Immigration

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and the cross-party group on balanced migration on securing the opportunity to discuss a very important issue. We have had thus far, and I am sure we will have for the rest of the debate, a measured discussion, which shows how much the issue has progressed. The nature of today’s contributions has been striking, and I welcome the Opposition’s suggestion that they will act constructively and examine proposals carefully. We will need to see how that progresses, but I hear what the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) says.

The Government fully recognise that there are, and have been, many economic and cultural benefits from immigration. Under this Government, Britain is, and will remain, open for business, and in today’s globalised economy we will ensure that we continue to attract the brightest and the best so that UK companies remain competitive and economic growth is supported. Several contributors have already highlighted that important point this afternoon.

We must also ensure, however, that migration is properly controlled, and we believe that we can reduce net migration without damaging our economy. We have committed to reduce the number of non-EU migrants, and we will shortly make our proposals, which will form a comprehensive package on all aspects of the immigration system, not only economic migration. This afternoon, I shall outline the challenges that we face and the context in which we will take those decisions.

Britain can continue to benefit from migration, provided it is controlled. That has been the broad tenor of this afternoon’s contributions. We must manage the pace of change in local communities and the pressure on our public services, while ensuring that those who come to work or to study are those who will really benefit from it and who, in turn, will benefit our economy. As well as controlling migration, we also need to secure the border, and that is why the coalition Government are committed to establishing a national crime agency, including a border police command, which will enhance security and improve policing at the border, supporting e-borders, reintroducing exit checks and cracking down on abuse and on human trafficking.

I turn to the central issue of net migration. In August, the Office for National Statistics published the 2009 statistics, which showed an increase in net migration from 163,000 in 2008 to 196,000 in 2009, the figure to which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead referred. That follows the pattern of recent times. Between 1997 and 2009, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2 million people, more than twice the population of Birmingham. Such migration is unsustainable in terms of population growth and the consequent pressures on services and community cohesion. We therefore aim to reduce net migration to the levels of the 1990s—tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, each year by the end of this Parliament.

It has been suggested that we are wrong to focus on net migration figures because they contain the inward and outward flows of British and EU citizens, which we do not control. But, in recent years, those flows have largely cancelled each other out; the issue is that the number of non-EEA migrants arriving is exceeding the number leaving. In 2009, of the net migration of 196,000, about 184,000 were non-EEA migrants. Reducing non-EEA net numbers can therefore reduce net migration overall. That is why the coalition programme states specifically that we will introduce an annual cap on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK and that we will introduce new measures to crack down on abuse of the immigration system.

We believe that the points-based system introduced by the previous Government provides a framework, but it evidently does not give us the control that we need to bring the annual net migration figure down to sustainable levels, as the 196,000 figure for net migration in 2009 illustrates. We need an approach that will not only get immigration down to sustainable levels, but protect those businesses and institutions that are vital to our economy. That will not be easy and we will not be able to achieve it by focusing on just one area of the system or on one route into Britain. As the Home Affairs Committee report recently illustrated, we will need to take action on students, families and settlement as well as on people coming here to work.

We are already taking action on the economic routes. As the House knows, interim limits on economic migrants using the highly skilled and skilled migration routes under tiers 1 and 2 of the points-based system were introduced on 19 July. As Members will know, tier 1 is for highly skilled migrants with sufficient skills and expertise to qualify to come here and seek employment, while tier 2 caters for skilled workers who already have a job offer from a sponsoring employer in the UK. The limits were introduced to prevent a surge in applications during our consultation before we introduce our permanent limits in April 2011. They also set a reduction in numbers of 5%—of 1,300—compared with the same period in the previous year. That has been achieved.

We are, of course, aware that employers, businesses, universities and research institutes have raised issues about the operation of the interim limits. I assure the House that we will take account of those concerns in designing the permanent limit. The interim limit on tier 2 is based mainly on past allocations to individual employers, with a reserve pool for new requests. In many cases, though, employers and institutions have not yet used their allocations, and intra-company transfers are excluded from the interim limit to give additional flexibility.

We have also recently revised the criteria for issuing additional certificates of sponsorship to respond more flexibly to employers’ needs. A particular concern that has been raised, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) this afternoon, is the position of scientists and researchers. We are confident that next year’s limit can be made to operate in a way that ensures that universities and research institutions are not prevented from recruiting top scientists and other workers with key skills.

[Mr Frank Field]

I apologise for not having been here for half an hour of the debate. I had a meeting that I wanted to keep, but I regret not having heard the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe); I shall read it with interest tomorrow.

Net migration is almost 200,000. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to cater for the legitimate demands expressed in the House today about industry’s legitimate needs while meeting the Government’s target of reducing the numbers to the ’teens of thousands?

[James Brokenshire]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have made it clear that we want to attract the brightest and the best to this country. We believe that it is possible to introduce limits and take account of the concerns of business and of the scientific institutions to which I referred.

We consulted business and other interested parties extensively on how the limit should work, and more than 3,000 responded. We also asked the Migration Advisory Committee—the well-respected and independent advisory body on migration policy—to consult on what the limit should be, taking into account the economic and social impacts of migration. The MAC report has been published today. I thank David Metcalf and the other members of the committee for their very full and helpful report, which we will continue to study in great detail. We will consider its findings alongside the responses to our own consultation on how the limit should operate, and we will announce how it will work in the near future. I will not comment this afternoon on the detail of the committee’s recommendations, as that would pre-empt the Government’s final announcement, which will be made in due course. However, this is a complex issue, and it is vital that we consider the best and broadest advice, including the responses made to the Home Office’s consultation on economic migration.

I now want to talk about the issue of intra-company transfers, which has been highlighted in the debate. Of course, we want companies to be able to transfer senior managers and specialists to enrich their UK operations. For that reason, the Prime Minister has already indicated that we have heard the concerns of business on this matter. However, in 2009 such transfers accounted for 22,000 migrants out of the 36,500 admitted through the tier 2 route, and about half of those 22,000 were in the IT sector—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley). Given the numbers involved, we need to ensure that the ICT route is being used for its original purpose, and not to undercut regular jobs here, particularly in the IT sector. Last week, a study published by the Higher Education Careers Service Unit showed that graduate unemployment was highest among graduates in computer science, out of all the disciplines. We are therefore looking carefully at the rules on ICTs.

[Mr Brazier]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Six years ago, a study showed that computer scientists and mathematicians enjoyed the greatest premium of all on graduating, so there has been an astonishing change in that sector of the market.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes that point, and that is why we are considering these issues very carefully.

