schedule 1, at end add—

‘Additional measures

12A (1) The Secretary of State may impose measures additional to those contained in Schedule 1 if—

(a) there is a serious terrorist threat; and

(b) they are necessary for the protection of the public.

(2) Any measure under paragraph 13(1) can only be imposed if the Secretary of State is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the individual is involved in terrorism-related activity.’.

Amendment 2, page 22, line 31, at end add—

‘Additional measures introduced by Secretary of State

12A (1) The Secretary of State may by order introduce measures additional to those contained in this Part.

(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) may be made only if a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Amendment 3, page 22, line 31, at end add—

‘Emergency additional measures introduced by Secretary of State

12A (1) The Secretary of State may by order introduce measures additional to those contained in this Part.

(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) shall have immediate effect but must be approved retrospectively by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(3) If either House declines to approve a resolution under sub-paragraph (2), the order shall cease to have effect on the date of such disapproval.’.

Amendment 4, page 22, line 31, at end add—

‘Additional measures introduced by Secretary of State during dissolution of Parliament

12A (1) The Secretary of State may by order introduce measures additional to those contained in this Part during a dissolution of Parliament.

(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) shall have immediate effect but must be approved retrospectively by a resolution of each House in the new Parliament.

(3) If either House declines to approve a resolution under sub-paragraph (2), the order shall cease to have effect on the date of such disapproval.’.

[James Brokenshire]

This group of amendments relates to the enhanced TPIM provisions and the circumstances in which measures additional to those contained in the Bill might need to be imposed. The Government and Opposition are taking different approaches.

The Government have made it clear that we believe that in future there might be exceptional circumstances in which it is necessary to introduce additional and more restrictive measures to those contained in the Bill. I emphasise that we hope never to need them, but, in the event of a very serious terrorist risk that cannot be managed by any other means, it would be irresponsible of the Government not to act to protect the public appropriately.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the Minister make it clear that he and the Government would not consider the Olympics, in and of themselves, to be such an emergency risk? There might be circumstances that would become such a risk, but will he confirm that the simple fact we are hosting them would not be sufficient to trigger the new legislation?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that point. The security arrangements for the Olympics are being planned on the basis that the additional powers envisaged under the enhanced TPIM Bill will not be needed. This is about considering exceptional circumstances and exceptional risk, which is why we have sought to take the approach that we have. In exceptional circumstances we will, where possible, bring forward emergency legislation to introduce such powers. That is why we have drafted and published in draft the Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, which will now be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. That will give Parliament the opportunity to examine its terms closely. In some ways, this underlines the point made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) in the previous debate about seeking to do this in a considered and measured way rather than in a febrile atmosphere—the draft Bill has been introduced to facilitate that.

If the enhanced TPIM Bill is introduced while Parliament is in recess, Parliament can be recalled to debate it, but there is a small gap in our ability to introduce this emergency legislation in periods where Parliament is dissolved and where a new Parliament has been appointed but the first Queen’s Speech has not been delivered. This gap was identified during pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft emergency Bills to extend periods of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 28 days.

Government new clauses 5 and 6 take the same approach to addressing that gap as we are proposing to take with pre-charge detention. They introduce a power to the standard TPIM Bill that would allow the Secretary of State—where necessary by reason of urgency—to bring the enhanced TPIM regime into force by making a temporary enhanced TPIM order. This power would be exercisable only in the periods I have mentioned: while Parliament is dissolved and in the period between the appointment of a new Parliament and the first Queen’s Speech. A temporary enhanced TPIM order would make provision directly equivalent to that in the enhanced Bill. I shall not delay the House by reciting the detail of that Bill’s provisions; it has been published and is available to all Members to read. It will be subject to rigorous pre-legislative scrutiny, following which it will no doubt be amended and improved.

[Hazel Blears]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for the way in which he has managed so far to present the enhanced TPIM Bill. Would he not accept that the TPIM legislation, like the control order legislation, is in and of itself exceptional legislation that we have all said should be used as a last resort? It is not something that any party would want to adopt; it is outwith the normal criminal justice system and it is not part of the normal legislative process. Why, for goodness’ sake, does not he include the enhanced measures in the existing legislation—not so that they are required to be used by the Home Secretary, but so that she would be able to use them if circumstances were to arise in which it was necessary to have a power of relocation, curfew, association or exclusion? This is the most convoluted, awkward, difficult and strange way of legislating that I have ever seen. We are going to have exceptional legislation to exceptional legislation in exceptional circumstances. Why cannot the Minister legislate properly and put these powers into existing legislation?

