Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Debate between James Brokenshire and Alan Campbell

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As the Home Secretary made clear, and as I said in my contribution this afternoon, the police and the Security Service have stated that TPIMs have been effective in reducing the risk associated with those individuals. The right hon. Gentleman, and others, have sought to make a point about the risk assessments. Those have been made but they are an operational matter for the police and the Security Service. It would seem that right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to have information disclosed on the Floor of the House that could make it that much harder for the police and the Security Service to do their job of protecting this country.

The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 provides for the appointment of an independent reviewer of the operation of that Act, and for that reviewer to report annually on the outcome of that review. David Anderson has been appointed to perform that function and reviews all TPIM cases. No doubt he will cover those coming off their TPIMs in his annual report.

We are returning dangerous foreign nationals who have no right to be here back to their home countries through deportation with assurances, just as we did with Abu Qatada last July—something the previous Labour Government failed to do. We are working to do more than ever to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. I am clear that the best place for a terrorist is in a cell, and those who endanger lives and threaten our national security deserve to receive long sentences. Unlike under the Labour party, which was content for convicted terrorists to be released halfway through their sentences, under new proposals, criminals convicted of serious terrorism offences and who receive a determinate sentence will no longer be automatically released at the halfway point of their prison sentences without any assessment.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

EU Police, Justice and Home Affairs

Debate between James Brokenshire and Alan Campbell

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Before I respond to the points that have been made by various Members, it is important in the short time that I have to restate a few simple points to ensure that this debate is understood and placed in its proper context, particularly in the light of the last contribution and some of the other contributions this afternoon and evening.

First, the decision that the previous Administration left us to make is whether to exercise the opt-out by 31 May 2014. The Opposition motion and a number of the contributions this evening have given the impression that this is a rushed decision. Before coming to a final view on such an important matter, the Government must be satisfied that they have worked through all the options, understood the implications of them, provided Parliament with as much information as is practical and given Members the chance to debate the issues in an informed way. That is the proper way for a Government to conduct business and that is precisely what we are committed to doing.

Secondly, I remind Members that some 130 measures are subject to this decision, not just the handful named in the Opposition motion. While the Opposition may view those measures as the most important ones that are subject to the decision—although in the light of the contributions this evening, I am not so sure about that—I do not agree that we should single out individual measures when making the large opt-out decision. Instead, we should look at the measures in the round. That is to say, we should consider all 130 or so of them. We must take a decision based purely on what is in the national interest.

My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary have been consistently clear to this House and in evidence to the other place that the Government’s current thinking is that we should opt out of all pre-Lisbon policing and criminal justice measures, but seek to rejoin measures where it is in the national interest to do so. The Government have given a clear commitment, reiterated today by the Home Secretary, to hold a vote on the matter before any formal decision to opt out is made.

I am proud to be a member of a Government who have done so much to allow Parliament to scrutinise EU matters more fully than ever before, and who are allowing a vote on such an important matter. When such an unambiguous commitment has been made and repeated by the Government, I am not clear what benefit is to be gained by holding a vote on a motion that only partially deals with this matter. Surely it is better to welcome the Government’s commitment to a vote, and for the Government to ensure that any vote takes place in a fully informed manner.

The decision on exercising the UK’s opt-out will be taken in the national interest. After contributions from hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), let me say clearly that this is not about playing games or not acting responsibly—something the Home Secretary made crystal clear in her contribution this afternoon. Consideration will be given to how a measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by the measure, and whether there would be a detrimental effect on such co-operation if pursued by other mechanisms. That is the correct and measured approach the Government will take.