[Tom Brake]

The balance at which the Government must arrive is one whereby the IT sector is addressed as the Minister wants but the Japanese ambassador’s concerns that very senior engineers may not be able to come to the UK as part of an ICT arrangement, thereby stopping the creation of seven jobs in the UK, are taken into account.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend speaks with experience of the IT industry. He was involved in that industry before coming to this House, so he offers a fair degree of knowledge on this point. We are examining these issues extremely carefully in the context of the reforms and changes that will be made.

Employers have indicated to us that they are mainly concerned about the tier 2 route, rather than the tier 1 route. We know from recent research that looked at a sample of highly skilled migrants that nearly a third of tier 1 migrants did not find highly skilled work. An example of that is the individual who was issued with a tier 1 visa and later became duty manager at a well-known high street chain of fried chicken restaurants. Perhaps that highlights some of the challenges involved in this matter. We cannot afford a mismatch between what employers need and the profile of those coming to this country. We will therefore have to ensure that those coming to do skilled work are undertaking a suitable job with a sponsoring employer.

At present, the minimum skills level for a job is a national vocational qualification level 3, and the English language requirements are at a basic level. In the shortage occupation list, some wage levels are as low as £7.80 an hour. The question that we need to consider carefully is whether that is really the right level of skilled migrant, when we have many unemployed people in this country. We believe that many employers are currently using migrant workers to fill vacancies because they cannot get the right people from the domestic or European labour market. That inability to recruit local talent is frustrating when we have people out of work in this country. That is why the Government are using their welfare reform policy to get people back to work. British employers need to be committed to developing a skills base here, and we need them to look first at people who are out of work and who are already in this country.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

In the job clubs that I have been running for some time in my constituency, countless people have said to me that it simply does not pay for them to get a part-time job of the sort that my hon. Friend talks about.

[James Brokenshire]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, may I very gently remind him and others that this is a Back-Bench debate, and that some nine Members who have been sitting patiently in the Chamber for quite a long time wish to participate? I think the Front Benchers need to take some notice of that.

[James Brokenshire]

I am very grateful for that reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is certainly important that we have as many contributions on the subject as possible, so I will seek to be as quick as I can in addressing some of the points. However, I hope that you will appreciate that this is a debate of interest, and I will therefore seek to put it in context.

The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) mentioned talented individuals and entrepreneurs, and we want to make Britain a more attractive destination for those people. Last year the UK attracted only 275 high-value investors and entrepreneurs. As the Prime Minister said recently, we will reform the rules for entrepreneurs so that:

“If you have a great business idea, and you receive serious investment from a leading investor, you are welcome to set up your business in our country”.

Contributions have been made about students, and we know that work routes accounted for less than a quarter of the non-EU citizens entering Britain last year. The majority of non-EU migrants are in fact students. Including their dependants, they account for about two thirds of the visas issued last year under the points-based system. Many come here to study courses below degree level, and we have to question whether they are the brightest and best that Britain wants to attract.

Home Office data on compliance and student behaviour show that students studying in privately funded colleagues are much more likely not to have left the country after their visa expired than their counterparts in universities. Although we need to preserve our world-class academic institutions above and below degree level, we also need to stop abuses. I know that other Members have made that point.

We must also consider the issue of temporary versus permanent settlement. We realise that some argue that many of the workers and students who come here are temporary migrants who return home. However, in many cases that is not true. Of the skilled non-European economic area workers who came here in 2004, 40% were still here by 2009 and 30% had settled. We will need to return to that important issue.

Clearly change is seldom easy, particularly for those who have benefited directly from the current system, but if we do not create wider public confidence in our immigration system, public concern about immigration and social tensions will only increase. This Government are determined to create an immigration system that controls migration for the benefit of everyone in this country, and we shall bring forward our specific measures shortly once we have had a chance to consider all the points raised in the consultation, including here today.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Annual Report)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 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 2009-10 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 2009 to the end of March 2010 over £63 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 are available in the Vote Office.

Justice and Home Affairs (Post-Council Statement)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Written Statements

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

My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Kenny MacAskill the Scottish Secretary for Justice, and I attended the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 8 and 9 November in Brussels.

The Council began with Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen States). The Commission provided an update on the progress of the second generation of the Schengen Information System II (SIS II). Since there were no major developments reported, it was suggested it may not be necessary to discuss SIS II at every Council as was the present standing commitment.

Next the Council noted progress towards an amending regulation on Frontex, the EU external borders agency. The new regulation is intended to increase the capacity of Frontex to strengthen the security and surveillance of the external Schengen borders, to develop relationships with third countries, and to better assist member states to return those with no right to remain in the EU. The UK is not directly affected as the amending regulation relates to those elements of the Schengen Acquis in which we do not participate. However, the Government support the extension of Frontex’s remit to allow it to handle the personal data of those suspected of involvement in criminality at the border. We believe that being able to gather and share these data with other agencies, such as Europol, is vital to Frontex’s contribution to the fight against human trafficking and smuggling. The Commission confirmed that it had dropped its opposition to Frontex handling personal data, but emphasised that the purpose should be limited, with necessary safeguards on data protection and the respect of human rights.

The Commission updated the Council on the draft regulation establishing a network of immigration liaison officers, with a view to reaching agreement between Council and Parliament before the end of the Belgian presidency. The amended regulation is intended to strengthen the EU’s capacity to address illegal migration, and seeks to achieve greater benefit from Immigration Liaison Officer (ILO) networks for Frontex and the Commission. The UK supported the proposal’s aim to strengthen partnership working on illegal immigration, but objected to the failure of the text to reflect the application of the UK and Irish opt-in protocol. The UK had a right to opt-in to measures pursuant to this part of the treaty and highlighted that a recital should be inserted to reflect the Government’s decision to opt-in. The UK would not be able to support agreement until that amendment was made.

Next the Council discussed the sixth report from the Commission on the maintenance of visa requirements with third countries. Commissioner Malmstrom said progress was being made on the lack of Czech-Canada reciprocity. The Council then adopted an amendment to the Common Visa List to grant Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina nationals access to the Schengen area without an EU visa, subject to a strengthened monitoring mechanism to allow for a rapid suspension in the event of a sudden inflow. Ministers from Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina joined the Council for this item to welcome the decision. The UK will not be affected by changes to the regulation on the Common Visa as it builds on elements of the Schengen Acquis in which we do not participate.

Following Mixed Committee, the presidency gave a progress report on those dossiers being prioritised by the Belgian presidency under the Common European Asylum System noting that the Council was close to agreement on the Dublin and Eurodac regulations, although several delegations intervened to argue for the inclusion in the latter of law enforcement access. The UK acknowledged the presidency’s determined efforts to reach agreement on these measures, but thought the EU’s emphasis should be on practical co-operation. The UK highlighted that support for Greece was vital, that the Greek action plan was a real step forward, but there was an urgent need to act with strong leadership by the Commission. The UK stated that in the right circumstances we could send asylum caseworkers to support Greece, but there had to be a proper funding source at EU level. The UK highlighted that Dublin should be supported, not suspended. Rather than legislation that would increase the rights of all asylum seekers (whether or not their claims were valid), member states should provide faster protection for those in need, while protecting EU asylum systems from abuse.