[James Brokenshire]

I think that underlines the fundamental difference between us on the nature of the powers that are contemplated and their impact on individuals and counter-terrorism. A number of contributions have been made about radicalisation. Given the stringent nature of the powers that are contemplated under the enhanced provisions, we believe it is absolutely right that Parliament should determine whether the circumstances are so exceptional that emergency powers are needed. That is the right way to do things, rather than seeking to suggest that this is all business as usual and that the powers should be on the statute book. That is why I disagree with the right hon. Lady.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does the Minister have any idea just how ridiculous the Government look with these enhanced TPIM measures and, more importantly, how disappointed civil libertarian groups are with the Government? The system is probably worse than what the previous, anti-civil libertarian Labour Government proposed. Why cannot we have proper legislation, and why cannot the Government continue the good work they started instead of going down this route?

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely reject the assertion that this Bill is in some way more draconian and cracks down more on liberty than the approach of the previous Government. That is precisely why we have sought to rebalance the counter-terrorism legislation, and that has been at the heart of the counter-terrorism review. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman recognised that. We have recognised the very nature of the enhanced measures and why it is appropriate not to have them as business as usual—why it is appropriate to have them in a Bill that can be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and can be considered calmly and rationally rather than rushing and not having powers available to deal with extraordinary and extreme circumstances. That is why we have taken the view that we have in the structure of the approach in the draft enhanced Bill and in this Bill.

[Shabana Mahmood]

How does the Minister say that control orders or TPIMs are business as usual?

[James Brokenshire]

I am saying that because this legislation remains and resides on the statute book, subject to the new clauses that we have rightly put in place following the previous debate with the five-year renewal. The powers that are available under the enhanced measures are such that they require a further considered approach by Parliament before they are introduced. That is why we have rationally and reasonably, as reflected in the counter-terrorism review, sought to adopt the approach that we have.

[Mr David Davis]

I have no wish to add to my hon. Friend’s difficulties, but he knows I have concerns about this issue. The simple truth is that had the 90-day measure been put before the House in July 2005, when the atrocity occurred, the House would have taken a much more emotional, rather than rational, decision. I have a general concern—I know that he is thinking through the legislation—that the House does not make its best decisions in the immediate aftermath of atrocities. There is a risk, in going down this route, that we will get not rational, but irrational, decisions.

[James Brokenshire]

I hear that argument, which is why we have sought to produce the draft Bill—to ensure that it can be considered rationally, calmly and coldly by the Joint Committee. Approaching it in that way means that in circumstances similar to those that have, sadly, arisen in the past, there is a defined mechanism and method that has been subject to scrutiny in advance. In many ways, we are seeking to recognise some of the challenges to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has alluded and to address them by having the draft Bill available now for consideration.

[Hazel Blears]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. May I ask him a specific question? Will we have to wait until this country is subject to exceptional circumstances, which Lord Macdonald has said could be a series of catastrophic attacks in every major city in Britain, until we have a power of relocation on our statute book?

[James Brokenshire]

I shall not second-guess the circumstances in which the draft Bill and those provisions would be required. Clearly, it would be in exceptional circumstances in which we were faced with a serious terrorist risk that could not be managed by any other means. That is the sort of situation we are contemplating, but I am not prepared to second-guess future developments in the threat picture. The right hon. Lady and I disagree on this, but, as I have said quite clearly, we believe that the TPIMs regime in its entirety—the standard TPIMs regime and the supportive resources around it—is sufficient to manage the threats that we face. Only in exceptional circumstances would the enhanced measures be required. That is the conclusion we have reached as part of the counter-terrorism review. I appreciate that she and I differ on that, but that was the conclusion we came to. The counter-terrorism review recognised that enhanced measures might be required in exceptional circumstances, which is why we have taken the view we have.

[Dr Huppert]

Contrary to the right hon. Lady’s point, does the Minister share my pleasure that we will be able to keep the powers of internal exile with judicial oversight off the statute book for as long as we can?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The counter-terrorism review carefully concluded that there might be exceptional circumstances—a very serious terrorist risk—in which the Government would have to seek parliamentary approval for additional restrictive measures. That is what we are seeking to do and that is why we believe that the overall approach taken by this Bill is appropriate.

