Drugs Update

Jeremy Browne Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Written Statements

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

New psychoactive substances have the potential to pose serious risks to public health and safety. They are often marketed as legal alternatives to controlled substances, but users can have no certainty of the health risks that will arise from using them, nor the legal status of these substances.

The market in new psychoactive substances poses challenges due to the rapid development of new drugs. The UK published an NPS action plan in May 2012 which committed us to a range of measures to address the threat, including galvanizing international partners and institutions to meet this global challenge.

The UK has played a leading role in meeting this challenge and building international partnerships. Over the past two years we have successfully led two UN resolutions to foster international action and collaboration. We have also taken the opportunity of the G8 presidency to progress our response to this threat with other G8 member states, the UN and the EU. We are engaged in a very positive exchange, sharing our understanding of the market and different approaches to protect the public and exploring opportunities for collaboration going forward.

The sharing of information among international partners on the emergence of new substances, their impact on public health and the supply routes is invaluable in addressing the challenge. I am pleased to inform Parliament that the G8 have agreed a statement of intent to progress our close joint working on this. The statement is available on the Home Office website.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Browne Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

4. What assessment she has made of the cumulative effect of Government policies on tackling violence against women.

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

The Government are fully committed to tackling violence against women and girls. We have ring-fenced nearly £40 million of funding up to 2015 for domestic and sexual abuse victims’ services. We monitor the impact of our activity through our annually published action plans, inter-ministerial meetings and regular engagement with the women’s sector.

[Kerry McCarthy]

But the End Violence Against Women Coalition’s recent “Deeds or Words?” report gave the Government a score of 2.5 out of 10 and the Department for Education a woeful zero—nul points—out of 10 for their efforts to tackle violence against women and girls. Have the Government made any assessment of why they got such a woeful score? What are they going to do to improve their score in future years?

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful for the opportunity to put the Government’s side of the argument, because we have a strong story to tell. We have introduced stronger laws on stalking; we are in the process of criminalising forced marriage, in legislation that I am leading at the moment; we have the highest conviction rates for rape since recording began; and the Home Office is running a very successful campaign—“This is abuse”—aimed at addressing teenage sexual behaviour. The Government have a strong record and I hope that we can persuade more people of that when they write reports in the future.

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

What specific steps are the Government taking to deal with the disgraceful acts of “honour-based” violence offences?

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to this appalling practice. I know that he uses that term because it is the one that is widely used to describe this, but I am always a bit guarded about using it because there is nothing at all honourable about treating women in that way. I am sure that that message will go out from every Member of this House, and I hope it will be heard increasingly right across the country.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

9. Only 6.5% of domestic violence incidents recorded by the police actually result in conviction. What kind of message does it send if an alleged perpetrator can receive a caution despite extensive corroborative evidence? Is that the norm? If it is, no wonder conviction rates are so low. Or is it a question of there being one law for the rich and famous and another for everybody else?

[Mr Browne]

There certainly is not one law for the rich and famous and another for everybody else, and if anybody is under the impression that there is, they are labouring under a misapprehension. I share the hon. Lady’s concern about domestic violence conviction rates, and we want to see them increase. Sometimes it is difficult to get a conviction in those circumstances, for reasons that will be obvious to everybody in the House. Domestic violence is an extremely serious crime, and although we have seen overall crime rates fall, we have not seen a marked fall in domestic violence rates. However, that is something we actually quite welcome because it may suggest a higher level of reporting of domestic violence than previously existed.

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

Women’s safety is being put at risk by Government reforms. According to Homeless Link, Ministers still have not sorted payments to refuges under universal credit, and it is now clear that sanctuary schemes are being put at risk. A woman who is a victim of domestic violence who has a specially installed panic room in her home has been told that she must pay an extra £12 because it counts as a spare bedroom under the bedroom tax. Another woman who is at serious risk from her abuser was moved by a multi-agency risk assessment conference into safe accommodation, but has now been told that she is under-occupying and will have to pay bedroom tax or move home again, when she is already feeling unsafe. It is no good the Minister passing the buck to local councils and chattering on about the discretionary housing payment, as his hon. Friends and colleagues have been trying to advise him. The fact is that such cases are happening across the country. Does he have any idea how many women are being affected in this way? Have Ministers even asked?

[Mr Browne]

I caution the right hon. Lady about scaremongering in that way and trying to use this extremely serious and harrowing issue to make a wider political point about the size of the welfare state, which after all is a part of Government policy on which Labour is in full retreat and is increasingly willing to accept Government policy. There are discretionary payments available to councils in the circumstances that she describes and I urge councils to make those payments available in the right circumstances.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Jeremy Browne Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to conclude this thoughtful and extensive debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for his largely thoughtful speech, although it was slightly diminished by his failure to acknowledge that this Government are presiding over the lowest level of crime since the independent survey began more than 30 years ago. That is a painful truth, but those of us who put the interests of our constituents before party political debating points are proud of it.

This has been a wide-ranging debate. Some contributions centred on parts of the Bill that have not been widely commented on, and there were some constructive ideas from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) about police community support officers and from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) about early intervention.

Large parts of the Bill are broadly popular across the House. For example, the right hon. Member for Delyn touched on provisions relating to the College of Policing and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and we will have an opportunity to study those in greater detail in Committee. He also welcomed the proposal, which I think is popular across the House, to make possession of a firearm with intent to supply a criminal offence. Of course, this country has some of the toughest controls in the world on firearm ownership, but we are considering how guidance can be strengthened further to take account of some of the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members.

I was also pleased to hear widespread support—including from the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who made a forceful, emotional and articulate speech—for the Government’s new proposal to criminalise forced marriage. Members were right to draw the distinction between arranged marriage, which involves the consent of both parties, and forced marriage, where mainly young women or girls, but sometimes—in about one in five cases—young men, are coerced into marital arrangements completely against their will. This is a difficult and sensitive issue, because they are usually coerced by their parents or another close family member, so nobody underestimates the difficulties faced by the Government, the Home Office and the Foreign Office in bearing down on this practice. We believe that criminalising forced marriage is the right step to take. It sends a powerful signal, and I think it is in tune with the mood of the country. I believe there is broad consent on those measures across the House.

About 90% of the contributions over the past four hours or so of debate have focused on antisocial behaviour, which is central to the Bill, and dogs. Let me talk about those two issues in turn. I am sure that every Member of the House who conducts regular surgeries for their constituents or who talks to their constituents more informally about their concerns recognises the importance that the public attach to the issue of antisocial behaviour. My constituency is by no means an inner-city area with high levels of crime, but antisocial behaviour is the issue most often raised spontaneously when I ask my constituents which of their concerns ranks highest.

Antisocial behaviour blights people’s lives and can cause profound misery. Even though some of the behaviour does not sound of huge consequence in the grand scheme of things—such as late-night noise, neighbours behaving aggressively or people ringing doorbells and running away late at night or early in the morning—it can cause great fear and unhappiness. The cumulative effect of that behaviour can be profound.

I say as a liberal—with both a small “l” and a big “L”—that people should be free from fear and persecution. That should be a measure of the civilisation that our society has attained. Many people across the country do not live free from fear and persecution, and it is their own neighbours and people in their community who impose that appalling state of affairs upon them. There is an onus on us in this House to see what we can do better to protect people in those circumstances.

It is with that in mind that we are introducing quicker and more flexible, but still proportionate, powers. We are de-cluttering and streamlining the legislation on antisocial behaviour that has grown incrementally, although with good intentions. We are streamlining the current 19 measures into six easier-to-use ones, but without weakening or diminishing the powers of the authorities—the police, councils and others—to assist the public. Why would the Government or any Member of this House want to weaken their ability to do that? We believe that the streamlined measures can be used more flexibly and speedily, and will allow the authorities better to assist the public to combat antisocial behaviour.

There are tough sanctions. One or two Members feel nervous about them, but we believe they are necessary to give the legislation force and to underpin the seriousness of this behaviour, which impacts on ordinary members of the public. There are also positive requirements in the Bill. As well as having measures to punish people and restrict their behaviour, we want to enable them to address and correct their behaviour. We want to see how those positive requirements can be used effectively. That was touched on imaginatively by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). We will certainly consider with her and the Department for Education what steps can be taken in the Bill or elsewhere to advance the points she raised.

The community trigger and the community remedy are important aspects of the Bill. The community trigger is designed to help persistent victims of antisocial behaviour. Often, a single incident is not devastating for an individual—although it could be—but the cumulative impact of incidents night after night or week after week does have a severe impact. The community trigger will ensure that there is a backstop in place so that there comes a point, sooner rather than later, when the authorities are obliged to act. Ideally, we would want the authorities to act immediately, but they will not be allowed to let a situation drag on. So that there is no misunderstanding, I should make it clear that the requirement in the Bill that at least three complaints have been made is a maximum threshold, not a minimum threshold.

I am pleased with the broad welcome the measures have received, including from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Witham (Priti Patel) and others.

The shadow Home Secretary described the Bill as a Christmas tree Bill, and suggested some extra baubles she wished to hang on to what she had already described as a cluttered Bill. It was perhaps surprising to some Members that Labour seems to have set itself against having streamlined, effective, new antisocial behaviour powers. Instead, we have the normal, lazy, endless checklist of unfunded spending commitments. The shadow Home Secretary talked about more money for the police, more money for CCTV, more money for councils and more money for legal aid—it went on and on. Last week’s rather implausible effort to recast Labour as trustworthy with the national finances has failed to survive first contact with the Opposition Front Bench. We will see what happens, but my fear is that her vast array of spending commitments may just become Labour’s next child benefit: furious opposition, followed by meek acceptance that the Government got it right and the Opposition got it lamentably wrong.

The provisions better to protect the public from dangerous dogs raised a lot of comment. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not believe that dog control notices are necessary because the powers already exist within the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) asked why there were no specific dog control notices, and went on to talk about illegal raves. There are no illegal rave control notices in the Bill either, because we believe that the flexible, adaptable powers can be used both for illegal raves and for dogs.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

I will give way once, but I have a couple of concluding points I wish to make before the end of the debate.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the Minister tell us briefly why, after three years of repeated consultations by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Office, he has been unable to persuade any of the outside organisations, including the police, the Royal College of Nursing, the CWU and others, that his proposals are right? Is he telling me that he is going into the Committee stage with a closed mind? If so, we might have to object.