Over lunch Interior Ministers discussed solidarity in the field of immigration and asylum and, at the request of Germany, the aviation security incident, involving cargo freight originating in Yemen. The UK updated on the current threat and its response to date. The UK also raised the importance of an EU PNR directive that included intra-EU flights.

The French Minister also informed the Council of the establishment of a “Mediterranean Office for Youth” in 2011; an intergovernmental initiative to improve mobility for young people through, for example, work experience opportunities.

After lunch Council conclusions on the creation and implementation of an EU policy cycle on organised crime (Project Harmony) were adopted. The mechanism should allow an intelligence-led approach to prioritising and tackling agreed threats from serious organised crime.

The presidency then sought a firm political steer on the way forward for implementation of the Prum Council decisions. The UK stated that it would not meet the August 2011 deadline for implementation. The UK acknowledged the offer of EU funding and suggested the deadline should be reconsidered. The UK could not support harmonisation of post-hit operational business rules. The presidency called on all member states to fulfil their commitments and make use of the support available.

Under AOB the Commission presented their initiative for a regulation on the marketing and use of explosives. The regulation proposes to limit access by the general public to specific chemicals that can be used to manufacture home-made explosives by restricting their use and possession above set concentration thresholds. There was no discussion.

The Hungarians called on the presidency and Commission to focus on the Eastern Partnership and on delivering a migration dialogue with the Russian Federation during discussions on the Prague process-building migration partnerships. The process is intended to implement strengthened practical and operational co-operation with main countries of transit and origin based on the global approach to migration—specifically the Eastern migration route, which includes Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

On the Justice day the Commission presented its proposal for a directive on attacks against IT systems which would replace the existing framework decision, which was part of a broader package of measures to combat cybercrime. The presidency looked forward to negotiations under the Hungarian presidency. The Government are considering whether the UK should opt in to this proposal.

There was an orientation debate on the European Investigation Order (EIO) which deals with cross-border requests for evidence in criminal proceedings. The UK supported the proposal but highlighted that some issues needed further debate at working-group level, in particular grounds of refusal. We needed to look further at cost, proportionality and dual criminality, in particular in relation to coercive matters. Proportionality must be a consideration in both the issuing and executing state. The presidency concluded that it would report on progress in December after further negotiations.

The presidency then provided an information point on the directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings. This is the second measure in the road map for strengthening criminal procedural rights and it aims to set common minimum standards and improve the rights of suspects and accused persons by ensuring that they receive information about their rights. The presidency stated that while progress has been made on this directive, it was essential to take account of the common law systems. The Commission reiterated this and encouraged member states to support the presidency in finding a solution that worked for all. The presidency will seek a general approach on this directive at the JHA Council on December 2-3.

The Commission presented the mid-term review of the Drugs Action Plan and stressed the seriousness of the drug abuse problem in Europe and the need for implementation of the plan. It accepted that it was not the right moment to expect higher investment in drug prevention and treatment programmes but it was also not the moment to cut investment. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) presented its annual report which was published on the 10 November.

Over lunch Justice Ministers received a presentation from the presidency on whether EU action was required to enhance cross-border co-operation in border regions: this was intended to give guidance to the EU Prosecutors Forum at the end of November.

Justice and Home Affairs (Pre-Council Statement)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Written Statements

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

My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Secretary for Justice, and I will attend the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 8 and 9 November in Brussels.

The Council will begin with a Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen States). Due to the standing commitment to update Council on the progress of the second generation of the Schengen Information System II (SIS II) the Commission will provide an update on developments.

Next there will be a discussion on the proposal to move Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina to the positive annex of Regulation 539/2001 which would exclude their nationals from the EU visa requirement when travelling to the Schengen area. The United Kingdom does not participate in the border and visa aspects of the Schengen Acquis as they build on elements of the Schengen Acquis in which we do not participate. The UK will not be affected by changes to the regulation of the Common Visa List, but will maintain an interest in all visa issues notably issues relating to full reciprocity for third-country nationals.

The Council will note progress towards an amending regulation on Frontex, the EU external borders agency. The new regulation is intended to increase the capacity of Frontex to strengthen the security and surveillance of the external Schengen borders, to develop relationships with third countries, and better to assist member states to return those with no right to remain in the EU. The UK is not directly affected as the amending regulation relates to those elements of the Schengen Acquis in which we do not participate. However, the UK does provide support to the operational and other activities of Frontex and we have been actively engaged in the drafting process for the amendment. The UK is particularly keen to see that the remit of Frontex is extended to allow it to handle the personal data of those suspected of involvement in criminality at the border. We believe that being able to gather and share these data with other agencies such as Europol is vital to Frontex’s contribution to the fight against human trafficking and smuggling.

The Council will be updated on a draft regulation updating the establishment of a network of immigration liaison officers, with a view to reaching agreement between Council and Parliament before the end of the Belgian presidency. The amended regulation is intended to strengthen the EU’s capacity to address illegal migration, and seeks to achieve greater benefit from Immigration Liaison Officer (ILO) networks for Frontex and the Commission. The UK supports the content of this proposal, and welcomes its aims to strengthen Frontex and to enhance partnership working within the EU (and with other international partners) to tackle illegal migration. However, we do not agree with the current interpretation of the UK’s legal participation and will look to protect the UK’s right to opt in.

Next the Council will discuss the sixth report of the Commission on the maintenance of visa requirements. Regulation 539/2001 as amended (the Common Visa List) aims to establish reciprocity with non-EU countries which continue to impose a visa requirement on the nationals of some EU member states for stays of under 90 days (although those member states do not impose the visa requirement on nationals of those non-EU countries). The UK will not be affected by changes to the regulation of the Common Visa List however; will maintain an interest in all visa issues, and notably issues relating to full reciprocity for third-country nationals.

Following Mixed Committee, the Council will receive a progress report on those dossiers being prioritised by the Belgian presidency under the Common European Asylum System: the extension of the long-term residents directive to beneficiaries of international protection, the qualification directive, Eurodac, Dublin and the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office. The UK Government believe that the challenges that Europe faces in the asylum field are better addressed by practical co-operation than by further legislation. We need to work with those member states that are under pressure to help them improve their asylum systems and deal with the claims they receive. In particular, the EU needs to provide properly co-ordinated support to help Greece implement reforms to its asylum system. We see the new European Asylum Support Office as playing a crucial role in this work and will play an active role in the office’s development.