Important contributions have been made this afternoon, and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) highlighted the impact of European Court of Justice jurisdiction. Much of the third-pillar legislation was made to the lowest common denominator in order to secure unanimity, and it was not negotiated with European Court of Justice jurisdiction in mind. Much of the drafting reflects that and is not of a high standard. Indeed, some of it is ambiguous and could lend itself to expansive interpretation by the Court—a point effectively made by my hon. Friend. He also referred to the Metock case that highlights the issues involved and why this matter must be considered so carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) highlighted evidence from the Association of Chief Police Officers which said that 55 of the measures in the basket have no practical effect, and that is why the evidence presented must be weighed carefully. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) highlighted the balance of competences review, but that is a separate matter concerning modifications to treaties. The issue currently before the House concerns the utilisation of a measure in an existing treaty.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) seemed to imply that there was no room for practical co-operation, but there absolutely is. Much of our co-operation to fight crime and terrorism does not depend on EU-level instruments. Indeed, our operational partners co-operate closely on a daily basis and that will not change. We have been clear throughout this process that where there is a case for practical co-operation with other European partners, the Government will support it.

Some hon. Members, including the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, highlighted Europol. Obviously, the Commission has published a new measure and there will be a separate debate on that at the start of July. Therefore, our decisions on Europol will clearly be framed in the context of the new measure and existing measures that fall within the basket. We also expect the publication of new instruments in relation to Eurojust.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Forensic Science Service

Debate between James Brokenshire and Alan Campbell

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that confirmation.

I hear some of the points that have been made about whether there has been a reduction in the overall forensics market as a consequence of police in-sourcing. Indeed, I remember the Westminster Hall debate in which the hon. Member for Tynemouth was clear that there was no evidence of a vast swathe of police in-sourcing. Even at that time it was being postulated that it was the cause of some of the challenges facing the FSS.

[Mr Alan Campbell]

Does the Minister not accept that since that debate—of which we both have memories, and certainly not fond ones—the context has changed? We were talking about the police making decisions when they had budgets that were rising year on year. How much does he believe the decisions that the police are now making about forensics are driven by the cuts they see coming down the line?

[James Brokenshire]

The police have been looking carefully at their forensics spend and how to ensure that it is used effectively. Indeed, I congratulate ACPO and a number of police forces up and down the country on how they have approached this issue, which in many ways is about the ability to focus on the delivery of forensics spend. It is also worth highlighting the fact that, I would argue, the market was stimulated to a huge extent by the DNA expansion programme and how it unwound over that period. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the impact that that had on the market was not sustainable. Indeed, the development of DNA technology has moved on further, and I am sure that it will continue to do so, with innovations such as the concept, even, of “DNA in a box”, as it is sometimes described, which enables people to undertake DNA testing immediately, at scene.

By December 2010 the FSS was in serious financial difficulty, with significant operating losses and the prospect of further shrinkage in demand for forensics services, as the police continued to drive efficiencies in their use of forensic services. We judged it vital to take clear and decisive action to protect the supply of forensic science services to the criminal justice system. Without funding from the Government, the FSS would have entered administration in early 2011—that was the clear statement that the company was making to us at the time, and that was the situation with which we were presented. That would have seriously damaged the forensics capability available to the criminal justice system. We were not prepared to expose the criminal justice system to that level of risk. I note that the Select Committee, while critical in other ways, agreed with the analysis that simply letting the FSS go into administration would not have been the right thing to do.

We maintain that the managed wind-down of the FSS was the right choice, both financially and for the criminal justice system. The orderly wind-down of the company ensures that the police and the criminal justice system as a whole continue to have the forensics capability that they need to protect the public and bring criminals to justice. The transition process has underlined how that has been achieved. The costs of closure are being carefully managed, and obviously this estimates day debate underlines the costs that have been provided for. We are clear, and we maintain, that costs are not escalating and will be delivered within the provision that has been made. The National Audit Office has reviewed the calculation of the Home Office’s provision and is content that it is reasonable.

Controls on Legal Highs

Debate between James Brokenshire and Alan Campbell

Thursday 9th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[James Brokenshire]

We have had a good, wide-ranging debate about legal highs. Various hon. Members highlighted the fact that even using that terminology brings about a misconception. To take the last point from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), about why people take drugs, including legal highs, when they know the risks, I think that that is part of the problem—they do not know the risks. The fact that something is branded as a legal high implies that it is safe. Therein lies part of the challenge in relation to these newly emerging psychoactive substances—I agree that that does not trip off the tongue, either—that highlights the important need to ensure that the legislation is there as a mechanism for telegraphing clear messages about enforcement of the law and about safety.

I noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments about mixed messages. I say to him very gently that his Government sent out very mixed messages about cannabis, so perhaps he is not in the strongest of positions from which to be pointing fingers about communicating messages.

[Mr Alan Campbell]

I just want to make a very personal point. The records show that in fact the very first time that the messages started getting mixed, it was not this Member of Parliament who supported that process.

[James Brokenshire]

I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but clearly it was his Government who sent out some very mixed messages, even if he was not personally responsible for the decisions that underpinned them.

I want to cover as many as possible of the points raised during the debate, which has been helpful and constructive on the issues and challenges surrounding legal highs. It also touched on the drugs strategy from a broader perspective. I do not regard this as an opportunity for that broader debate, but it is important to recognise that the coalition Government are consulting on their new drugs strategy. We intend to publish the new drug strategy by the end of this year. Our strategic vision is set around the framework for the future delivery of drugs policy with four key themes, to which the hon. Gentleman has already alluded: preventing drug use; strengthening enforcement, criminal justice and the legal framework; rebalancing treatment to support drug-free outcomes, which is an important point to emphasise; and supporting recovery to break the cycle of drug addiction.

The Government are opposed to the legalisation of drugs and to decriminalisation for personal use. It would run entirely counter to our health and education messages. In many respects, the equation of safety with legality, as we have been debating on the issue of legal highs, makes that a very direct construct. On the possession of legal highs, I say to the shadow Minister that the temporary ban is, as it suggests, intended to be only temporary—a maximum of 12 months. If advice supports the classification of a drug within that 12-month period, we would act within that period. It may therefore happen in less than 12 months, which would then create the possession offence. Our approach with the temporary ban is to act quickly to stop supply and prevent harm, which is why we have tailored it as we have. It does not send out mixed messages, due to legality—in its broadest sense—being equated with safety. We have seen that and seen how the classification of drugs can have an impact on whether someone perceives a drug to be safe. That goes back to my original point on the equation of safety and knowledge, which has been highlighted.

We do not support the legalisation of drugs. Many drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine are clearly addictive and harmful to health, and our educational message, to young people in particular, is that illegal drugs are harmful and no one should take them. To legalise their supply for personal consumption would send the wrong message to the majority of young people, who do not take drugs on a regular basis, if at all, and, alongside that, it would increase the risk of drug use and abuse.

On the specific point about the Portuguese model, we are against that proposal. The Government are determined to prevent drug use and strengthen enforcement against supply, which is why we are asking experts for their views on a range of issues, so that users are strongly encouraged to address their dependency. That wider debate and consultation is taking place, but we are not looking at the Portuguese model, and do not think that it is the right way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

It is difficult to second-guess the issue or look into a crystal ball. We are in close consultation with the ACMD on the development of the working protocol, which I would not wish to pre-empt. In all the discussions I have had with the ACMD, it is clear that if a newly emerging psychoactive substance is identified, the intention is that advice would be sought on the associated harms. We would seek its advice on whether a temporary ban would be appropriate, so it is about working around that and the identification. Hon. Members also made points about the early warning system, and working with the ACMD on that and picking up things early enough to deal with appropriately.

[Mr Alan Campbell]

I am genuinely confused, but I am sure that the Minister can put my mind at rest. If a substance is subject to a temporary ban, why is it illegal to import or supply it, with fairly draconian penalties, but not illegal to possess it?

[James Brokenshire]

I thought I had already explained the position. I am sorry if I have not made it clear. The emphasis behind the policy is about ensuring that we stop the supply, importation and sale of the drugs and about ensuring that we can act quickly to deal with some of the challenges that I know the shadow Minister faced in Government over mephedrone. Perhaps I share his frustration at being told by the ACMD that there was a problematic psychoactive substance and feeling that one is unable to respond. There are certainly issues; he highlighted importation issues and the general licence that could be invoked, but that does not tackle domestic supply. To ensure that drugs do not get on to the streets and into the hands of young people, it is important to deal with the problem at the border and in this country. That is why we believe that the temporary ban approach is the right way forward when a newly emerging psychoactive substance that has been indentified as harmful comes through.