[Mr Browne]

What I am telling the hon. Gentleman is that we believe the dog control notices provide the right protection. This is a serious issue and there are serious proposals in the Bill to strengthen the protection for the public. We are bringing forward the extension for protecting the public in private areas, as well as in public spaces.

It was very moving when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) gave a roll call of the victims of dangerous dogs. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) for the moving speech she made on behalf of her constituent, Jade Lomas Anderson. We are looking better to protect people who have the potential to be victims of dangerous dogs. I am pleased that the proposals for assistance dogs were widely welcomed.

I look forward to debating all these issues and more in Committee. The rights of victims should be at the heart of our deliberations. I have no doubt that the true mark of the Bill’s success will be fewer victims, fewer communities blighted by antisocial behaviour, and fewer victims of gun crime and forced marriage. This is an important Bill and I am pleased that it has broad support across the House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Browne Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

13. What assessment she has made of the potential effects of incorporating legal highs in the scope of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

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

The Government have banned a significant number of so-called legal highs following expert advice, including two groups of drugs from today. That sends a clear message about their harms and gives law enforcement bodies more powers to take action. We continue closely to monitor new drugs through our early warning systems to inform our response.

[Stephen Mosley]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s response, especially given that my local council has spent two years prosecuting the sellers of an illegal high called Gogaine, which left a 17-year-old student in hospital suffering convulsions. The prosecution fell mainly because the product was labelled as harmful and not fit for human consumption. Will my hon. Friend commit regularly to review the list of legal highs to ensure that as new legal highs come on to the market, they can be banned immediately?

[Mr Browne]

I am aware of the extremely serious case in my hon. Friend’s constituency and we have received representations about it. I pay tribute to him for raising that harrowing example in the House. We actively monitor new substances and already control hundreds. We act rapidly to respond to new threats and continue to keep our response under review.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Several constituents have approached me about the serious consequences of taking legal highs, including the famous Black Mamba. There seems to be no help or redress, and the Government do not seem to be helping the victims to prevent legal highs from getting into the hands of their friends or anybody else.

[Mr Browne]

The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point. When people talk about legal highs, there is a tendency to believe that just because a substance is legal, it cannot be harmful. That is certainly not the case, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley). That was a severe warning. The Government try to protect the public through appropriate changes to the law, including the two that I have mentioned, which take effect from today.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

15. What training is undertaken by police forces in respect of child sexual exploitation cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

T9. Reductions in overdose deaths; reductions in in-patient A and E admissions for drug addicts; reductions in house burglary; increases in employment of drug addicts in treatment—on all these indicators, Bassetlaw is outperforming the rest of the country. Why?

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

It must be because Bassetlaw has an outstandingly talented local MP, I assume. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the House’s attention to the three strands of the Government’s strategy: reducing demand, restricting supply and building recovery. Great progress is being made on all three in Bassetlaw and elsewhere.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T10. My constituents are fed up with extremists and hate-preachers such as Anjem Choudary receiving thousands of pounds of benefits. Will my right hon. Friend look at limiting those benefits?

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The issue of legal highs is difficult, because if we just ban them, another substance quickly springs up. Have the Government given any consideration to following the example of New Zealand and legislating to put the onus on the sellers of legal highs to prove they are safe?

[Mr Browne]

Those who study these matters closely, such as the hon. Gentleman and me, will be familiar with the New Zealand model. It raises some interesting questions, which we are considering as part of our international case study. It is not without practical problems, however, and I do not think that it would provide an instant solution to our woes, but it is worthy of further consideration.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Returning to Operation Alice, restoring public trust in the police and maintaining public trust in senior police officers is vital. Does the Minister therefore agree that there should be full disclosure of all the meetings between the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the press relating to the operation?

Drugs

Jeremy Browne Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Westminster Hall

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

I hope to continue the high level of debate on which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) commented. I am grateful, Mr Bayley, for this opportunity to serve under your distinguished chairmanship and to debate this important subject with hon. Members who take a particularly close interest in the topic.

Like others, I congratulate the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and its members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), on their interest in the matter and their attention to detail in compiling a lengthy and insightful report which, as the Committee’s Chairman reminded us, the Government have accepted in part but not in full. He and other members of the Committee were pleased that the Government were willing to accept some recommendations, and I will touch on some of them during my deliberations. Instead of giving a completely off-the-peg Home Office Minister’s speech—I may do that in part—I want to engage with some of the themes that have emerged during the debate.

Some extreme libertarians may not accept the harm premise, or they may believe that people should be entirely free to inflict harm on themselves, but the mainstream debate, by and large, starts with acceptance of that premise. I think that everyone who has participated today accepts that drugs are often harmful and may be extremely harmful, and that it is in the interests of the Government and Parliament to try to reduce the harm caused by drugs that may sometimes lead to death, or to severe injury and disability that may last for the rest of someone’s life.

Quite a few people reach for the view that there is a right answer and a wrong answer to the problem of drugs and the harm they cause, and that a royal commission or some other august body of dispassionate people could tell us what it is, or that we could go to another country that has done the work before us and it could tell us the right answer, which we could adopt and solve all our problems. My experience of this difficult area of policy making is, sadly, that it is far more difficult and complicated. Many well-meaning, expert and informed people can come to different conclusions about how best to address the problem.

There are reasons for cautious optimism about Government policy and its impact on society, and about how society is evolving in comparable countries, particularly in our part of the world. There are signs of progress. Some may be a direct result of Government intervention and some may arise from the evolution of society, which is less easy to attribute directly to Government action. However, there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic, and I will come to them shortly.

If there was a straightforward answer—for example, to decriminalise drugs—it would be a persuasive path for many people, but we have just heard from the Chairman of the Select Committee that when it went to Miami it saw the chronic problem of people addicted to decriminalised legal drugs. One issue in this debate is the growing problem of legal highs. In this country, consumption of illegal drugs has reduced, but consumption of legal drugs has increased. That presents all sorts of thorny and interesting public policy issues, but does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the more drugs we legalise, or at least decriminalise, the better the effect on public health. The effect may be better—I am not ruling that out altogether—but I caution everybody in this debate not to leap to immediate conclusions about public policy outcomes, because in my experience, the more carefully one looks at the issue, the less obvious the conclusions become.

[Keith Vaz]

I welcome the way in which the Minister is dealing with the issues raised in the debate. On legal highs, does he agree with the Committee that those who sell them need to be responsible for what they do? Would he look at the New Zealand model and try and adopt it, because it means that the responsibility is on the manufacturer? They should not be manufacturing drugs that end up killing people.

[Mr Browne]

I am very attracted by the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. My intention at the moment is not to go to New Zealand, in part because I am mindful of the cost of doing so and I think we should spend public money cautiously. However, I will be speaking by video conference call to New Zealand officials next month—it is quite hard to get a suitable time to speak by conference call to New Zealand, because the time difference is so big, but I will do that. When suitable New Zealand officials or Ministers are here in London—they tend to pass through on a fairly routine basis—I also hope to take the opportunity to draw on their expertise.

I am attracted by the idea of whether people should be made more accountable for the drugs that they produce or sell in this space, but even that is not straightforward, because the issue often arises about who has produced the drugs, and they are often sold as not suitable for human consumption. All kinds of legal problems make what appears, on first inspection, to be a very seductive idea slightly less straightforward in practice than I would wish, but I am open-minded to what more we can do in that area, because it is worth exploring.

[Dr Huppert]

The Minister is making a very good case about there being lots of different types of harm and no single obviously right answer. He is absolutely right to say all that, and to say how complicated it is. He talked about it not being straightforward, so does he not think that he is making a very good argument for a royal commission? It is precisely because it is not straightforward and there is not one clear answer that we need that level of inquiry.

[Mr Browne]

I think that that is a good argument for elected politicians, including those who have participated in the debate this afternoon, to devote more time to thinking seriously about the subject. The point I was making about a royal commission was that we can put together an expert body of men and women who are full of integrity, knowledge and decency, and they could spend a long time thinking about the issue, but they would not produce “the right answer”, because I fear that the right answer does not exist in that form. They would produce a series of interesting observations and recommendations, which may match, to a high degree, the series of interesting observations and recommendations that the Committee made in its report. We would then have a debate along the lines of the one we are having this afternoon. As I said, although a royal commission would be a good opportunity for stimulating debate, I do not think that it would in itself necessarily reach the outcomes that we seek, because I am not sure that the outcomes are ever fully attainable.

A number of other issues have come up. The Government’s strategy has three prongs: reducing demand, restricting supply and building recovery. In addition, we have always said that we are open to learning from best practice in other countries. I have had the opportunity to travel, as recommended by the Committee, to Portugal, and last week I spent 24 hours in Denmark and 24 hours in Sweden. During the remainder of the year, my plan is to visit South Korea, Japan, the United States, Canada, the Czech Republic and Switzerland. We should be open-minded to the ideas that such other countries have come up with, because they are broadly equivalent to us in their economic and social development, and they are confronted by the same problems as us in terms of drugs policy. There is no reason to believe that every good idea in the world originates in this country, and they may well have ideas that we can learn from.

Going to Portugal was interesting—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge dwelt particularly on that country. I will write a report when I conclude the process, so I will not do a running commentary on a weekly basis. I thought Portugal was interesting, but I was perhaps slightly less bowled over by it than I might have expected to be, because in some ways, the Portuguese codify what, in practice, happens to a large degree in this country anyway. People might think that that is quite interesting in itself. The fact that Portugal has made that formal codification is a significant step, but, in practice, there are very few people in Britain who are in prison merely for the possession of drugs for personal consumption. People are in prison because they have stolen money to buy drugs, or because they have supplied drugs to others, but most people in Britain who present with a severe heroin addiction, for example, are treated. We try and find ways of enabling them to address their addiction and, in time, recover from it, rather than treating them straightforwardly as criminals. Therefore, the gap between what happens in Portugal and what happens in practice in the United Kingdom is perhaps not as great as some might say.