[Mr McFadden]

With the publication of the draft Bill, the Government have conceded that they have no argument in principle against the extra powers in the enhanced TPIMs regime. What will the Minister say to the victims of terrorism in the emergency circumstances that he sets out and that might give rise to their introduction? Will he say that we had the extra powers but we decided not to use them until the incident happened? Does he really believe that the Government could survive in those circumstances? Does he not see the nonsense of that position?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman’s question is premised on various assumptions that I just do not accept. He can make his point but the Bill and the enhanced measures that sit alongside it have been part of a very considered approach in relation to the overall legislative framework, which has not been rushed but has been considered. It has very much at its heart our responsibility to protect the public, but it also recognises that there is a balance to be struck. We believe that the balance has previously been wrong and that it needs to be adjusted, as contemplated by the Bill, to ensure that our counter-terrorism measures are appropriate, necessary and focused on delivering safety and security in a way that is judged appropriate on the basis of the evidence.

The draft enhanced TPIM Bill contains provisions that mean that if it is brought into force while a temporary enhanced TPIM order is in force, a decision taken under that order should be treated as a decision under the new enhanced Bill. The regime provided by the emergency TPIM order is intended to be the same as that provided by the enhanced Bill. In other words, the new clauses are intended to be complementary. They set out the various provisions and matters that may, or in some cases that must, be secured by a temporary enhanced TPIM order, to give effect to the regime set out in the emergency Bill. This includes in particular setting out the more stringent restrictions that would be available, and the fact that an enhanced notice may be imposed only where the Secretary of State is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. Once made, the temporary enhanced TPIM order would remain in force for 90 days, or a shorter period if specified in the order. It must be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable. While it is in force the Secretary of State can repeal its provisions at any time.

The 90-day period is intended to cover, but not significantly to exceed, the period during which Parliament would be unable to pass the emergency legislation. After parliamentary business resumes, the Government can introduce the enhanced TPIM Bill, if they judge it appropriate, to replace the powers conferred by the order with powers under primary legislation.

These are essential provisions. The power that they provide may never need to be used. Indeed, we would all prefer that the exceptional circumstances for which it and the enhanced TPIM Bill are intended never arise. None the less, it is necessary for a responsible Government to ensure that the enhanced TPIM powers can be brought into force in all circumstances in which they may be necessary.

[Mark Durkan]

Does the Minister not recall that when the previous Government introduced the Counter-Terrorism Bill with provision, at that stage, for 42-day detention, which was to be the subject of a parliamentary debate and vote when the powers were activated, the then Opposition rightly argued that it would create dangers for Parliament and eventually for the judiciary, potentially, to activate parliamentary control in relation to measures that were being taken against known individuals? Questions were asked, such as how a parliamentary debate in such a situation would be informed. What information would be in the media and in Parliament, and how could we ensure that, if there was a prosecution, that did not destroy the basis for a fair trial? Exactly the arguments that the Opposition used against the previous Government’s measures surely apply in respect of the arguments that the Minister has just made for his enhanced TPIMs.

[James Brokenshire]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s case, and care will be required, but the House often considers topics in relation to which matters are before the courts. The emergency legislation deals with the principles, not with individuals. The House has demonstrated clearly that it is able to do that and to consider and debate matters where care is required.

Amendments 1 to 4 address situations where more stringent measures are needed to protect the public than those available under the Bill. Amendment 1 would in effect place a version of the enhanced TPIM proposals formally on the statute book through the Bill. We debated an almost identical amendment in Committee. It would add a new paragraph to schedule 1, allowing the Secretary of State to impose any measure, in addition to those otherwise specified in schedule 1, on an individual where

“there is a serious terrorist threat”

and where such measures are

“necessary for the protection of the public.”

It reflects the position in the enhanced TPIM Bill that the test for imposing such additional measures would be raised from “reasonable belief” of involvement in terrorism-related activity to being satisfied on the “balance of probabilities” that this is the case.

Amendments 2 and 3 offer an alternative approach to providing for the use of additional measures to that set out in amendment 1. Instead of provision being made on the face of the Bill, the Government would be able to add further measures to schedule 1 by order. Amendment 2 envisages that Parliament would approve those measures in advance; amendment 3 provides for retrospective parliamentary approval and so seeks to address other concerns. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 highlight a difference in approach between those on the Opposition Benches and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Benches.