Over lunch Interior Ministers will receive an update from the Belgian Minister for Immigration on recent visits to Cyprus, Malta and Greece and have a discussion on solidarity in the field of immigration and asylum.

After lunch the Council will have a discussion on the creation and implementation of an EU policy cycle on organised crime (Project Harmony), which presents a pragmatic, intelligence-led approach to prioritising and tackling agreed threats caused by serious organised crime. The UK, having been a project partner in this initiative since its creation, supports these conclusions as we believe key benefits to the UK include greater opportunity to influence the EU agenda on organised crime; the potential alignment of EU funds to support operational delivery; and as a result greater commitment of member states to work collaboratively to tackle the agreed prioritised threats.

The presidency will seek a firm political steer on the way forward for implementation of the Prum Council Decisions. The Council will acknowledge that obstacles are not only technical in nature but also political and linked to financial and human resources. The Council will also consider recommendations for practical solutions, through the provision of technical assistance, the use of EU funding, and a streamlined evaluation process.

The Commission will present their annual report on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) which is due to be published on 10 November.

Under AOB the Commission will present their initiative for a regulation on the marketing and use of explosives. The regulation proposes to limit access by the general public to specific chemicals that can be used to manufacture home-made explosives by restricting their use and possession above set concentration thresholds. The UK will seek to negotiate changes to the text and it is expected that the proposal will go for Council approval in the middle of 2011.

The presidency has also placed the Prague process-building migration partnerships as an AOB item at the request of Hungary. The intention of the process is to implement strengthened practical and operational co-operation with main countries of transit and origin based on the global approach to migration—specifically the Eastern migration route, which includes Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. We support the Prague process and welcome the valuable results it has achieved, it is a good example of how we can turn our policies into practical action.

The Justice day will commence with a Commission presentation on a proposal for a directive regarding measures against new forms of cybercrime, including large-scale cyber-attacks. The UK takes the issue of cybercrime very seriously and recognises that it is an international problem. The UK is keen to work with other member states to ensure that there can be an effective response to cybercrime in the EU. We are considering whether to opt in.

There will be an orientation debate on the European Investigation Order (EIO) which is a draft directive aimed at streamlining the system of mutual legal assistance between participating EU member states to discuss broad issues relating to the EIO including grounds on which an EIO could be refused. In particular, the Council will be asked to give a steer on the grounds for refusal which should apply; the UK will argue strongly that proportionality must be a consideration. Detailed work will then continue at working group level.

There will be an information point on the letter of rights to information in criminal proceedings. This is the second measure in the road map to strengthen procedural rights in criminal proceedings and it aims to set common minimum standards and improve the rights of suspects and accused persons by ensuring that they receive information about their rights. The UK has opted in to this measure.

During lunch Justice Ministers will discuss judicial co-operation in cross-border regions in the light of responses to a questionnaire submitted to member states. The questionnaire and the debate are aimed at improving the knowledge about the different forms of international co-operation between borders. The UK’s experience of co-operation in cross-border regions is limited to that between the borders of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

6. When she plans to publish her proposals to amend the Licensing Act 2003.

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

The proposals for amendments to the 2003 Act will be included in the police reform and social responsibility Bill, which will be introduced later in the year.

[Mr Buckland]

Local residents and businesses in my constituency feel effectively gagged and excluded from the current licensing application process. What plans do the Government have to improve the fairness of the system?

[James Brokenshire]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because the consultation that the Government embarked on in relation to reforms to the Licensing Act was precisely on that issue—about rebalancing the Act in favour of local communities. He makes his point very well, and we will bring forward proposals in due course.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Those of us who argued against the 2003 Act did so on the basis that 24-hour drinking would not introduce a café society to the UK where youngsters sipped wine into the early hours discussing Baudelaire, and the only thing that the Act has done is to move yobbishness, drunkenness and violence from late nights to early mornings.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and it will be interesting to hear whether the former licensing Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), who is now on the shadow Front Bench, will be able to explain why that café culture, which was supposed to be created as a result of the previous Government’s reforms, has perhaps not arisen. In reality, we have seen an increase of about 65% in the number of hospital admissions linked to alcohol over the five years to 2008-09, and that is why we think that reforms are required.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

In the Minister’s work on the Licensing Act, will he ensure that he looks carefully at the licensing of one-off and annual events, such as Strawberry Fair in my constituency, so that delays in determination, because of late interventions, for example, do not mean that the events have to be cancelled regardless of what is decided?

[James Brokenshire]

I am not familiar with the detail of the individual event to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but we are looking at temporary event notices and how community events are licensed, and if issues continue to prevail in relation to that situation no doubt he will write to me.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

7. How many police officers there were in England and Wales in March (a) 2010 and (b) 1997.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

T7. Will the Home Secretary join me in welcoming the shadow Home Secretary’s conversion to our policy of putting antisocial behaviour orders behind us? The shadow Home Secretary said:“I want to live in the kind of society that puts Asbos behind us.”

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

I hope that the shadow Home Secretary will remember his original comments, and will therefore accept that the current tools and powers for dealing with antisocial behaviour are overly bureaucratic and do not work effectively. That is why we are currently reviewing them to ensure that all local agencies have a toolkit that provides a strong deterrent, and is quick, practical and easy to use.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary was reluctant yesterday to confirm the consequences of Government cuts for the police service. Will she give a straight answer to that question today, and confirm that 2,000 jobs will go in the west midlands police service, including those of 400 police officers in Birmingham—40 for each of Birmingham’s 10 constituencies —and does she share my constituents’ fears that, as police numbers fall, crime will go up?

European Arrest Warrants and Extradition

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) on securing this debate and on the measured way in which he delivered his comments this evening. I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for highlighting a number of issues about the European arrest warrant and for posing a number of questions about the operation of the system. In the time available, I shall try to address as many of the points highlighted by my hon. Friends as I can.

The European arrest warrant is an important mechanism in the administration of justice in the European Union, where citizens can move across its borders with relative freedom for the purposes of business or leisure. Of course, no one sought for trial in the EU should be able to evade justice by crossing a border, which is why the warrant is important, but to be really effective it must command the confidence of those whom it affects, striking a fair balance between the rights of those sought and the rights of their alleged victims. For that reason, I welcome the opportunity this debate affords to explore some of the pertinent issues.