It was interesting, for example, to talk to the Portuguese about the impact of changes in their laws on infection and blood-borne illnesses caused by the injection of drugs. They had a very big rise in instances of HIV infection in intravenous drug users, and when they changed the laws, there was a dramatic fall. It is a striking graph—like a mountain, it goes up and then comes down, and there is a clear correlation. The only thing I would say is that their starting point was higher than the United Kingdom’s. They then went to a point that was dramatically higher than the United Kingdom’s, and they have now come down to a point that is just higher than ours—but they are still higher than us.

For a number of reasons, we have never had that level of infection in the intravenous drug-taking community. Because the scale of our problem is dramatically different from the scale of the problem that they were confronted with when they changed the law, we should not automatically assume that changing the law would have a similar impact on infection rates in this country. There are interesting lessons to learn from talking to people in other countries, but we should not automatically assume that changing the law in the way that other countries have will lead to the same public policy outcomes, as we are starting from a different point in this country.

The Portuguese are having conversations about how their law is working in practice. In my experience—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge—it was virtually impossible to find anyone in Portugal who wanted to turn the clock back and change the law to what it had previously been. Last week in Denmark, which is one of the more liberal countries in the European Union in terms of drugs policy, I found that some of the liberalising measures that had been taken had become widely accepted, even among people who had initially been sceptical about the changes.

In Portugal, however, there was a debate about whether it could modify its law and in some ways potentially strengthen it. The idea of having 10 days-worth of personal drugs consumption was thought by the Minister to be a high figure. There was a lobby or case for reducing that to five, or even possibly three days. I suppose that if someone who was minded to transport drugs for sale to others had 50 days-worth of supply that they wanted to take to another house five minutes’ walk away, they would be better making that journey five times, with 10 days-worth on them each time, because they would then not be breaking the law. There was some thought about whether that law was perhaps too liberal and could be slightly tighter to restrict the potential for abuse.

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

My point is that there were many interesting features of the experience in Portugal, as there were in Denmark and Sweden. I am genuinely open-minded on this matter. I approach open-mindedly what changes we could consider and potentially even adopt in this country to make our laws more effective.

I heard the point that was made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, who speaks for the Opposition, and others about where responsibility lies for drugs policy in the United Kingdom. It is worth noting that in all the countries that I have been to so far, the lead responsibility lies with the Health Department. In this country, of course, the lead responsibility lies with the Home Office. I am not sure that in practice that is as significant as it is regarded as being by both those who believe vehemently that it should remain with the Home Office and those who believe vehemently that it should not, because we have a cross-Government approach.

There needs to be a lead Department, and of course much of drugs policy is about law enforcement, so there is a persuasive case to be made for that being with the Home Office, but we also of course involve the Department of Health, the Department for Education, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Cabinet Office and others in a cross-Government strategy on drugs, so I would not want anyone attending this debate to think that the Home Office ploughed on without listening to other parts of the Government.

The three parts of the strategy are demand, supply and recovery. We have a range of initiatives on demand reduction. The FRANK website and programme was mentioned during our debate. That has been updated and relaunched and is widely used as a source of information—particularly, but not exclusively, by young people. Another example is the Choices programme that we have developed. That focuses on preventing substance misuse and related offending among vulnerable groups of young people aged 10 to 19. The programme received funding of £4 million in 2011-12 and engaged more than 10,000 vulnerable young people.

This issue is not just about schools. In fact, many people take drugs for the first time when they have left school—when they are adults. Schools have a part to play, but so do other methods of education. It is worth noting that the number of young people taking up drugs and particularly school pupils experimenting with drugs has fallen markedly, so there does not seem to be a shortage of information among young people about the harmful consequences of taking drugs. Indeed, increasing numbers of young people seem to be mindful of those harmful consequences and, as a result, have not taken drugs.

[Diana Johnson]

In the light of the fact that for many years, as I understand it, it has been Liberal Democrat policy to have PSHE as part of the statutory national curriculum, I wonder whether the Minister, as a Liberal Democrat Minister in the coalition Government, is satisfied that enough is currently being done through the Department for Education to ensure that there is good drugs education in all our schools.

[Mr Browne]

This is a wider issue. I will engage seriously with the question, because I think that it is fair. It is about the degree to which we, as a Government and a country, use schools to inculcate desirable behaviour in children of school age. There is a powerful lobby in the House—I have received its representations—that says that it is crucial for part of the curriculum in schools to be about tackling drugs and the harmful effects of drugs.

I have also had representations from people saying that children should be taught in school about sexually appropriate relationships and that that should be part of the curriculum. I have also been told that children should be taught in school about responsible financial management, because children leave school without necessarily being able to make mature decisions about their personal finances. I have also been told that children should be taught in school how to cook properly, because large numbers of children are not as adept as hon. Members at this debate are at making delicious meals for themselves and that that should be part of the curriculum. I have been told that healthy eating more generally should be part of the curriculum in schools because otherwise children would eat unhealthy food through ignorance rather than because they preferred the taste of unhealthy food. I have also been told that there should be more awareness of alcohol and the dangers of cigarettes and that there should be more public health information generally.

The point that I am making is that there is a reasonable nervousness in the Department for Education that, unless we try to rationalise the activities that children are taught about in school, all of which are individually worthy—I think that everyone would accept that—teachers might get to the end of the school day and find that there is not much time left to teach children some of the core academic subjects that parents rightly expect them to be taught. There is a genuine debate about whether schools are there primarily to create good citizens or to educate children in core areas of academic knowledge. There is scope for a bit of a trade-off. Most people would want their children to be adept at maths, English literature and other typical academic subjects and to be rounded citizens at the same time, but there are only so many hours in the day and the Department for Education has to make some judgments about how to fill those hours intelligently.

On supply, we work closely with partner countries in Europe particularly. While I was in Portugal, I also took the opportunity to visit MAOC—the maritime analysis and operations centre—which is an initiative primarily involving Atlantic-facing European countries, although I think that the Dutch are also involved. They do not really face the Atlantic; it depends how far one thinks the Atlantic goes down the English channel. But the United Kingdom, the French, the Portuguese, the Spanish and others are working to try to intercept drug shipments.

Before becoming a Home Office Minister, I was a Foreign Office Minister who covered, among other places, Latin America. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met the Presidents of Colombia and Panama. Home Office Ministers have met the Interior Ministers of Colombia and Brazil and the Foreign Ministers of Bolivia and the Dominican Republic. But I hope that I do not sound immodest when I say that I suspect that, probably more than anyone else in government, I have an insight into the countries that we have talked about. Since this Government formed, I have been to Colombia on three occasions and Peru on two occasions. I have been to Bolivia; I have been to Ecuador; I have been to Panama on two occasions and so on.

In the countries that I am talking about, the issue is cocaine, and there is indeed a severe impact on those countries. We recognise our responsibilities to them as a consuming country. We work closely with the Governments of all those countries to varying degrees and certainly with the President and Government of Colombia, to whom many in this debate have already paid tribute.

Recovery is an area where there is quite a lot of innovative public policy making. We have the world’s first payment-by-results programme to try to incentivise recovery outcomes. It is being piloted in eight areas, and I have attended an extensive meeting with people from the eight areas in the Department of Health to talk to them about the progress that they are making in Bracknell Forest, Enfield, Kent, Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire, Stockport, Wakefield and Wigan. We are optimistic that they will make good progress, but they will not all make identical progress. Part of what will be interesting about the pilot studies is how local providers, tailoring their services to their local problem, will produce outcomes that we hope will reduce harm and drug taking and enable people to recover in their areas.

There is an interesting debate, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge touched on, about how one measures recovery. We have had that debate in Government. I accept, as I think most people do, that it represents progress when we take someone whose life is chaotic, who is a drug taker and who is unable to work or to take responsibility for themselves in quite elementary ways and we stabilise their life—perhaps through some programme of replacement drug treatment—so that that they can perhaps address some of their underlying social problems and, in time, find a job. I would not want the Government to fail to recognise that, because a lot of people, including in the voluntary sector, work to try to bring about that progress, which leads to improved outcomes for the people affected and, in many cases, for their spouses, their children and others around them.

The only caveat that I would enter is that the Government are cautious about regarding that as a desirable end point. Although some people may struggle to get beyond that point, most people—if they were talking about their own children, for example—would regard it as a desirable interim point. Ideally, however, they would like the end point to be that the person was free from addiction to whatever substance has made their lives so blighted and difficult in the first place.

There is an interesting, worthwhile and entirely valid debate about the point at which progress starts to put down roots and just becomes the new normal. If someone has been moved from a chaotic life on drugs to an ordered and managed life on drugs, that is definitely progress. If, 10 or 15 years later, they are living an ordered and managed life on drugs, one could argue that it is time for a bit more progress, and we might try to get them through to an end point where they are no longer on drugs at all.

What we do not want to do is to institutionalise the interim measure; we want to make interim progress, because that is better than making no progress at all, but we have to be careful about progress freezing before it has reached its most desirable destination. That is an insight into the conversations that we are having. Of course, if we are looking at payment by results, we then have to think about how we incentivise people not only to make progress but to complete the journey, rather than to leave it half completed.

The Ministry of Justice is doing lots of extra and innovative work on rehabilitation and on how to help offenders. The Government were not minded to accept the Committee’s recommendation on drug testing in and out of prison because we remain of the view that random testing is superior and that people who know when they will be tested may take measures to avoid showing up as positive. Other people may have different views, but we had good motives for objecting to that recommendation.

A lot of work is going on in the Ministry of Justice, rather than directly in my Department, on how we can help people who leave prison with a modest amount of money—£46, I think—and few other support structures to get back on their feet and rebuild a meaningful life, with housing and employment, rather than lapsing back into criminality. There are two interesting pilot studies on payment by results and on trying to incentivise prison providers to help people with rehabilitation once they have left prison.

[Keith Vaz]

But the point is this: is it not wrong that so many of the people we send to prison get the drugs habit there? Does that not show that something is wrong with the prison regime? If people are tested, helped and rehabilitated when they are in prison, things will be much better for everybody when they come out.

[Mr Browne]

My short answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is yes, it is wrong. It is a source of great regret and sadness that someone might go to prison, not as a drug taker or drug addict, and become one while they are there. I recognise there are practical difficulties with trying to restrict drugs in prisons, and people find ingenious ways to smuggle drugs into prisons, just as they find ingenious ways to smuggle them into other places, but the Government are doing work, as we should be, to try to reduce that threat.