The Government’s position is that the Bill provides a robust and effective set of measures to manage the risk posed by suspected terrorists whom we cannot prosecute or deport, and it will be complemented by additional funding for the police and Security Service for covert investigation. The Government consider that more stringent powers will be required only in exceptional circumstances. So although the Government agree with the Opposition that there may be a need for additional measures to those contained in schedule 1, we believe, as we flagged up in our counter-terrorism review, it is right that those more stringent powers are not on the statute book or available at all times through an order-making power, as amendments 1, 2 and 3 would provide, but are contained in draft emergency legislation that is introduced only if required. This is also reflected in the Government’s approach to extended pre-charge detention.

Furthermore, the Government consider that it is appropriate for the measures available to the Secretary of State to be set out on the face of primary legislation, and to have been agreed in advance by Parliament. That is the clear approach adopted in the Bill before us, and it is also the approach that we have taken in the enhanced Bill. Indeed, I would argue that the more stringent nature of measures available under the enhanced Bill is an even greater reason for them to be clearly defined and agreed by Parliament, rather than decided on an ad hoc basis by the Secretary of State. The Government are therefore not in favour of amendments 1, 2 and 3. For the reasons that I have set out, I ask hon. Members not to press them.

Amendment 4 is specifically concerned with what would happen if the additional measures are required during a period when Parliament is dissolved. The same issue was raised during pre-legislative scrutiny of the emergency Bills for extended pre-charge detention. The Government have listened to the concerns expressed and new clauses 5 and 6, which I have already outlined, directly address the point. I trust that this means that Opposition Members will be content to withdraw their amendment.

[Paul Goggins]

I shall speak to amendments 1 to 4 and voice my support for Government new clauses 5 and 6. Throughout Second Reading and consideration in Committee, I have supported the principle of placing in schedule 1 a list of conditions that would be available to the Secretary of State under the TPIMs regime. Under control orders there is no such list. The Home Secretary can impose any condition, subject to accountability to the court. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) has continued to remind the House throughout the debate, there is that continued oversight over the existing regime.

The problem with schedule 1 is that the list of conditions that it provides is inadequate. For example, it requires that the Home Secretary must—not may, as I hope we will discuss later—allow someone subject to a TPIM to have access to the internet and to have a mobile phone and a land line. There is no option; the Home Secretary must do that. Equally, the Home Secretary has no power to relocate an individual away from an area if she judges that to be necessary. I hope that we will soon debate that aspect as well.

The nagging concern that hon. Members—on both sides of the House, I hope—have is what happens when the Home Secretary has intelligence about an individual that requires a certain measure to be put in place, and she cannot do so because it is not in schedule 1. The good news since we considered the issue in Committee is that the Home Secretary has clearly recognised that there may be circumstances where the list of measures in schedule 1 is not sufficient, and she has now published draft legislation, the enhanced TPIMs Bill, that will allow relocation and curfew and will prevent access to mobile phones and the internet where that is necessary. I support the fact that in that Bill she is giving herself the powers to introduce an enhanced TPIM if Parliament is dissolved and she judges it necessary at the time.

The bad news is that the only way that the Home Secretary could exercise these enhanced powers when Parliament is sitting is via fresh primary legislation. I assume that the Home Secretary intends that there should be a rigorous process of pre-legislative scrutiny in relation to the enhanced TPIMs Bill that has been published. Presumably it will be scrutinised by a cross-party Committee and presumably the Committee will be made up of Members from both Houses. Perhaps the House will consider making the Committee Chair a well-respected Cross Bencher, such as a former Cabinet Secretary with huge experience of Government business. The Committee would be expected to take evidence from all the experts and, on the basis of that evidence, it would then be asked to come to a unanimous view on the matters before it.

--- Later in debate ---

The Opposition do not want the Secretary of State to be in a position in which she does not have the powers she needs to cope with an emergency when Parliament is dissolved, so we will not oppose Government new clauses 5 or 6. However, we have grave concerns about how the Government are proceeding with their draft legislation. They are exposing the fiction that has been at the heart of the control orders debate, which is based more on a political fudge than on an assessment of the security needs of the country. We need clearer answers from the Government on that point.

[James Brokenshire]

I am not quite sure how to respond to the lack of coherence in the previous contribution—the Opposition fundamentally oppose something, but then say that they support new clauses 5 and 6—but I shall seek to respond to the points that have been raised in the course of the debate.

I again return to the counter-terrorism review. The measures are not a surprise—it is not as though they were not set out clearly back when the counter-terrorism reported in the early part of this year. The review concluded that

“there may be exceptional circumstances where it could be necessary for the Government to seek Parliamentary approval for additional restrictive measures. In the event of a very serious terrorist risk that cannot be managed by any other means more stringent measures may be required.”