My hon. Friends have raised a number of points, and I would like to add some of my own. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey is aware that there is no ministerial involvement in European arrest warrant proceedings. A European arrest warrant can be issued only by a recognised judicial authority, and the decision about whether to order surrender is a matter for the courts in the country receiving the warrant. Having said that, I appreciate the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed about the welfare of his constituent and his constituent’s co-accused, who were surrendered on a European arrest warrant earlier this year to Crete to face serious criminal charges. I am aware of the circumstances of the case, in which another young man, Mr Robert Hughes—also a British citizen—was assaulted and very seriously injured.

The House will appreciate that I cannot comment on, and still less seek to intervene in, the judicial processes of another state. But I can say that the accused were surrendered to Crete in early August after their appeal rights under part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, which gives effect to the European arrest warrant in the United Kingdom, were exhausted. Once there, they were granted bail on payment of a surety, and as far as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is aware, they have been permitted to return to the United Kingdom pending the setting of a trial date.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North mentioned the case of his constituent, Andrew Symeou. Mr Symeou was surrendered to Greece on a European arrest warrant last year, where he is accused of the manslaughter in 2007 of Mr Jonathan Hiles, also a British citizen. I can certainly confirm the advice received from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that Mr Symeou is now on bail in Greece and awaiting trial in March next year. The trial was postponed from June this year because summonses for British witnesses were regrettably not able to be served on time. This is self-evidently distressing for all those involved in this tragic case, but I trust that the delay will not result in a denial of justice to any of the parties. I can assure the House that the unit in the Home Office that processes summonses from overseas has flagged its system with the names of these witnesses. That means that when the summonses containing the necessary information are re-sent by the Greek authorities, they will be identified promptly and served on the witnesses.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment further on individual cases, but in general terms Members will be aware that the Extradition Act 2003, and the various treaties and instruments to which it gives effect, contain a range of safeguards for the person whose extradition is sought. These safeguards are in place to strike a balance between the rights of the requested person and the rights of their alleged victim or victims, as I said earlier. It is important that suspects are quickly brought to justice, and that is no less the case when the offence has cross-border elements.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North mentioned that a European arrest warrant may be issued when a fugitive is merely required for investigation. I can reassure him on that point. The instrument states categorically:

“The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.”

I hope that that provides a measure of clarification. He also made the general point that, in cross-border cases, bail is often denied to defendants who are not residents of the country in which they are charged. He might be aware that another EU criminal justice measure, the European supervision order, was adopted last year. It is not yet in force, but it will provide for a more flexible system of bail in cross-border cases. In any event, decisions on bail, whether here in the United Kingdom or abroad, are a matter for the trial court, which will be mindful of the importance of ensuring the attendance of defendants.

The coalition Government are aware of the public interest in the United Kingdom’s extradition arrangements, and I have noted with care the comments that my hon. Friends have made in this regard. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a judge-led review of our extradition arrangements to Parliament on 8 September. On 14 October, the coalition Government announced that the independent review would be led by Sir Scott Baker, a former Lord Justice of Appeal. He will be supported by two lawyers with wide experience and in-depth knowledge of extradition law. The operation of the European arrest warrant will be looked at as part of the review to ensure that it operates as effectively as possible and in the interests of justice. In her statement to the House, the Home Secretary announced that the five issues that would be covered by the review were the

“breadth of Secretary of State discretion in an extradition case; the operation of the European arrest warrant, including the way in which those of its safeguards which are optional have been transposed into UK law; whether the forum bar to extradition should be commenced; whether the US-UK extradition treaty is unbalanced; whether requesting states should be required to provide prima facie evidence.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 18WS.]

The issue of prima facie evidence is one of those that are under review as part of the investigation. It is a long time—nearly 20 years—since prima facie evidence has been required to support an extradition request between European countries. The European convention on extradition, which preceded the European arrest warrant in the EU, abolished the requirement for prima facie evidence. The United Kingdom implemented the convention in 1991, when the Extradition Act 1989 came into force. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North asked about the case of Gary McKinnon. The Home Secretary obtained an adjournment of the High Court hearing so that she could consider the issues for herself, along with further representations from Mr McKinnon. She can legally stop extradition at this stage in the proceedings only if she concludes that Mr McKinnon’s human rights would be breached if he were extradited. She is actively considering those issues with a view to reaching a decision as soon as possible.

[Mr Gyimah]

The Minister has mentioned the Home Secretary’s involvement in the Gary McKinnon case. Would it not be helpful to ensuring justice if she became more directly involved in other extradition cases? At present, political involvement is completely absent from extradition.

[James Brokenshire]

As I have said, the extradition review will consider a range of issues relating to extradition arrangements. Obviously I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the review, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s point will have been heard very clearly.

A number of concerns have been expressed about the European arrest warrant, but, as Members have pointed out this evening, it has been an invaluable tool in the fight against international crime within the EU. The European arrest warrant system has simplified and speeded up the extradition of persons both to and from the United Kingdom, and has made possible some procedures that were not formerly possible. Before the warrant was introduced, some EU member states had a constitutional bar on the extradition of their own nationals. The warrant has removed that barrier to extradition, and has updated or streamlined the extradition process in a number of other ways.

An increasing number of European arrest warrants are being dealt with in the United Kingdom. They are issued for a range of different offences. For an offence to be extraditable, it must be punishable by the law of the issuing member state with a custodial sentence for a maximum period of at least 12 months, or, when sentence has been passed, with a sentence of at least four months. Offences that fall into one of the categories on the list contained in the European arrest warrant framework decision—all serious offence types—and that are punishable with a maximum sentence of at least three years in the issuing state may not be subject to the dual criminality test in the executing state. However, for the purposes of all other offences, the United Kingdom has implemented an optional further safeguard, and requires that the offence must also be an offence in the United Kingdom. The EU is actively exploring the best means of addressing the issue of proportionality in the number of warrants issued, and the United Kingdom is playing a leading role in its discussions.

When it comes to justice and home affairs in the EU, the picture is constantly evolving. The Government have decided to opt into the EU directive on the right to information in criminal proceedings. Opting in will help to protect the civil liberties of our citizens abroad without compromising the integrity of the United Kingdom justice system.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey mentioned legal aid. Legal assistance is an issue that is included in the Stockholm programme and the Commission is introducing a proposal on legal assistance for consideration next year.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to debate the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements with member states of the European Union. Clearly, the issue is being examined carefully as part of the review that I have highlighted. That is why the review has been set up. It will report next summer, after thorough consultation—

Missing Persons

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this Adjournment debate on the important subject of missing persons. I should also congratulate her on her appointment as chair of the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults. I know that she takes a close personal interest in this significant issue, and I very much welcome her contribution and the way in which she approached and highlighted it.