What I am saying is that we could just as well do random testing throughout the period people are in prison. I have been told that if we tell somebody they will be tested on a set day, they may take steps to make it less likely that drugs will be detected in their body on that day. We are not, therefore, against the idea of testing prisoners, and we are strongly in favour of trying to ensure that people do not take drugs in prison, while those who might be minded to take drugs are dissuaded or prevented from doing so, but the proposed testing regime would not necessarily automatically have the most successful outcome.

On the Government’s approach to reducing demand, it is worth putting on the record that drug use remains at around the lowest level since measurement began in 1996. The 2011-12 crime survey in England and Wales estimated that 8.9% of adults—about 3 million people—had used an illicit drug in the previous year. In 1996, the figure was 11.1%, so there was a fall of a bit less than a quarter—about 20%, according to my rough and ready calculations. There was therefore a significant fall in the number of people who said they had taken illicit drugs in the previous year.

School pupils also tell us they are taking fewer drugs. In 2011, 12% of 11 to 15-year-olds said they had taken them in the previous year. In 2001—a decade earlier—the figure was 20%, so it fell from 20% to 12% in a decade. Some hon. Members may think that 11 to 15-year-olds are not entirely reliable when talking about their drug consumption, but there is no particular reason to believe they were any more or less reliable in 2011 than they were in 2001.

The number of heroin and crack cocaine users in England has fallen below 300,000 for the first time. We have now got to a situation where the average heroin addict is over 40. The age of heroin addicts is going up and up, as fewer young people become heroin addicts in the first place. We are trying to rehabilitate and treat addicts and to keep those figures falling. They are not falling dramatically, but they are falling consistently, year on year, for those very serious drugs, which often concern people most.

On restricting supply, we have talked a bit about the countries that some of the class A drugs come here from and about the work we are doing with European partners and others. Tribute has rightly been paid to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and the National Crime Agency, which will succeed it later this year, will also have a focus on working with countries around the world to reduce harm in the United Kingdom.

On building recovery, the average waiting time to access treatment is down to five days. There is an impressive support structure available, and drug-related deaths in England have fallen over the past three years. Record numbers of people are recovering from dependence, with nearly 30,000 people—29,855, to be precise—successfully completing their treatment in 2011-12. That is up from 27,969 the previous year, and it is almost three times the level seven years ago, when only 11,208 people recovered.

I do not pretend that we have all the answers or that the situation is perfect, but we should not despair, because, in the light of all those statistics, there is good reason to believe that the harm resulting from many of the drugs that have caused people the most upset and alarm over many years has diminished to a degree.

The problem is evolving. For example, cannabis, which was largely imported a decade ago, is increasingly home grown by criminal organisations in the United Kingdom. The cannabis that people consume is also a lot stronger. I sometimes tell people that the active substance in cannabis is as much as seven or eight times stronger than it was, so people can be talking about quite a different drug. Sometimes, older people talk about cannabis in a bit of a summer of love, Janis Joplin, 1967 way. Now, however, we are talking about a much stronger drug, with the potential to cause greater harm.

It is a bit like going from drinking a pint of real ale to drinking a pint of neat vodka. In both cases, an alcoholic drink is being consumed, but most people would accept that the potential for harm is quite a lot greater in the latter case. That is what we are discussing. The strength of modern cannabis is seven times greater, which raises some interesting public policy questions about how we deal with cannabis and how much concern we should have about people consuming it.

[Dr Huppert]

The Minister is absolutely right to say that there are different strengths of both THC and some of the psychoprotective components of cannabis. It is of course hard to regulate and set standards for something that is fundamentally illegal. Has the Minister looked at the experience in California, for example, where medical marijuana is available? The different levels of strength are clear, so people can judge what they actually want to buy. I have no idea what will happen, but will the Minister keep an eye on the legalisation trials in Washington state and Colorado?

[Mr Browne]

As I mentioned earlier, I am going to the United States of America and I am visiting both Colorado and Washington state, which are the two states that have voted to legalise cannabis. I was in Denmark last week and the mayor of Copenhagen is keen to legalise cannabis, but the pretty liberal Danish Government are keen to remind the mayor that it is not within his power to legalise cannabis and that it is not a policy that they want to pursue.

The point is that the public policy debate around cannabis is evolving. The potential health harms caused by cannabis are greater than when it was a much less powerful drug. People sometimes talk about cannabis as being the softer end of the drugs market and say that cannabis could be legalised while everything else is kept illegal as if it were a benign drug and all others harmful. If that were once the case, it is less the case now. Cannabis does have cause to concern people.

I move finally on to psychoactive substances, which is a whole new area that is evolving a lot. It is good that we see significant reductions in people consuming heroin and crack cocaine, which are very harmful drugs, but new psychoactive substances are a fast-evolving threat to many people. In the most tragic cases, some people have died after taking such drugs. People sometimes assume—this is interesting for public policy—that because something is legal it is safe. People have quite paternalistic assumptions about the state even when they are not necessarily minded to believe the Government in other areas of public policy. Just because something is legal, that does not mean that it is safe to consume.

Some such drugs get under the barrier by claiming not to be for human consumption and serious harm has been caused to people by consuming so-called novel psychoactive substances. We have tried to adapt how we respond to such substances to take account of their fast-moving nature. As has been mentioned, we have introduced temporary class drug orders and just this week the Government laid such an order in my name that will take effect from 10 June for two groups of NPSs known as NBOMe and Benzo Fury. We are discussing families of drugs, because, as has been said, these chemical compounds can be manipulated and form whole categories of drugs. We therefore do not just ban street names or individual drugs; we ban groupings of drugs to try to stop people breaking the spirit of the law but staying within the letter of the law. The problem, however, is constantly mutating and we want to maintain the academic rigour that enables the ACMD to consider such matters at length while also having the speed to deal with evolving threats more quickly than it otherwise could. That is why we have the temporary orders lasting 12 months and a more considered process following on from that. I do not pretend that this is an area in which any country does not have public policy challenges to consider. How such drugs are couriered and supplied is also a potential new cause for concern, because people order them on the internet and the drug smuggling does not take the familiar, conventional form.

This is a big area of public policy and there are some causes for cautious optimism. Some drug consumption trends in this country are positive. If they were going in the opposite direction, I suggest that there would be far more Members at this debate and a bigger clamour to ask the Government what they were doing about increases in heroin or crack cocaine consumption. We should momentarily reflect on the good news and progress, where it is being made.

However, this is an area of public policy that never stops evolving, and many new drugs are becoming available. The patterns of drug consumption are evolving. It is subject to fashion and trends, and we must be alive to the harms, educate people about them, try to persuade people not to take drugs, look at where we can restrict supply to benefit public health and help people to recover. All of those are part of our strategy. I welcome the contributions of hon. and right hon. Members and I remind open-minded as to how to ensure that we can work as intelligently as possible to reduce the harm to the British public.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs briefly to wind up.

Criminal Records Bureau

Jeremy Browne Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Written Statements

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

My hon. Friend the Minister for Criminal Information, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has today made the following written ministerial statement:

The 2012 annual report and accounts for the Criminal Records Bureau for the eight-month period up to 1 December 2012 is being laid before the House today and published on www.gov.uk. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (UK Appointed Person)

Jeremy Browne Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce the recruitment of Mr Douglas Bain as the new appointed person for the United Kingdom, who will fulfil the requirement under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to be an independent overseer of reports on cases where a search is carried out, without prior judicial approval, on persons or property for cash that is the proceeds of unlawful conduct or intended for use in such conduct.



Mr Bain was recruited after a fair and open competition and took up the role on 3 March 2013. Mr Bain brings a wealth of relevant experience to this role and I am confident he will ensure that the use of this power is scrutinised effectively and rigorously. It was agreed with my ministerial counterparts in the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Administration that we would jointly recruit one candidate to cover all three Administrations. This will help improve the consistency in the scrutiny of this power and save the public money.

As there were no reports on cash forfeiture in 2011-12 for consideration by the appointed person for England and Wales, a separate report to Parliament under section 219 of the Proceeds of Crime act 2002 will not be laid for 2011-12.

Alcohol: Minimum Unit Price

Jeremy Browne Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government’s policy on alcohol pricing?

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

I am aware that there have been a significant number of media reports and stories in recent days about the Government’s proposal to introduce a minimum unit price, and I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position.

The Government are determined to find the best way to diminish the misuse of alcohol. Over 44% of violent crime is alcohol-related. Fighting, antisocial behaviour and public drunkenness are familiar sights in many city centres, and there were 1.2 million alcohol-related hospital admissions in 2010-11. That is the context of our policy making and our inheritance from the previous Government. In March last year the Government published our alcohol strategy, which set out a range of measures to tackle the harms caused by excessive alcohol consumption.

The Government have already introduced a wide set of reforms to tackle binge drinking and the corrosive effect it has on individuals and our communities.  We have done the following: rebalanced the Licensing Act 2003 in favour of local communities by, for instance, removing the “vicinity test” to ensure that anyone, no matter where they live, can have input into a decision to grant or revoke a licence; introduced a late-night levy, making those businesses that sell alcohol late at night contribute to the cost of policing and wider local authority action; and introduced the early-morning alcohol restriction order, enabling local areas to restrict the sale of alcohol late at night in all or part of their area if there are problems.

The Home Office has also recently consulted on a range of new proposals set out in its alcohol strategy—this is a wide-ranging consultation—and it includes a ban on multibuy promotions in shops and off-licences to reduce excessive alcohol consumption; a review of the mandatory licensing conditions to ensure they are sufficiently targeting problems such as irresponsible promotions in pubs and clubs; health as a new alcohol licensing objective for cumulative impacts, so that licensing authorities can consider alcohol-related health harms when managing the problems relating to the number of premises in their area; cutting red tape for responsible businesses to reduce the burden of regulation, while maintaining the integrity of the licensing system; and the introduction of a minimum unit price.

The public consultation opened on 28 November— I imagine that all Members present contributed to it, given their interest in the subject—and closed on 6 February. We received a large number of responses covering a very wide range of views, including from members of the public, the police and licensing authorities, health organisations, alcohol producers and retailers, trade bodies and charities.

On minimum unit pricing, there were—and are, in my view—powerful arguments on both sides of the debate. We have to ensure that we base our decision on a careful consideration of all the representations we received. We are evaluating the data precisely and we will announce our decision when this careful evaluation is completed.