Therefore, to suggest that this situation has just happened and that it was not foretold highlights the lack of reading of the counter-terrorism review when it was published earlier this year.

The Government consider that the enhanced powers will not routinely be needed, and that the standard TPIM Bill will provide robust powers to protect the public. We also consider that there may be circumstances in which more stringent powers will be needed. However, such powers should be introduced only at that time—they should not be routinely available on the statute book.

Obviously I accept that there is a clear difference of opinion. During previous contributions from Opposition Front Benchers, I was minded to believe that control orders were the default. That appeared to be the approach taken by the previous Government, which is why this Government undertook our counter-terrorism review and why we have sought to rebalance the provisions contained in the legislation.

I appreciate the points made by right hon. and hon. Members about the term “exceptional circumstances”. As I have said, that would be when we are faced with a serious terrorist risk that cannot be managed by any other means. It would be inappropriate to say, “Would it apply in this or that control order case?” I am not prepared to second-guess future developments in the threat picture, and the circumstances might be hard to predict. However, credible reporting could point to a series of concurrent attack plots, all of which appear imminent, or it might apply in the wake of a major terrorist attack when there is the prospect of further attacks to follow. Parliament will need to approve the emergency legislation for it to come into force. Ultimately, therefore, it would be for Parliament to determine whether the circumstances are exceptional in that way.

In response to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I would highlight the fact that clearly there are additional safeguards for the new clauses to cover the period during a general election, when the House is unable to pass emergency legislation. The enhanced measures will be subject to a higher legal test. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the person is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity on the balance of probabilities, which is a higher threshold than reasonable belief, which is the test for imposing standard TPIMs.

The comprehensive judicial oversight of standard TPIM notices will also apply to the enhanced measures, including a requirement for court permission before imposing measures; an automatic and full High Court review of the decision to impose the enhanced TPIM notice, and each of the measures specified in it; and rights of appeal against decisions taken by the Secretary of State when the measures are in force. Therefore, the intent is that the broader safeguards will apply in the context of those situations.

I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge says about his discomfort with the contexts in which we would need such provisions. We are all in that situation. Equally, we have considered carefully the potential of alternatives. He highlighted the possibilities of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. However, careful reflection on both sides of the House leads us to consider that that would not be a useful or usable route in dealing with the circumstances that we are contemplating. The 2004 Act has been considered on both sides of the House, but its mechanisms and its structure do not lend themselves easily to the scenarios and situations in which we would consider using TPIMS—indeed, the Act was in many ways directed more to dealing with floods, epidemics and those sorts of problems. Although I understand why my hon. Friend raises that point, as hon. Members have done in the past, we consider that the 2004 Act does not provide a workable mechanism to cover such circumstances.

We believe that the draft emergency Bill would provide a mechanism to deal with a situation while Parliament was either sitting or in recess, although we accept the need to legislate in this Bill to cover a period during a general election. I am pleased to note that the Opposition are prepared to support the new clauses that are contemplated, although clearly there are differences over the emergency Bill itself. However, a Joint Committee will obviously be established to consider, scrutinise and examine the matter in detail in the way one would expect from the House and no doubt to improve, make suggestions and make amendments to the draft Bill.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister has talked about these extra bat belt powers, shall we say, that might be available to the Home Secretary and activated by a draft Bill. I have a question about the parliamentary situation that would then be created. If those powers were activated in relation to a particular threat, hon. Members would receive all sorts of instructions and advice not to mention specific cases in the Chamber, but the chances are that the media would be full of suggestions and innuendos against particular individuals or locations. In those circumstances, how would Parliament discharge the awkward responsibilities that the clause would give it? The Opposition in the previous Parliament made exactly those valid arguments against the then Government’s measures in respect of 42-day detention activated on the basis of parliamentary approval.

[James Brokenshire]

I know that the hon. Member has made that point before. I responded to him then as well. I think that the House is able to debate the principle of the underlying issues, although in relation to detailed, confidential briefings and so on, we would seek to provide more detailed information to Opposition spokespeople on privy counsellor terms, as appropriate, in order to assist debate. However, we believe that Parliament is able to consider emergency legislation in that way. In many ways, it is important to put out the draft legislation now to ensure that there is a mechanism—a tool—that has been considered coolly and calmly outside some of the febrile situations that understandably arise in the sorts of horrendous situations that, sadly, we have seen in the past. That is why it is important that we have the scrutiny that would be applied by a Joint Committee—and obviously it is for the House to resolve the matters around that. That is an important way of ensuring that legislation is considered in a more rational way.