When we talk about missing persons, I am struck by the broader context. In many ways, that context was reflected in today’s contributions. The debate may be linked, for example, to child sexual exploitation and honour-based violence. I very much appreciate that wider context and why we need to focus on dealing with this issue in a serious and measured way. I therefore thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I also thank her and other hon. Members for their contributions. They have taken a measured and considered approach to the issue.

Sadly, missing persons constitute an area of public protection that has, in many ways, not always been regarded as the priority that it should be; in some contexts, it has been regarded as more of a niche subject. However, as my initial comments highlighted, the Government take the issue very seriously, and the same is true of our responsibility to ensure that the response to missing persons is as effective as possible.

The hon. Lady’s remarks were very interesting. Listening to the debate, I was further convinced that greater co-operation and collaboration between all the agencies involved will place us on a more solid platform and help to deliver improved services not only for those who go missing, but for the families and friends who are left behind. The hon. Lady spoke powerfully of the impact that someone’s disappearance has on family and friends, who wonder what has happened to their loved one.

The previous Government looked at the issue, and that resulted in the missing persons task force, which the hon. Lady mentioned. The task force studied the landscape, exposed some of the shortcomings and made 22 recommendations in the appendix to its report, which it published earlier this year. One of my earliest tasks as Home Office Minister with responsibility for missing persons was to examine the task force report with a view to understanding where we are on the missing persons problem and to consider what could be done to improve the response. I was pleased to agree early action to ensure dissemination of existing good practice to police forces, to improve information sharing and to ensure police compliance on the code of practice.

We are in the process of taking that work forward. On good practice, I was pleased to see an ACPO toolkit launched on the police online knowledge area system just over a month ago. POLKA is a useful resource for police forces engaged in missing persons investigations. It includes toolkits governing good practice in identifying found people and a forensic examination toolkit. There are plans imminently to go live with a similar toolkit for forces on parental and familial child abductions. It is however clear to me that more can and should be done to improve the response and equally that real improvements can be achieved if existing structures, agencies and resources work better and more effectively together to ensure that those who go missing and their families are properly supported. I have asked my officials to conduct a review of the full set of task force recommendations by the end of the year to consider what, if any, further action we can take on this important issue, considering the changing landscape, and the way in which certain issues have moved on since the publication of the report.

More generally, it is my firm belief that in the meantime, there is some tangible work that can be done now to create the conditions needed for the kind of close engagement we think necessary.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

A lady called Mrs Nicki Durbin, of Hollesley in my constituency, wrote to me about the importance of the issue, in connection with her son, Luke Durbin, who disappeared four years ago. I hear what the Minister says about guidelines, and similar things, but how, in the present stricken times, will he prioritise ensuring that the issue of missing persons does not drop off our police forces’ priority list?

[James Brokenshire]

I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance on the basis of the action that I have already taken, including the focus being brought to bear by examining the task force recommendations and ensuring that the issue is seen as important for Government. Work has already started, for example, to develop the role of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre in relation to missing and abducted children. The centre has already brought its expertise to bear in the relevant area this year through, among other things, a cold case review and work to incorporate missing children elements into existing public and child safety training programmes. I believe that CEOP will bring a great deal of expertise in child protection to the table. I want it to build on its extensive experience of responding to incidents in which children and young people have been vulnerable to abuse.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing to the attention of the House the issue of the future of the statutory and voluntary agencies. Missing children aside, I note from the debate the understandable concern and anxiety among some hon. Members about the future of the National Policing Improvement Agency Missing Persons Bureau. However, let me be clear that no decisions have yet been made on the future of the bureau, either about funding or where functions may sit in the future.

Hon. Members will of course be aware that we launched a policing consultation in the summer, which, among other things, sought views on our plan to create a national crime agency. The consultation has now closed and we will be publishing a summary of the responses and the Government’s position soon. As part of that, work is continuing to determine the exact nature of the role of the NCA and indeed where the respective activities might sit within the new landscape—including those of CEOP and the Missing Persons Bureau, although at this stage no final decisions have been taken.

I note, too, the concerns raised about central Government funding to the Missing People charity. I understand the difficulties that it will cause, but I cannot today make commitments to resources, which as we all know are currently scarce; but I can give a commitment to listen to concerns and look for any opportunities to support the charity in other ways. I met representatives of Missing People in the summer and look forward to meeting them again to discuss the matter further.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I want to refer briefly to the excellent work of Missing People in support of one of my constituents, Dr Alan Smith, whose brother disappeared more than 22 years ago. Missing People did not exist when that happened, but since it has been established it has done excellent work and I urge the Minister to find ways to ensure that its good work can continue, particularly in relation to legal advice. My constituent found that few solicitors he turned to had any idea what advice to give.

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly recognise the contribution made by Missing People to the action plan, and the support that it has given. That is why I was keen to have a meeting soon after my appointment. I look forward to discussing some of the issues shortly.

I want to deal with some of the specific points made by the hon. Lady, although I am conscious that time is pressing. If I cannot get through them all in the time available, I shall write to her on any outstanding issues. She raised the matter of support to families when a loved one goes missing. I too feel that nothing could be more important than the need to trace the missing person, but in turn, it is just as critical that families who are left in limbo when their close relatives go missing for the long term should be supported, and that they should know where to turn for help. Ensuring that the families of the missing, and the missing themselves, receive the support they require and deserve is vital to our overall efforts at addressing the problem. Of course, we can never hope to prevent people from going missing if they are determined to do so, but we can ensure that proper mechanisms are put in place to provide the support that is needed.

As with all aspects of public protection, when people go missing, close collaboration between police forces and indeed between police and statutory and voluntary agencies is surely crucial to making an effective response, and ultimately a successful outcome and the resolution of cases, possible. However, those things take time to achieve, as organisations get used to working together towards a common goal. That approach also means a change of mindset and the will to improve, and I am determined that the Government should do what they can to facilitate that.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

Very briefly, as there are several points to get through.

[Ben Gummer]

Ipswich was the place where Luke Durbin went missing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) mentioned. It was also the place where there were, sadly, serial murders of sex workers a few years ago. A critical point arising from the experience of trying to deal with the prostitution trade there is that very small local charities were instrumental in helping to clear up that terrible situation. Many of those concerned were themselves missing people. I want to impress on the Minister the role of very small local charities, many of which are suffering from tendering arrangements in Ipswich.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the valuable and important role of charities and the voluntary sector. They are part of the landscape and the innovative and important work that is done. I appreciate that serious point.

As to body matching, a number of good examples of successful cross-matching already carried out by the bureau prove that the system works fairly well, but there is clearly always room to improve the way those cases are handled, and we will reflect on that further in relation to future work.