[Yvette Cooper]

I asked what the Government’s policy was on alcohol pricing and I am still none the wiser. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said,

“we must deal with the problem of 20p or 25p cans of lager…in supermarkets”—[Official Report, 13 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 307.]

But the Home Secretary has briefed that she has blocked minimum price plans. The Health Secretary said yesterday,

“Like the Prime Minister I believe there is a case for minimum pricing”,

but we have no idea what they are doing, and it seems that the Minister does not, either. And where is the Home Secretary? I have to say that I feel sorry for the Minister, who has been sent here to waffle to the world while the Home Secretary hides. She was skulking at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, and her office will not tell me where she is today. There is something Macavity-like about this Home Secretary.

What kind of mug is the Minister? War has clearly broken out between the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, but while they hide in their trenches, the Liberal Democrats once again have been sent over the top. The Home Secretary was quick enough to come to this House when the policy was first announced. It was her policy; she supported it. When she set the price nine months later, she had no doubt. The Home Office document said that the Government are

“committed to introducing a minimum unit price. However, in other areas”

this consultation

“seeks views on the introduction of policies.”

So they were not consulting on the minimum price—they had made a decision.

We know that the Home Secretary has overruled the Prime Minister; it appears she has also overruled herself. It was her plan; she has announced it twice. She said she was committed to it; now, she says the opposite. It is clear that this right hon. Lady is for turning—just not for turning up.

Alcohol abuse is very serious: to public health, and to law and order. We said that the Government were right to look at minimum pricing, but they needed to make sure that supermarkets did not just get a windfall and that the pub trade would not be harmed. They needed to look at the evidence and make sure the policies were workable. Instead, we have chaos and political confusion, and I ask the Minister again: what is the Government’s policy on alcohol pricing? The Prime Minister’s authority is in tatters; the Home Secretary’s credibility is in tatters; and the rest of us, including the Minister, do not have a clue what is going on.

[Mr Browne]

I read in the papers that the right hon. Lady fancies herself as the leader of her party. That was not a particularly impressive application. I am here as the Minister responsible for alcohol policy. She said she has no idea what the policy is, but I have just spent five minutes explaining it. There was a lot of barracking from Labour MPs because they thought I was explaining it in excessive detail—that was how I understood it. I have explained the policy carefully. There is a consultation on the areas that I mentioned. The question people want answered is: what on earth is Labour’s policy on this? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House really must calm down. It is in a very excitable condition, from which I hope it can be relieved by the hon. Member for Kettering, Mr Philip Hollobone.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Was the balance of responses to the consultation in favour of or against minimum alcohol pricing?

[Mr Browne]

There is a range—

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

A range of answers.

[Mr Browne]

There is a range of answers. [Laughter.] There is a serious point here and it will emerge in this session, so let me address it. There are young people who drink cheap alcohol in excessive quantities and are price-sensitive when buying alcohol, so they are likely to be deterred from buying alcohol, to a degree, by minimum unit pricing. However, people on low incomes who consume alcohol responsibly would pay more under minimum unit pricing, and a number of representations have stated that the policy is unreasonable on that basis. We have to weigh up all those representations and points of view. The previous Government did not consider this matter at all. We are considering it carefully and will announce our conclusions when we are ready to do so.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Is the Minister not aware that the very low price of the alcohol sold in supermarkets and convenience stores is the fundamental problem behind the abuse of alcohol and that is not only, in turn, leading, as the university of Sheffield has estimated, to 10,000 unnecessary deaths over 10 years, but it is harming the decent pub trade and accelerating the closure of pubs? So this policy will benefit responsible drinking and also greatly reduce the health harm to a large number of young people. Why does the Minister not just get on and implement it? [Interruption.]

[Mr Browne]

As is being said around me, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have made a good case for why he should have taken action when he was Home Secretary. He chose not to do that, but he has explained one side of the argument on minimum unit pricing, and a number of representations replicated the point he has just made.

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

Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that we could have minimum pricing in Scotland but not in England? Will he condemn the irresponsible policy of the Labour party on Northumberland county council, which is that if that happens Northumberland should be promoted as a cheap booze destination for Scots?

[Mr Browne]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Labour party’s policy in Northumberland is not a matter for the Minister of State—[Interruption.] Order. I do not require any assistance from the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry); she would not have the slightest idea where to start. The Minister may offer a brief view on this matter if he so wishes.

[Mr Browne]

Mercifully, the irresponsible attitudes of the Labour party are not my responsibility, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the sort of irresponsible behaviour that people have become accustomed to from the Labour party will not be replicated by this Government.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

It is a shame that the Minister cannot confirm the reports that Ministers have given to the press about this policy being abandoned. If those reports are true, will he, on my behalf, thank the Home Secretary for and congratulate her on actually looking at the evidence? There is no evidence that a minimum price would reduce problem drinking, far more effective interventions are available and this policy would devastate the west country cider industry. Will he assure me that this sudden outbreak of evidence-based policy will spread to other Ministers, including the Chancellor?

[Mr Browne]

The right hon. Gentleman, too, makes a strong argument, one diametrically opposed to that being made by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is sitting two places down from him,. That shows precisely why we are having a consultation; it might help the Labour party to come to conclusions, as well as the Government.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

The evidence from Canada and the university of Sheffield shows that the policy would have an impact, but minimum pricing should be just one aspect of tackling the problem of alcohol misuse in the UK. When Kent and Medway have almost 130 children under 17 receiving treatment for alcohol addiction, does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that minimum pricing is an essential way of getting some of our most vulnerable members of society away from access to high-strength, low-cost alcohol?

[Mr Browne]

I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these issues. It is undoubtedly true to say, regardless of what conclusion one reaches on this issue, that some young people with low disposable incomes drink irresponsibly and are price-sensitive when buying alcohol. They are a particular problem. The question that we need to resolve is whether minimum unit pricing is the best way of tackling that problem, but that is precisely why we are having a consultation, and we will announce our conclusions when we are ready to do so.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Four years ago the Home Affairs Committee unanimously recommended minimum pricing for alcohol.

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend was not on the Committee so he was not part of that recommendation. Powerful arguments have been made by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on health grounds. The Minister will also know it costs an extra £59 per person for the police to process someone who is involved in alcohol-related crime. Given the powerful arguments in the consultation and in the Cabinet, on either side on this issue, when will we have a final decision?

[Mr Browne]

During my initial response, when Labour Members were sneering and jeering, I was explaining about early morning restriction orders and the late-night levy, which are precisely the types of measures that the Government have taken to address the problems the right hon. Gentleman raises. Of course there are health considerations as well, although one could make the case for an ever higher minimum unit on the basis that the higher the price, the greater the reduction in health harms. A balance needs to be struck, and we are seeking to strike it through the consultation. We will announce our conclusions when we have finished.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

It is not only the entire medical establishment that backs minimum pricing on health grounds. I would like to read to the crime prevention Minister an e-mail I have received from a street pastor and to tell him what I am hearing from the special constables and police in my area. They say:

“There is no doubt that the availability of cheap alcohol enables people to get into the habit of being very drunk, very often.”

That has disastrous consequences on our streets. A third of people are unwilling to go out into their town centres.

What is the crime prevention Minister’s personal view? It would be a shame if he became the crime promotion Minister.

[Mr Browne]

Again, I recognise the keen interest that my hon. Friend takes in these issues. I am aware that many people in the health sector share her view. The logic of their argument, as I have just said, is why stop at 45p? If we had a £1 minimum unit price, the health case would be made all the more strongly. The Government have to balance all kinds of competing concerns and other, also compelling, concerns about the affordability of alcohol for people on low incomes. They have to balance the role of the state and of the private individual and what choices the individual is free to make. Great tensions have become evident this morning in the Labour party, and the Government also have issues that they need to resolve.

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

The Minister will know that in Scotland we have our own plans for minimum unit pricing for alcohol to tackle our excessive consumption. It might surprise him to know that in Scotland the Labour party is opposed to the plans and will do all it can to thwart them. Will the Minister assure me that he will work closely with our Government to ensure that at least we can start to deal with our alcohol problems in Scotland?

[Mr Browne]

The Department of Health in London meets Health Ministers and officials in Edinburgh and we are keen to try to ensure that the harm caused by alcohol across the United Kingdom is addressed seriously. I am distressed to learn that the Labour party is so inconsistent on this matter. I thought being a credible Opposition involved having credible policy positions, but we have not reached that stage yet.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to keep pubs open so that people can drink under some supervision? If we are to do that, the price of drink in pubs must be considered. Will he discuss the beer duty escalator with the Chancellor?

[Mr Browne]

That is a consideration but there have been changes in how people consume alcohol. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the consumption of different types of alcohol, he will see that beer sales have gone down and wine sales have risen sharply. In many cases people are choosing to drink wine at home to a greater extent than would have been the case a generation ago. All those factors need to be borne in mind and that is precisely why we are ensuring that we get the details of the consultation right.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary said a little while ago that the price of alcohol was causing fighting in town centres and that the minimum unit price was the answer. Has the fighting died down, or does the Minister think that it has merely been transferred to the Government Front Benches?

[Mr Browne]

The answer is that crime is at its lowest level since the independent crime survey of England and Wales began in 1981, 32 years ago. Crime is markedly lower—more than 10% lower—than it was when the Government came into office. The points the hon. Gentleman mentions about alcohol are all being considered as part of the consultation.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that minimum unit pricing would yet again mean that the responsible and law-abiding were paying for the irresponsible behaviour of others? Does he agree with the majority of my constituents who, although they recognise the complexities of the situation, would like to see a robust response from the police and courts?

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend makes a strong argument that replicates to a degree the one made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw). Let us say, for the sake of argument, that an elderly person on a low income bought one cheap bottle of wine a week, on average, because they could not afford to buy a more expensive bottle. There is a strong argument against financially penalising that person by introducing a minimum unit price that would increase the cost of that bottle of wine when they are consuming the wine entirely responsibly and causing no wider social ills. Those are exactly the sort of issues that grown-up and responsible Governments must consider carefully.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said yesterday that he would take action to stop the problem of 20p or 25p cans of lager being sold in supermarkets. How will he do that?