[Paul Goggins]

The Minister has been very generous in giving way this evening. He has refused to be drawn on “second-guessing”, as he put it, the level of threat that would lead him or the Home Secretary to believe that these enhanced TPIM powers were necessary. However, he said that part of his consideration would be whether the threat was “imminent”—that was the word he used. An “imminent threat” could mean the next 12 hours, the next 24 hours, the next 48 hours or the next week. How does he square that level of risk with the fact that he is prepared to put measures in the Bill that would require separate primary legislation that might take at least a week to procure—perhaps even longer during recess? How can he square those two things? In my view, they simply cannot be squared.

[James Brokenshire]

It was precisely to ensure that legislation could be secured quickly that we have published the draft Bill now—to aid in that consideration and to ensure that matters could be dealt with swiftly. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the principle of emergency legislation, and I know that he has taken that approach consistently. There is a difference of view about the enhanced powers and the basis on which they are set, and I do not think that we are likely to resolve that difference between us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

It is a pleasure to be able to make a brief contribution to this debate.

I listened to the rhetoric of the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) in her opening speech in support of her new clause, and it made me even more scared about giving Administrations a fiat on the treatment of people in our judicial system, rather than leaving that with the judges. On many occasions, both in this debate and in Committee, the right hon. Lady talked about the importance of balance, but I feel that, in the sharpness of her rhetoric and the blithe way challenges were laid down and comments were made about loosening and potentially putting us at risk, her speech did not betray any balance whatever. That highlights one of the risks in giving the Executive the power to restrain and control people who have not been brought to justice. Both in the specific instance of relocation and more generally in the tone of Opposition Members, a disservice is being done to this Government’s attempts to return us to some semblance of the traditions of British justice that we achieved before the period of the so-called “war on terror”—before 2001—and we should remember that control orders were not introduced until 2005, and that therefore they were not in place between 2001 and the Iraq war, which some would argue was the period of greatest risk.

I wish to make a couple of comments on the specific issue of relocation. I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Lady and I do not mean to pick on her; I am just picking on her point. I challenged her earlier about democratic countries from which she drew inspiration. I could not think of any either, so I did some research on a well-known search engine. I looked up forced relocation of individuals. Kazakhstan featured prominently. There were also a few honourable mentions for Cambodia—not the current Cambodian Government, but I think we can work out which Government—and for Burma. Kazakhstan, Cambodia and Burma are not exactly the paragons of virtue in this respect that I would like our Government to follow as they attempt to strike the difficult balance of maintaining both the security of the nation and the liberty of the individual.

May I also refer to one not particularly tabloid-friendly comment on relocation? A number of Members have talked about meeting people who are subject to a control order or its equivalents and who have been subject to relocation. We must remember that those subject to control orders have not yet gone through full justice in our country. Many other countries, including the United States, have laws against cruel and unusual punishment. Relocation has the most significant negative impact on the mental health of these individuals. In evidence in Committee, Dr Korzinski said:

“What I am concerned about…is the absence of any sort of safeguards with respect to the impact on the mental health of the individuals who are subjected to these regimes. I can say quite unequivocally that it has been catastrophic in all the cases that I have worked on.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 43, Q121.]

That may not be the most popular of reasons to oppose the right hon. Lady’s new clause, but there are also many others, such as support for our justice system and achieving that balance that she advocates, but which I do not think she spoke to today. I shall support the Government on this new clause.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made some powerful and important points in his succinct contribution.

As I think the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) accepted in her opening comments, we are revisiting a subject that we debated in detail in the Public Bill Committee, when amendments with the same effect were tabled by Opposition Members and the same arguments were made in support of them. As was made clear following the carefully considered counter-terrorism review, despite the aspersions that the right hon. Lady seeks to cast, the Government concluded that it should not routinely be possible under the TPIM system to require an individual to relocate, without consent, to another part of the UK.

The debate in Committee frequently turned to the question of balance—specifically, the balance between protection of individual liberty and security for the wider population. This is an area where there is a very careful balance to be struck, and where views on where the right balance is may differ. The previous Government took the view that compulsory relocation was necessary as one of a wide range of potential obligations under the control order provisions. Our conclusion, as we made clear in January, is that a more focused use of the restrictions available under the Bill, together with the significantly increased funding we are providing for covert investigation, will allow us to protect the public effectively without the need for this potentially very intrusive power to be routinely available. That is where our approach departs from the Opposition’s, and why we are seeking to strike a different balance from that marked out by them.