The matter of a single database and Compact was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), and we need to recognise that the Missing Persons Bureau and the charity Missing People both use a database of missing and found people, including bodies and body parts, called Hermes, which has undergone different modifications at different times in its different locations, resulting in a different complexion for essentially the same system. I am keen that some work should be done to determine the merits of a single database and that there should be better exchange of information on a regular basis between organisations. That should also include an examination of the future shape of Compact, the missing persons case management system, which is already in use in 22 police forces.

With regard to coroners, DNA evidence and a duty to co-operate, coroners already seek to establish the identity of unknown bodies that come into their custody, and that process includes DNA testing. Where a deceased person cannot be identified, the body must be disposed of by the responsible local authority in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, either by burial or cremation. Most coroners already co-operate fully with the police when they have a body in their custody that they cannot identify, and they are likely to respond positively to any local or national strategy, with associated protocols, that may be established. As part of planned changes to the coroner system, announced in a written statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), on 14 October at column 37WS, the Ministry of Justice will be taking forward work to establish improved guidance to coroners on the procedures that they follow in relation to every aspect of post-mortem and related examinations.

I do not pretend that there is not more to do, but I hope that my comments go some way to answering the questions posed by hon. Members and reassuring them that the Government are committed to the issue of missing persons and missing persons services. Early assistance to police forces is already in place through the toolkits, the role of CEOP in relation to missing children is being developed, and future activities by the Missing Persons Bureau are being considered in the light of the policing consultation. There is clearly more work to be done, but I look forward to updating and working with the key agencies to deliver improvements to this important area of safeguarding over the coming months.

Schengen Agreement (Correction to Written Answer)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Written Statements

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

I regret to inform that House that there were inaccuracies in an answer to parliamentary questions 15306, 15307, 15308, 15309, 15310 and 15391 (linked) on 15 September 2010, Official Report, columns 1077-78W.

The response contained inaccurate statistics and referred to measures which are not the responsibility of the Home Office and which are therefore outside the scope of the question.

I can confirm that the answer should have read as follows:

“The tables placed in the Libraries of both Houses set out measures for which the Home Secretary is responsible which have been presented to the Council pursuant to title IV of the treaty establishing the European Community (“TEC pre-Lisbon measures”) and title V of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (“TFEU post-Lisbon measures” from 1 December 2009) attracting the UK opt-in.

They also set out measures presented following the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty pursuant to those elements of the Schengen acquis in which the UK participates (the police and criminal justice elements) and, pre-Lisbon those measures building on Schengen from which the UK was excluded.

The Lisbon treaty introduced a right for the UK to opt out of Schengen building measures where we were automatically bound prior to its entry into force.

There is one “mixed” measure currently under negotiation which includes provisions which build on those elements of the Schengen acquis to which we are bound: a Council regulation to establish an agency for the purposes of managing existing IT systems in the area of Justice and Home Affairs. The deadline by which the UK had to notify its decision to opt out of that measure was 21 June 2010; the UK made no such notification. The regulation also includes ex-title IV TEC (now title V TFEU) provisions to which the UK opted in on 23 September 2009.

Following the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, excluding the IT agency, there have been 14 measures for which the Home Office has responsibility to which the title V TFEU opt-in has applied. The UK has opted in to nine and out of three, and is considering a further two published proposals where the Government will take a decision within three months. There have been three measures to which the Schengen opt-out applied (excluding the IT agency). The UK is participating in all three.

Additional information on the dates when all these measures were presented, when the UK signalled its acceptance at the Council, when they were adopted and entered into force are not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, all decisions to opt-in to or out of JHA measures are notified to Parliament at the time they are made. The first annual report will be presented to Parliament in December providing retrospective information on the UK’s application of the opt-in protocol from 1 December 2009 to 1 December 2010, a year since the Lisbon treaty came into force”.

Table 1 and table 2 referred to in the corrected answer will be placed in the House Libraries.

Youth Violence (London)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) for raising the important issue of youth violence in London. Over the last few years, sadly, we have had several debates about youth violence. It is clear that the issue of violent crime remains a stubborn feature of our society. We need to do more to protect young people from violence and to empower local communities to work together to prevent the spread of violence. There is common agreement on that.

The hon. Gentleman takes a particular interest in this matter. He referred to the fact that he is the trustee of the Generation Next Foundation, and he is a former trustee of the 409 Project, so he has taken a close interest in youth issues and the impact of youth violence over an extended period. I note his approach and welcome a number of his comments. He referred to the sad and tragic murder in his constituency of Zac Olumegbon, and I extend the Government’s condolences to his family and all other families who have lost loved ones through violence. Although we may not always agree on the means to prevent violence, I am sure that all of us here today agree that one young death is one too many, as he said.

As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, we know that the vast majority of young people are well-behaved and that it is a minority we need to focus on, which is why I welcome the campaign led by London’s Serious Youth Violence Board, which highlights the fact that 99% of young Londoners are law-abiding and contribute positively to their communities. We should celebrate that fact. It is worth recognising that young people in our communities volunteer and take part in their communities probably more than any other group in our society, and I do not think we do anything by seeking to stigmatise or create a false impression of the situation. I welcome, congratulate and celebrate that, and it is important that we draw attention to it here.

[Stella Creasy]

I welcome the Minister’s support for the youth voluntary sector, but how does he square that with the Government’s decision this year to cut the final round of the youth sector development fund grant, which was funding many small voluntary third sector organisations that were doing precisely the sort of work he has just talked about and said we need to do more of?

[James Brokenshire]

I will come on to the issue of funding later, but the hon. Lady needs to recognise that there are real challenges here, in terms of the existing financial situation and the funding issues, and obviously the Government’s priority is to ensure that the economy is put on a strong footing. We will, therefore, be looking very closely at these decisions. However, given that the comprehensive spending review has not yet concluded—we will be announcing the details on 20 October—it is not appropriate or helpful for me to speculate.

[Mr Umunna]

On the spending review, can the Minister give us any comfort that the Government will look at the cost of putting a young person through the criminal justice system when they consider funding for the third sector? I referred to that in my speech.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is one reason we are considering issues of early intervention and prevention, and the focus on preventing young people from reaching the criminal justice system. I have characterised it in the past as conveyor belt crime. By focusing on early intervention, we can make a difference. For example, that is why we will take Sure Start back to its original purpose, which was early intervention, increasing its focus on the neediest families and better involving organisations with a track record of supporting families.

I noted contributions made on both sides of the House about the issue of family. For me, one of the most powerful statistics that has struck me over the past few years is that young people in this country spend more time with their peers than with their families than in any other European country.

That issue—cohesion, the role of the family and the support that lies behind that—is an important one that we need to focus on. I am therefore pleased that the issue of family has been focused on in this debate. In that context, I want to pay tribute to those families who have been tragically touched by such appalling incidents. I am always humbled and inspired by the parents, brothers and sisters who have sadly lost loved ones, and by how they are making an enormous contribution by seeking to make a difference and change our society in so many ways, so that it becomes that much safer.