[Mr Browne]

I remind Opposition Members that nothing was done about these problems—[Interruption.] The idea that alcohol suddenly became cheap in May 2010 and lots of social ills came about as a result—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Throughout this urgent question there has been too much noise. Frankly, there is too much noise from those on the Opposition Benches, and I have to say to the junior Health Minister that she tends to behave as though every exchange is somehow a conversation with her—[Interruption.] Order. Do not shake your head. If the Government had wanted to put the hon. Lady up to answer, they could have done. They did not. In all courtesy, I say to her: sit there, be quiet and if you cannot do so, leave the Chamber. We can manage without you.

[Mr Browne]

Perhaps I should say in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) that we are having a thorough consultation, which has finished. We are considering the results and the way in which we will arrive at the best outcome will be announced in due course.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The central problem appears to be the anti-competitive behaviour of supermarkets that sell alcohol below the cost price. Does my hon. Friend agree that rather than introducing a minimum price, a ban should be introduced on measures that distort the market?

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point about anti-competitive practices. My personal view is that selling alcohol below cost price—leaving aside for a moment arguments about health harms and law and order considerations—is an uncompetitive practice, which is unfair on other retailers who cannot afford to subsidise their product. But a minimum unit price of 45p would lead to alcohol being sold considerably above cost price, so different considerations apply in that case.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I will give the Minister another chance at the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), pointing out that the Prime Minister said yesterday that he would take action to stop the problem of 20p or 25p cans of lager being available in supermarkets. Can the Minister give us clarity on how that is going to happen?

[Mr Browne]

I am giving clarity. I am explaining that there has been a widespread consultation process. There are a large number of factors that a mature, responsible Government would need to consider carefully. That is what this mature, responsible Government are doing, and when we are in a position to announce the conclusions, we will do so.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that local initiatives to tackle alcohol misuse, such as the Crawley and Gatwick business watch scheme to label high strength alcohol and restrict its sale, have an important part to play?

[Mr Browne]

Yes, I agree that localism has an important part to play. We have sought to reflect that in the way we have changed licensing regulations—precisely the sort of practical, locally responsive measures that appear to be treated with contempt by the Opposition but are welcomed by communities across the country.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Last year, in the foreword to the Government’s alcohol strategy, the Prime Minister stated:

“So we are going to introduce a new minimum unit price. For the first time it will be illegal for shops to sell alcohol for less than this set price per unit.”

When did that change?

[Mr Browne]

I fear the hon. Gentleman is confusing two separate issues—cost price and a minimum unit price. A minimum unit price of 45p, which is what the Government consulted on—in Scotland the proposed MUP is 50p, but we consulted on 45p—would price a typical 12.5% bottle of wine at about £4.20. Obviously, many bottles of wine currently retail at less than £4.20 but are not sold at a loss. That, I think, is the point of confusion for the hon. Gentleman. I have already said that selling alcohol below cost price is anti-competitive, but whether an artificial price floor should be put in by Government is precisely what we are considering in the consultation.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May I thank the Minister for the way in which he has answered the urgent question? He has been exceptionally clear and he has been listening, like a great democrat. He is not in his Stalinist mode today. Does he agree that the last thing the people of Wellingborough want to see is alcohol prices artificially increased? Average families in my constituency are very concerned about a minimum price.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristic warm reception for Liberal Democrat Ministers. There are two strands to the case being made against minimum unit pricing, both of which clearly have some force. One is about charging people who may have low disposable income more than they would otherwise pay for alcohol, even when there is no evidence to suggest that all those people are drinking irresponsibly. The second is a wider liberal or perhaps libertarian argument about the role of the state and the right of the individual to make choices that he or she wishes to make, free from a more prescriptive view by Government. Both cases were made to us during the consultation and are part of our considerations.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Given that the Home Secretary has announced her personal support for minimum unit pricing on two separate occasions, will the Minister confirm that she has changed her mind?

[Mr Browne]

I am not in a position to announce the results of our consultation; if I were, I would be announcing the results of our consultation. There are genuine issues to be considered on both sides. I have tried to answer them as openly as it is possible for a Minister to do, but they are exactly the issues that we are weighing up.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

As I am sure my hon. Friend agrees, judging by the questions coming from the Opposition, we are not sure what they are organising in a brewery on this issue. Given that the Health Committee looked at the evidence and came to the unanimous conclusion that it was in favour, does the Minister think that the House should have a free vote on the matter if we cannot come to a conclusion?

[Mr Browne]

These are not matters that I am responsible for, I regret to say. On the point about the Health Committee, I am aware of its view. I suppose the only point I would make is that we would expect the Select Committee that was responsible for health matters to have a particular perspective on the issue. If we had a libertarian Select Committee, it might say that people should be free to drink even in ways that damaged their health, which would also be a legitimate point of view. I am not saying that, just because the Health Committee’s perspective is predictable, it is not relevant; of course it is relevant, but it is one of a number of points of view, all of which we are considering as part of the consultation.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

As a member of the all-party group on alcohol misuse, I believe that minimum unit pricing is only one of a number of tools in the box. The Minister attended one of our meetings a number of months back. Can he explain why some of his views today have changed from what he said on that occasion?

[Mr Browne]

I do not accept that they have. I enjoyed the conversation that I had and I recognise that there are harms caused by alcohol. In fact, at the beginning of my answer to the question, about half an hour or so ago, I talked about violent crime and how much of it is alcohol related, about the atmosphere in town and city centres—everybody in the House will know from their constituencies how disconcerting many of our constituents find such behaviour—and about the number of hospital admissions that are alcohol-related. I therefore recognise that there are serious concerns, but there are issues that need to be balanced. Otherwise, we would logically end up with the Government being urged to ban alcohol sales altogether—as far as I am aware, nobody is urging us to do that—or with a minimum unit price of, say, £5 rather than 45p. That would have a very big impact on alcohol consumption, but there are other, competing concerns that would not be addressed by going down that route. That is why a Government who govern responsibly for the whole country need to consider all these matters.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is not media reports or the balance of representations that matters, but the weight of evidence, which includes the impact on the 2.6 million children who live with a hazardous drinker and the 705,000 who live with a dependent drinker. For the sake of the hidden harm to those children, can we follow not the loudest voices, but the increasing evidence from Europe and, recently, Canada showing that affordability, consumption and reducing harm are inextricably linked?

[Mr Browne]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his vigilant championing of the interests of children in households where such disadvantages blight their upbringing. I take seriously the point he makes. There is a range of concerns. There is a serious issue—Labour Members and others might wish to mull this over—about whether someone on a relatively high income who drinks a bottle of wine every evening should be treated differently from someone on a low income who drinks a much cheaper bottle of wine every evening. The second person could face a dramatic increase in the price of a bottle of wine under minimum unit pricing, whereas the first person, with the higher income, will almost certainly be buying a bottle of wine that is already above the minimum unit price. These issues must be considered as well, because it is reasonable for a Government to consider the impact on all parts of society.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I genuinely feel sorry for the Minister, because he has been thrown into the trenches and then over the top into Opposition fire to try to deal with the consequences of the Prime Minister over-speaking at Prime Minister’s questions, which seems to happen quite a lot, but I must press him on this. The Prime Minister said yesterday that he would stop the problem of 20p or 25p cans of lager, but what are the Government going to do?

[Mr Browne]

I would feel more sorry for myself if the Opposition could fire straight, but they seem to have formed a circle and been busy picking each other off, probably because the shadow Home Secretary showed a lamentable lack of policy clarity. [Interruption.] When she got to her feet, she seemed to have no idea what she thinks at all, so everyone on the Labour Benches—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These exchanges are still very highly charged, but the Minister is entitled to be heard and must not be shouted down.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

A member of my family is an alcoholic. Minimum unit pricing would not make one jot of difference, because 50p here or there would not break her addiction. Greater resources and co-ordination of support services are the priority; it is there that the industry and Government should be leading.

[Mr Browne]

I am very sorry to hear what my hon. Friend says. I think that it is important, amid all the party political knockabout, that we realise and respect the fact that this is a very serious issue for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people across the country, and they want politicians to address it properly and with consideration. With regard to price sensitivity, there is good reason to believe that different people in different circumstances are more price responsive than others, which is why this is a harder issue to tackle than it might appear after cursory inspection. I accept his point that people who have become accustomed to drinking large quantities of alcohol as a matter of course might be less price sensitive than, for example, younger people who are looking to drink alcohol to excess for the first time. Of course, we need to take a range of different measures into account when trying to help people in those circumstances.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

I have to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), for a change, because I do not feel sorry for the Minister. I think that he would do well to remember that his Government have been in power for three years. Perhaps if he spent less time attacking the Labour party and more time formulating policy, he would not be in the mess he is in this morning. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), the Minister said—I think that he had better listen to this question—that the Government had not previously proposed a policy of banning the sale of alcohol below the cost of duty and VAT, but that was certainly my impression of their policy. Is he now saying that was never the Government’s policy and that it is not being considered in the consultation?

[Mr Browne]

After the grown-up, and in many ways sad, representation from my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not rise to the occasion a little more. Since the Government came to office in May 2010, crime has fallen. In fact, it is now lower than it was in any of the 13 years Labour was in government. Alcohol consumption overall has also fallen since 2010, but that could mask the fact that some people might still be consuming alcohol to excess. Around 40% of the alcohol consumed in the country is consumed by 10% of the population, so there might be great hidden harms below those headline figures.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

On behalf of the responsible drinkers of Amber Valley, I thank the Government for reconsidering this excessive nanny state policy. Has he considered what the policy might do to encourage further the already serious problem of the illegal sale of non-duty-paid alcohol?

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point. The higher the Government set an artificial floor for legally acquired alcohol, the greater the profitability of distributing alcohol that does not comply with the Government’s own regulations. That is another of the points that make this issue a little more complicated, if one looks at it in a mature and reflective way, than it may appear if one looks at it from a cursory, party political perspective.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

This is a serious issue, and the public take it seriously. They also take very seriously what the Prime Minister stands up and says at the Dispatch Box, where on more than one occasion he has spoken about reducing the impact of low-price alcohol in supermarkets. One assumes, therefore, that he is given policy advice from the Department of Health or the Home Office prior to coming to the Dispatch Box for Prime Minister’s questions. Perhaps the Minister will be willing to make that policy evidence public for the rest of us to look at so that we understand why the Prime Minister is taking that line.