[Bob Stewart]

The Minister used the word “routinely”. Does he mean that this is something that does not normally happen, but could?

[James Brokenshire]

To be clear, when I say “routinely” I am talking about powers routinely available under the TPIM Bill, accepting that there is a draft Bill that we tabled last week, and the exceptional circumstances when those powers may be available, which we discussed earlier today. Of course, we will be able to use the robust powers in this Bill to disrupt an individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity by, for example, requiring them to reside and stay overnight at a particular address in their locality, so that they can be easily monitored; requiring them to abide by other restrictions on their movements overnight; banning them from areas or places where they might meet extremist associates or conduct terrorism-related activities; prohibiting their association with individuals of concern and requiring prior notice of association with other individuals; requiring them to report regularly to a police station and to co-operate with electronic tagging; restricting and monitoring their financial activities; and limiting their communications to a small number of approved devices.

That is why I say clearly that the TPIM Bill provides robust measures to address the risks posed by such individuals, allied to the additional resources being provided to the police and the Security Service, and that that is the right package of measures to have in place. Indeed, as the House is aware, the director general of the Security Service has told the Home Secretary that he is content that the TPIM Bill provides an acceptable balance between the needs of national security and civil liberties, and that the overall package mitigates risk.

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

As someone who had many reservations about the previous regime and the methods that were used, I, for one, can see very little difference between what this Government are doing and what the previous Government did. At the end of the day, despite all the criticism that was made, particularly by the Liberal Democrats in the last Parliament, by and large, what happened before the election is happening again.

[James Brokenshire]

I ask the hon. Gentleman with all due respect please to read the Bill. He will see that there are significant and important differences that I cannot address in the two minutes remaining to me. However, we have always been clear that there may be exceptional circumstances where the measures in the Bill, together with the additional resources, may not be sufficient to manage effectively the risk we face. National security is the primary duty of any Government, and we will not put security or the public at risk. That is why we concluded, as announced by the Home Secretary in January, that there may be exceptional circumstances where it would be necessary to seek parliamentary approval for additional, more restrictive measures. The review included a commitment that emergency legislation would be drafted, and that is what we tabled last week.

In a free society, we must challenge ourselves to fight terrorism using a targeted set of powers, safeguarding our hard-won civil liberties and prosecuting terrorists wherever possible. However, we must also ensure that those powers are sufficiently robust to meet the threats we face and sufficiently flexible to protect the public in changing circumstances, including in exceptional circumstances. I believe that the Government’s approach to this difficult issue is the right one and—I come back to balance being the essence—does strike the proper balance in giving us that right mix of disruption and ensuring protection for civil liberties. I am sorry that the Opposition do not appear—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I would like to begin by thanking the right hon. and hon. Members who sat on the Public Bill Committee. I can genuinely say that it was one of the best Public Bill Committees that I have been involved in. The Bill underwent tough and detailed scrutiny. There was active participation and there were excellent contributions from both sides. I am sure Members who sat on the Committee will agree that it was lively and robust, but good natured. That is when Parliament excels and does its job properly. The Public Bill Committee certainly did that.

The Committee benefited from the considerable knowledge and expertise of several Members including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and the right hon. Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). I am grateful for the contributions of those Members and other Members of the Committee to this debate. I also thank the Chairmen of the Committee and the officials, Officers and staff of the House who enabled the Committee’s work to take place. We have had a full and detailed discussion of this important piece of legislation on Report, with many excellent contributions from all parts of the House.

We have made it clear from the outset that we are committed to prosecuting and deporting terrorists wherever possible and that our starting point will always be that terrorists should be behind bars. I know that that is the position of everyone in the House. We recognise, however, that there are likely, for the foreseeable future, to be a small number of individuals who we believe are involved in terrorism but whom we cannot successfully prosecute or deport. The purpose of the Bill is to put in place the measures needed to deal with them.

The Government have thought long and hard about what legislation is needed. We conducted a comprehensive and detailed review of all the key counter-terrorism powers, including control orders. As a result of that review, we concluded that control orders were not properly targeted and not entirely effective, and that they should be replaced with the system of prevention and investigation measures that is set out in the Bill.