I would like to address the issue of whether a newly emerging substance has other uses. It is fair to make that point, and the Government will seek parallel advice from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on a drug’s legitimate use and will develop any required impact assessment, which will inform the decision on whether to impose a temporary ban on that drug. In the event that a legitimate commercial use is identified in discussions with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Home Office will take reasonable steps in the light of the ACMD’s advice on the risk to public health when a substance is misused, to ensure its continued availability for legitimate use under the temporary ban and, subject to further consideration, under circumstances in which that ban is made permanent. There are examples showing how that approach could be taken. It is important to recognise that point, and advice will be sought from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the ACMD in relation to the application of those powers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) raised the issue of what other countries are doing, and gave the specific example of Ireland. I am aware of the changes that are taking place there and of the fact that the Irish are considering a broader definition of drugs. We can look, too, at the example of the United States and the analogue legislation that is in operation there. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is considering the broad policy issues and the various different examples. Although I cannot comment on whether it is looking at the Irish situation, it is doing broader work on legal highs. We await its report on appropriate approaches, which may take into account factors such as a broader definition. I do not want to prejudge or pre-empt the work of the ACMD, but we appreciate the work that it is doing, and look forward to its response. Certainly, we are considering a proportionate response based on the tenets of harm before imposing criminal penalties.

The hon. Member for Tynemouth asked whether other EU countries had taken different approaches on temporary bans. The experience is that those countries have tended to take a very narrow perspective on the utilisation of temporary banning powers. Spice was one of the cases in point. In this country, we have sought to take a more generic approach to a class of drugs, so that we avoid the issue of tweaking and slight chemical manipulation. The temporary bans and the immediate action that were taken in some other EU countries were much more narrowly focused, so we are not comparing like with like in that regard. The approach that we hope to take is very much looking at that broader categorisation rather that at one specific drug alone, without necessarily considering the anologies that may exist alongside all of that. That is very much part and parcel of the work that we would adopt.

I have a couple of things to mention in relation to the New Zealand case. I am advised that its class D is currently empty, but that could be a reflection of the fact that New Zealand has not had to respond to legal highs in the way in which the United Kingdom has. It is difficult to make cross-over judgments. Moreover, the class D model envisages a regulated supply as well, which is not the approach that the UK seeks to adopt.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington highlighted the issue of khat. The Government acknowledge the concern in communities affected by khat use, particularly in relation to the social problems, which include unemployment, family breakdown and financial hardship. We are committed to addressing any form of substance misuse and will keep the issue under close scrutiny. Home Office research into the social harms of khat use, as well as the treatment needs of users, was commissioned last year by the previous Government, and it looked at a number of communities and areas in England and Wales. We are quality-assuring the work and will produce an independent review of the findings, as is standard practice with all Home Office research reports. We will publish those reports later this year and consider them carefully.

This has been a positive and productive discussion on a sensitive issue that has impacted on far too many communities. Reflecting on conversations with parents of children who have been adversely affected by drugs and with those who have lost very close loved ones, I can say that they underline the importance that we must place on addressing the harms linked to these so-called highs. It is incumbent on us to continue to send out the message that simply because something is marketed as legal does not necessarily mean that it is legal, and above all it certainly does not mean that it is safe.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Brokenshire and Alan Campbell

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Despite their desire to retain DNA profiles indefinitely, the then Government did not focus on getting those who were convicted, possibly of serious offences, on to the database to ensure that it was effective in fighting crime. That is certainly something that we are looking at very closely in terms of the proposals that we will introduce in the House in due course.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post. Why does he believe that the Scottish police support the current English model, rather than the Scottish model, for DNA retention? Is that because the English model is based on evidence, whereas the Scottish model is not?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes quite an interesting point. As I understand what he said, he now seems to be arguing for the indefinite retention of DNA, which has been found to be not acceptable and not proportionate. He says in some way that there is no evidence, but I remind him of the comment made in the other place by Lord Bach, who highlighted very clearly the report that Professor Fraser undertook in relation to the Scottish system in which he said that he did not uncover any evidence to suggest that the Scottish approach to retention had caused any detriment to the detection of serious crime in Scotland.