[Mr Browne]

We have published large amounts of evidence. As I said, we have had consultations on licensing regulations for local authorities, the late-night levy that has been introduced for local councils, and early-morning restriction orders. People are focusing on minimum unit price, but in our consultations we are also focusing on multi-buy promotions, licensing conditions, and the regulations—red tape, as I put it—that are affecting businesses. We are having this discussion in the House of Commons precisely because the Government have taken a leading role on this issue and have given it a profile that it was not previously given.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

My local authority, Cheshire East council, strongly supports MUP. It has calculated that in that one local authority area alone the cost to the public of alcohol harm is some £190 million across the NHS, local government, the criminal justice system, and loss to business. MUP is one of a number of tools, but if we extrapolate that figure across the country is it not clear that if it is not introduced the cost to the public will be far higher over time than a few extra pence on alcoholic drinks?

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend makes the case for a minimum unit price but, as I have said, it is not as straightforward as she implies. There are practical considerations. There are reasons to be concerned about people on moderate incomes who wish to buy alcohol at an affordable price and do not understand why the Government would wish to set an artificial floor that would make it more expensive for them to buy alcohol. There is a perfectly respectable libertarian argument that individuals should be free to decide how they live their lives without a prescriptive Government attending to the details for them.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Contrary to the settled view of the House, the Minister has read the responses to the consultation. Will he remind the House which health organisations have responded and what they have said about the cost to the national health service of cheap alcohol?

[Mr Browne]

Large numbers of health organisations have responded. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who I am delighted to have here with me, has said that she will write to the hon. Gentleman specifically on who those organisations are, and I am sure that she will do that very speedily.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the best way to deal with antisocial behaviour on the streets by drunks is strong action by the police and perhaps a few hours in the cells rather than piling extra tax on to responsible drinkers who are very often on low incomes?

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. In quite a lot of countries elsewhere in Europe, the price of alcohol is lower than it is here, or certainly low, and yet they do not have anything like the number of problems that we have in relation to antisocial behaviour linked to alcohol consumption. There is a role for the police, but there is a wider debate within society about how we consume alcohol and how we behave after we have consumed alcohol.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the European Commission has formally objected to the Scottish Government’s proposals on minimum unit pricing. What discussions has he had with the Commission and what reassurances has he received from it that his proposals will comply with European Union law?

[Mr Browne]

The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. The Scottish Executive wish to introduce a minimum unit price of 50p and we were consulting on a price of 45p in this part of the United Kingdom. There is a legal challenge and we have to be mindful of the legal context if we choose to go down the path of introducing a minimum unit price.

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

Will the results of the consultation be published so that people can see the strength of the arguments both for and against the proposal in different parts of the country? Did the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), or any other shadow Home Affairs Minister respond to the consultation, and if so what was their response?

[Mr Browne]

First, yes the results will be published. I have given some of the arguments an airing this morning and they will be provided in much greater detail. Secondly, I am afraid to say that despite the millions of pounds of Short money paid by taxpayers in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend to fund the activities of the Labour party, it seems to be lamentably short of the requisite standard of a proper Opposition.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Government ditched the proposed ban on the sale of alcohol below the cost of duty and VAT. Will they bring that back?

[Mr Browne]

We have had a consultation and we are reflecting on its results. We will make further announcements to those we have already made on alcohol strategy when we are in a position to do so.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Jeremy Browne Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—National Crime Agency review—

‘A review shall be completed within 12 months of Royal Assent of the functions and operations of the National Crime Agency with particular regard to—

(a) the governance structures as set out in section 1, together with resources, training and inspection; and

(b) operational and governance arrangements between the UK Government, the Department of Justice, Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government with particular reference to asset recovery.’.

Government new schedule 1—‘The NCA: Northern Ireland.

Government amendment 4.

Amendment 3, in clause 7, page 6, line 37, at beginning insert

‘Subject to approval by the Secretary of State for the Home Department,’.

Amendment 95, in page 10, line 15, leave out clause 12.

Amendment 102, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 13.

Government amendments 5 to 9, 76, 72 to 74, 85 and 87.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the amendments and thus begin our deliberations on Report. The Government amendments in this group deal with two substantive issues: first, whether the Bill should include a mechanism to confer counter-terrorism functions on the National Crime Agency; and secondly, the extent to which the NCA should operate in Northern Ireland. I will deal with each issue in turn.

New clause 3 seeks to restore to the Bill the power to confer counter-terrorism functions on the NCA by means of an order, subject to the super-affirmative procedure. The House will be aware that on Report the other place removed from the Bill what was then clause 2. In explaining why we have brought back this clause, it is worth reiterating the comments of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading. She said:

“I have been clear that no decision on this issue has been taken and that none will be taken until after the NCA has been established and following a detailed review. However, the creation of a national crime agency with a national remit to combat serious, organised and complex crime invites the question whether it should take on national functions in respect of counter-terrorism policing.”

She continued:

“ I do not come to this question with any preconceived ideas about what the answer should be, but it was prudent, in my view, for the Bill as originally introduced to have included a future-proofing provision.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 635.]

Since then we have reflected further on concerns raised in the other place that this was not an appropriate matter to be left to secondary legislation. This theme was also a feature of the debates in this House, both on Second Reading and in Committee.

Having reflected carefully on the debates on this issue thus far, and on the reports by the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government remain firmly of the view that this is an appropriate matter for secondary legislation and that the super-affirmative procedure provides a sufficient level of parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, the conditions that are tied to it provide ample opportunity for this House and the other place to scrutinise any such order.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Browne]

Let me finish the point first.

There is a duty on the Home Secretary to consult persons affected before laying a draft order. There is then an opportunity for Committees of either House to scrutinise the draft order—I envisage that this task would fall to the Home Affairs Committee—and then the draft order must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. This is not a parliamentary process that we take lightly or that would be taken lightly by either House. For that reason we believe that it would entail the appropriate level of scrutiny to satisfy those who rightly take a close interest in these matters.

[Paul Goggins]

My question is a simple one. Why did the Minister not table new clause 3 in Committee and allow the Committee to scrutinise in detail and in depth the proposal that he is now making? He will remember the exchanges that he had with various Members in Committee. It is disingenuous to table the new clause on Report and not to have allowed the Committee to have a detailed debate. He has been doing a lot of reflecting. Why did he not reflect on the detail of the debate that we could have had in Committee?

[Mr Browne]

It seems to me that this is not a very substantive issue; it is a procedural issue. The Government have not taken a view as to whether counter-terrorism should be transferred into the NCA. The NCA is not even up and running yet. It requires the assent of the House before we get to that stage, and we have said that when the NCA is up and running, that is something that the Home Secretary may wish to consider.

If the Government recommend at a future date that counter-terrorism functions should be transferred to the NCA, there is, as I have just explained, a provision for that to be considered in great detail. I will repeat it briefly in case hon. Members did not latch on to the point—that is why I made it before giving way: there is a duty on the Home Secretary to consult persons affected before laying a draft order, then there is an opportunity for Committees of either House to scrutinise the draft order, and I said that I envisage that task falling to the Home Affairs Committee, a cross-party Committee chaired by a distinguished member of the Opposition, and then the draft order must explicitly be approved by both Houses.

When it comes to deliberating on the content of the proposal, as distinct from the parliamentary mechanisms—the merits or otherwise of counter-terrorism being exercised by the National Crime Agency—if that process of deliberation is necessary, because the Government regard that as a wise way to proceed, there will be the opportunity for Members to make their views clearly known. But the question we are considering is whether it is suitable and appropriate for that provision to be made in the Bill, using the super-affirmative procedure. I hope that the House is persuaded by what I have just said about there being ample opportunity to debate the substance of these matters and that it is therefore an appropriate way to proceed.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The Minister describes a substantive and exhaustive process of parliamentary scrutiny. Is he aware that the Home Affairs Committee has already considered the issue and that we recommended—unanimously, I believe—that the transfer of counter-terrorism powers from the Met to the National Crime Agency should take place once that agency is up and running and when the Government believe it is the right time to do it?

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s interest in the matter. I am cautious about getting ahead of ourselves. We envisage the National Crime Agency coming into operation fully on 1 October, but of course that is subject to the House giving its assent to that proposition during the two days of deliberation on Report and Third Reading, and we should not take the wishes of the House for granted. Then Royal Assent is necessary. The NCA will have considerable and wide-ranging powers, and I think everybody would accept that it is sensible for it to bed down and establish itself.

There is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had about where this extremely important function should be exercised. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend. He puts forward a point of view that many people agree with, but there are people who will take a contrary view. There will be a suitable time to deliberate on the matter. I want to assure the House that we believe that the super-affirmative procedure will allow more than adequate time for that debate and for those issues to be properly aired. Any decision to give the NCA a counter-terrorism role will be an important one; we have no wish to diminish, impede or lose those aspects of the current arrangements that work well.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The Minister will be aware that there are particular arrangements in Northern Ireland for dealing with counter-terrorism, so it is important not only that that is debated, discussed and consulted on in this place, but that there is the opportunity for the Northern Ireland situation specifically to be considered. Can he give us an assurance today that that will be the case?

[Mr Browne]

By the time I get to the end of my speech, the hon. Lady will be in no doubt that all Northern Ireland aspects of the Bill and how we deal with serious crime and terrorism will be given a strong airing. If I can make progress, large parts of my speech deal with issues that relate directly to Northern Ireland.

Currently, counter-terrorism policing is a partnership endeavour among all UK police forces. Chief constables, each of whom retains full authority over policing in their force area, maintain a framework of agreements on how the various national counter-terrorism policing functions are distributed between forces, and how those national functions support forces in both proactive and reactive operations. However, with the creation of the National Crime Agency, it is reasonable, as I hope I explained satisfactorily to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), that the Government should want to consider afresh how the current counter-terrorism policing arrangements work and review whether the NCA could play a role to enhance our response to the terrorist threat. Those questions can be sensibly considered only after the NCA is up and running, and only then after a full review.