The Bill includes all the measures that we believe are necessary to deal with those we cannot prosecute or deport, including an overnight residence requirement; a travel measure allowing the banning of overseas travel without permission; measures restricting individuals from entering particular areas or places; an electronic communications device measure that will restrict the individual’s ability to use communications devices; and a financial services measure that will allow individuals to be limited to only one bank account, for which they will have to provide statements. The transfer of money and goods overseas without prior permission could also be prohibited.

The Bill also includes an association measure, under which a list of prohibited associates would be provided to the individual in advance, with the possibility that advance notice might be required for meeting other individuals; a reporting measure that would require the individual to report to a particular police station at a particular time; and a monitoring measure that would require the individual to co-operate with arrangements, including electronic tagging, to monitor their movements, communications, and other activities.

The Bill includes additional safeguards, including an increase in the threshold for the imposition of a TPIM notice from reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism-related activity to reasonable belief, and a two-year overall time limit for a TPIM notice. We believe that TPIMs, together with the significant extra resources that are being given to the police and Security Service for covert investigation, strike the right balance between robust measures to protect the public and the protection of civil liberties.

I do not intend to go over the issues that we discussed in detail on Report, but I wish to say something about the draft Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, which we published for pre-legislative scrutiny on 1 September. Some have claimed that publishing it means that the Government have made some sort of U-turn, and that we are trying to reintroduce more stringent powers through the back door. That is absolutely not the case.

The review of counter-terrorism and security powers that was announced on 26 January made it clear that additional restrictive measures may be required in exceptional circumstances, and that we would produce draft legislation to cover such a situation. That is exactly what we have done. We do not believe it is necessary to have those additional measures in the current Bill, and we sincerely hope that they will never be required, but we think it is right to have the draft legislation available should there be exceptional circumstances that require it, and that Parliament should have the chance to consider it in detail now.

The Government believe that the approach that the Bill sets out is the right one. It protects the public and civil liberties, it is both robust and fair and I commend it to the House.

Proceeds of Crime

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Written Statements

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

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before Parliament the 2010-11 annual report of the appointed person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The appointed person is an independent person who scrutinises the use of the search power introduced to support the measures in the Act to seize and forfeit criminal cash.

The report gives the appointed person’s opinion as to the circumstances and manner in which the search powers conferred by the Act are being exercised. I am pleased that the appointed person, Andrew Clarke, has expressed satisfaction with the operation of the search power and has found that there is nothing to suggest that the procedures are not being followed in accordance with the Act.

From 1 April 2010 to the end of March 2011 over £67 million in cash was seized by law enforcement agencies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland under powers in the Act. The seizures are subject to further investigation, and the cash is subject to further judicially approved detention, before forfeiture in the magistrates court. These powers are a valuable tool in the fight against crime and the report shows that the way they are used has been, and will continue to be, closely monitored.

Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office.

Crime Statistics: England and Wales

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Written Statements

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

On 20 January 2011, the Home Secretary, in a written statement to the House, Official Report, column 49WS, made clear her concern that,

“... our existing measures of crime are confusing and offer the public only a partial picture of the true level of offending. It is in the public interest that we have measures of crime that are clear, meaningful and in which the public can have confidence.”

The Home Secretary announced a review to be undertaken by the national statistician, Ms Jil Matheson to address these points. On 6 June 2011, the national statistician published her review of crime statistics for England and Wales. I am today placing a copy of the Government’s formal response to the national statistician’s recommendations in the Library of the House along with a copy of the review report.

The Government accept all the recommendations of the national statistician. The Government believe that the transfer of publication of crime statistics to the independent Office for National Statistics will help build public trust in the key data that are published nationally about crime. The Government also look forward to the national statistician’s independent advisory committee considering what further changes are necessary to the collection and presentation of crime statistics while reducing administrative burdens involved in collecting them.

Code of Practice (Examining Officers)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Written Statements

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

I am today issuing a Home Office circular to all chief constables advising them that the code of practice for examining officers introduced by order SI NO 2009/1593, following resolutions of both Houses, contains a factual inaccuracy in the TACT2 (Notice of Detention) form included as annex B. The Criminal Defence Service (General) (No.2) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (SI NO 712 2002) provide that the Legal Services Commission shall fund advice and assistance as it considers appropriate in relation to any person detained under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This was not reflected in the TACT2 form included in the code of practice. The Home Office circular provides a revised form, which examining officers are required to use. This advises those detained under schedule 7 that they may consult with a solicitor and that this may be at public expense (subject to the normal requirements of merit and means testing). We will lay a draft revised code of practice before Parliament in due course.