I also want to pay tribute to the work of the Metropolitan Police Service in tackling youth violence in London. Just one example of that is Operation Blunt 2. For more than two years, this dedicated team has been targeting stop-and-search powers to take weapons off our streets. Since April this year alone, it has carried out 55,759 searches and 5,629 weapons sweeps, and seized 591 weapons. In order to ensure that stop-and-search has strong community support, the team has also been engaged with the communities affected by youth violence, who have welcomed this engagement and the significant resources going into keeping them safe.

The Metropolitan police also leads Operation Trident, which is aimed at gun crime, particularly—but not exclusively—where both the victims and suspects are from black communities. The work is developed with community members and independent advisers, because the Metropolitan police understands that communities are a part of the solution to these challenging problems. During 2009-10, Operation Trident seized a third more lethally-barrelled firearms—a total of 104—than in the previous year, and disrupted 75 criminal networks.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

There is some concern about the use of the phrase “black-on-black violence”, which has been attached to Operation Trident, and a desire to review that in the light of the complexity of backgrounds of inner-city youth in London. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm whether a decision has been made by Boris—the Mayor of London—to cut the marketing budget of Operation Trident? It is important that we should be able to communicate with the young people of London in order to deflect them from crime, so can the Minister comment on whether that is, in fact, true?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the complexity of the problems surrounding this difficult issue. I am afraid that I cannot give him a direct answer to the specific point that he raises about any decision that the Mayor may or may not have made on Operation Trident. However, I should be happy to make inquiries and, as required, write to him if that would be of assistance to him. What I can tell him is that the Mayor of London has recently appointed an expert advisory group made up of members of the black communities to support him on a number of those complex issues. The information I have is that the Mayor remains focused on the issue, recognising the difficulties, challenges and complexities that many hon. Members have highlighted in this debate.

There is much more work being led by the Metropolitan police and partners in London. A new anti-violence board brings together partners in the police, health, education, offender management and the community, along with parents. It will focus on the most dangerous offenders, hot-spot locations and protecting the most vulnerable victims. In addition, this year the Home Office is providing £700,000 to tackle youth violence in the capital. Lambeth, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Streatham, is one area benefiting from that funding.

I also want to highlight the Mayor’s “Time for Action” programme, which recognises that to reduce youth violence we must ensure that young Londoners are a valued part of their communities and that they can contribute in meaningful ways. The programme focuses on: for the first time, giving young offenders in custody the tools to get them into work; tackling truancy; supporting young people in care to go to university; promoting sport; working with uniformed organisations to help build young peoples’ character; and sharing good practice.

I would particularly like to acknowledge the Mayor’s work to encourage the mentoring of at-risk black boys in Lambeth and other boroughs. The issue of young black men being disproportionately at risk of being victims and offenders is a challenging one—a fact that has rightly been brought to our attention in the debate tonight—and I certainly support all the initiatives that show a determination to take this on.

So there is an impressive array of work going on in the capital aimed at keeping young people safe. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in extending thanks to all those in London—the police, the Mayor, local authorities, community leaders and those in the local communities—who have worked so hard to contribute to this difficult work. Some of those excellent projects are currently being visited by Brooke Kinsella, whose brother Ben was tragically murdered in London two years ago. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have asked Brooke to head up a fact-finding mission to assess the work going on across the country to tackle youth violence. I am very pleased to have her working with us, but sorry that it was the loss of her brother that drew her into this work.

Brooke is visiting projects in London and across the country that are working to prevent young people from getting pulled into a world of violence. I know that she has visited some of the good work that is under way in the constituency of the hon. Member for Streatham, and seen a great deal of dedicated voluntary and community sector work with young people. Her findings will be presented to the Home Secretary later this year, to help to shape the Government’s work in tackling serious violence among young people.

I would like to take this opportunity to place on record the Government’s appreciation of Ms Kinsella’s dedication. I know that the projects she has visited have appreciated her time and support for their work to protect young people, and that she has been inspired by some of the excellent and varied work being led by local communities up and down the country. Some of those projects have been funded through the Home Office community fund, which, since 2009, has provided 144 small community organisations with £10,000 each per year to stop young people committing violence. I know that funding is always an issue, and in the current financial climate, that will continue to be the case. However, I know that Brooke has been very impressed at the work being undertaken, often with minimal funding but always with a great deal of commitment, hard work and community good will.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) made some excellent points in his speech, and there was only one matter in which I had cause to disagree with him. That was when he described the pessimism about the response of the private sector and corporations. We are talking about crimes against young people in London, which is a centre for many businesses and corporations. Does the Minister accept that this Government, having inherited the current financial situation and therefore being able to do less themselves, have a responsibility to encourage those who are able to create great profits in this same city to do more, using measures such as social impact bonds and early intervention? What can he do to encourage more to happen on that front?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend mentions social impact bonds and other means of drawing funding together from a range of different sectors. He might be aware of some of the innovative work that has been done in Peterborough prison to look at outcome-based issues and the structuring of a payment-by-results method. The Government are really looking to achieve positive results, and we are certainly looking closely at the way in which the third sector and the private sector can be joined together to make a combined difference. In raising the issue of the role of the private sector and of corporate social responsibility, my hon. Friend has made an important and powerful point.

I also want to touch on the work of the Victims Commissioner, and to reassure families that this Government are committed to supporting victims of crime through the criminal justice system. That is an important aspect of all this. Since Victim Support’s homicide service was set up earlier this year, it has supported 457 individuals from more than 200 families, including after the tragic events in Cumbria. This service ensures that families bereaved by murder and manslaughter benefit from a professional caseworker and tailored, intensive support. I also want to draw the House’s attention to the work of Louise Casey, the Victims Commissioner. In her inaugural public speech, she outlined her first impressions of victim and witness care, and talked about how we could take the work further forward.

I am conscious that the end of the debate is drawing near, but I want briefly to mention the accident and emergency data-sharing work that is under way to ensure that we have good information, as well as the sentencing review that is being undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and the work being done on gang injunctions—

Alcohol Policy (Correction to Written Answer)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2010 Written Statements

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

I regret to inform the House that there was an inaccuracy in an answer given by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), in answer to parliamentary question 313016 on 3 March 2010, Official Report, column 1264W.

The response indicated that eight fines had been issued in 2008 for the offence of persistently selling alcohol to children (section 147A of the Licensing Act 2003) with an average fine of £968.75.

I can confirm that in fact in 2008, four fines were issued for this offence, and the average fine amount was £1,713.