As I said at the outset, and as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, the position remains that the Government have no preconceived notion—others will—as to the outcome of a review of counter-terrorism policing arrangements and any future role of the NCA in them. However, we continue to believe that it is right to build into the Bill the flexibility to implement the outcome of such a review in a timely fashion through secondary legislation, but subject to a high level of parliamentary scrutiny in the form of the super-affirmative procedure, as I hope I have explained, and that we should be able to proceed on that basis. The Government would rightly be criticised if we could not implement the findings of a review for a year or more for want of the necessary primary legislation. We believe that this is the best way to strike the right balance between being able to move quickly in this extremely important area, but without undue haste.

Let us not confuse the point at issue. It is not about whether or not the NCA should exercise counter-terrorism functions; that debate is for the future. The issue today is the mechanism by which such functions could be bestowed on the agency. The Committee tasked with examining such matters in the other place said that

“the idea of adding to a statutory body’s functions by subordinate legislation subject to a Parliamentary procedure is well established”.

Of course, it is for this House to come to its own view on the matter, but I put it to all Members present that this is a perfectly proper way of proceeding and invite them and the House to support the new clause.

On the NCA and Northern Ireland, and particularly new schedule 1, it is with great regret that I must inform the House that I will have to table amendments limiting the role of the NCA in Northern Ireland. As the House will be aware, we have been unable to secure the agreement of the Northern Ireland Executive to take forward a legislative consent motion for either the NCA or the amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. To say that that is a disappointing outcome does not do justice to the implications for the effectiveness of the NCA and, more importantly, the protection of the people of Northern Ireland. The Government are being up front about that. It is not the outcome we sought, but we are obviously required to deal with the situation as it is, rather than as we would wish it to be.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

I will give way, but I am delivering a substantive passage of my speech, which will be of great interest to Members from Northern Ireland and elsewhere, so if I give way too often there is a danger that I might end up revealing the details of what I wish to say in a less structured way. Having said that, I know that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) wishes to speak.

[Mr Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to put on the record at the outset the fact that the Democratic Unionist party shares his disappointment that this has been unable to proceed in the way that was planned. It was certainly not for want of trying on the part of the DUP.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and pleased that I gave way, because I share his anguish. I want all people in the United Kingdom, regardless of which part they live in, to be as protected as possible by the agencies of the state from the risks they might be exposed to from serious and organised crime. Clearly, the NCA is being brought into being because we regard it as an important institution for protecting the public from serious and organised crime. Many of its functions will apply in Northern Ireland, but they will not apply there as extensively as they will in England, which is a source of regret.

[Sammy Wilson]

The Minister is quite right that this is a very serious issue in Northern Ireland. We, too, wish to see the protections he has outlined. Given that Ministers hinted in Committee that if provisions in the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill are not given legislative consent motions by the Northern Ireland Assembly, Ministers might well legislate anyway, will he apply the same rule and approach on the NCA?

[Mr Browne]

I do not have a speaking note on that point. I, like most Members, have received a number of representations on the merits or otherwise of same-sex marriage, and I do not wish to expand that debate by speaking from the Dispatch Box on the application of same-sex marriage provisions in Northern Ireland and how they might or might not impact on the National Crime Agency. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think it will probably be most helpful if I do not take interventions for a short while, because there have been many discussions and negotiations on Northern Ireland and it is important to get on the record where we stand and what provisions will apply there, because clearly some will still apply, although they are less extensive than we would have wished them to be. Therefore, I will get to the detail of where we stand, because the amendments are required to put that into practice.

We will, of course, do our utmost to minimise the operational impact of the Northern Ireland Executive’s decision—that is what new schedule 1 seeks to do—while respecting the Sewel convention. However, the House should be under no illusion: the decision will have implications for the fight against serious and organised crime in Northern Ireland. Yet it was in full knowledge and recognition of those implications that the Executive came to their decision.

Let me be clear that the NCA will continue to operate on a UK-wide basis, including in Northern Ireland, but the Executive’s decision means that the NCA’s activities in Northern Ireland will be curtailed. For example, NCA officers in Northern Ireland can no longer be designated with the powers of a Northern Ireland constable. However, there is still much the NCA can do to tackle serious, organised and complex crime in Northern Ireland, both through its own investigations and by supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other agencies. Importantly, the strong operational relationship that the Serious Organised Crime Agency has built up with the PSNI, both through the SOCA officers based in Northern Ireland and across SOCA as a whole, will continue with the NCA.

Furthermore, NCA officers will still be able to use customs and immigration powers to take action against serious, organised and complex customs and immigration crimes. Operational partners will continue to be able to access the wider national specialist capabilities that will reside in the NCA, such as the new national cybercrime unit and the NCA’s network of international liaison officers.

However, that is not the best outcome for the people of Northern Ireland. The NCA will be able to continue the fight against serious and organised crime and immigration crime, which I am pleased about. I know that Keith Bristow, who will run the NCA, is committed to ensuring that it will make a significant contribution to the overall law enforcement effort in Northern Ireland, but that is not the same as having a fully operational NCA working to support the efforts and important work of the PSNI.

Before getting into the detail of new schedule 1, I want to pay tribute to the tireless efforts of David Ford, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, and his officials to drive forward the discussions in Northern Ireland, sometimes in the face of considerable difficulty and opposition. Indeed, the negotiations are continuing. His support for the NCA has been unswerving, as has his commitment to ensuring that it would work effectively with, and complement, the important post-devolution police accountability arrangements in Northern Ireland. Since the initial proposals for the National Crime Agency were published, the Government have been clear in their commitment to ensure that the need for an effective UK-wide response to serious and organised crime is balanced against the need to respect the devolution settlement.

The Bill as introduced included a number of new safeguards, above and beyond those provided for in respect of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, to ensure that the NCA reflected the devolution arrangements and the real sensitivities relating to accountability for policing in Northern Ireland. For example, in the initial Bill the directed tasking arrangements were limited to England and Wales, the directed assistance provisions included an additional consultative role for the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and we extended the remit of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to cover complaints in relation to asset recovery. I maintain, therefore, that the Government were alert from the outset to the specific sensibilities in Northern Ireland. We have not sought to railroad through a rigid uniformity that is blind to those sensitivities.

Even with all those safeguards we were prepared to go further to address the Executive’s concerns and agreed in principle to provide further changes to the Bill provided that a legislative consent motion was forthcoming. However, even with that initial good will and those additional changes, the Executive could not agree. Despite the situation in which we find ourselves, we remain committed to the principle of a fully operational NCA in Northern Ireland. The amendments will provide flexibility so that, should the position in Northern Ireland change, we can make provision for the NCA to have a full operational role there beyond what is currently possible.

Our approach in new schedule 1 is to limit the extent of the “relevant NCA provisions” so that we do not legislate on transferred matters without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Sewel convention is an important part of the devolution settlement established by the previous Administration and it is one to which this Government are equally committed.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

Let me proceed a little and then I will give way.

The table in paragraph 9 sets out the “relevant NCA provisions” that do not extend to Northern Ireland. Notable among those provisions that will not apply are the ability to designate NCA officers with the powers of a Northern Ireland constable in schedule 5, the oversight of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in schedule 6, and, importantly, the duty of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to co-operate with the NCA and other duties in schedule 3. Importantly, the new schedule also provides a series of order-making powers in paragraphs 1 to 5 so that, should the position of the Northern Ireland Executive change, the NCA provisions can be extended to Northern Ireland, subject, of course, to the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

As I have said, I regret that it has been necessary to table new schedule 1. This does not, however, mark the end of our negotiations on the role that the National Crime Agency should play in Northern Ireland. I fervently hope that the narrowing of the NCA’s remit in Northern Ireland will be a temporary measure. We will continue to strive for an equitable agreement between the parties in Northern Ireland and, once secured, this new schedule will ensure that we have the necessary order-making powers to give effect to such an arrangement. I hope that that has provided clarity on this important issue.

[Mark Reckless]

Will the Minister clarify whether the two strands of his speech interact? If powers were transferred from the Met to the NCA and the NCA was unable to conduct anti-terrorism work in Northern Ireland, would that provide a contrast with the current situation? If the transfer happened without the changes that the Minister hopes for, would the Met be able to pursue anti-terrorism work in Northern Ireland that the NCA could not?

[Mr Browne]

Although the Met takes the lead, each individual police force is responsible for its own activities. An important change is the NCA’s ability to task police forces—in other words, their sovereignty would no longer be absolute, because the NCA could, in extremis, require a police force to undertake certain actions. That is not the case with the Metropolitan police. It is conceivable that some in Northern Ireland will be unwilling to be tasked in that way, but a lot of collaborative work takes place in any case. Activities that fund terrorism, rather than terrorism itself, would come under the category of serious and organised crime, which could be dealt with.

[Mr Dodds]

As the Minister outlined the provisions and voiced regret at having to table new schedule 1, the disservice and disadvantage done to the people of Northern Ireland by Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party became more apparent. He also mentioned the Government’s commitment to the Sewel convention on the devolution settlement and my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) raised the issue of principle. Will the Minister confirm that, if the Sewel convention is to be respected in this case, it will also be respected in relation to all Government measures?

[Mr Browne]

I think it would be more proper for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to answer that question on behalf of the Government. I was answering the specific question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood about the function of the NCA. Were the NCA to be given a counter-terrorism function in the future, it would be able to exercise that function in Northern Ireland only with the prior agreement of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I am afraid that the question of how legislation that is not relevant to the Home Office or the NCA applies to Northern Ireland is not in my remit.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I will deal with the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) about my party’s position if I catch your eye later, Mr Speaker.

The Minister has clarified the situation with regard to those NCA provisions that are precluded for now, but they do not include the criminal intelligence function in clause 1(5). Under that provision, will the NCA run its own informers and direct surveillance or similar in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Browne]

It would probably be better if I avoided talking about operational matters with regard to the prevention of serious and organised crime in the United Kingdom. I will reflect on whether I can assist the hon. Gentleman—without compromising operations, which none of us would want—before I conclude my speech.

I have been speaking for half an hour. This debate is mainly about the possibility of conferring powers on the NCA to deal with counter-terrorism and the changes we have to make with regard to Northern Ireland, but let me touch briefly on the remaining Government amendments in this group. Amendment 4 to clause 2 will convert the existing power on the Home Secretary to set strategic priorities for the NCA into a duty to do so. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) tabled a similar amendment in Committee and I undertook to consider it. As I am a collegiate Minister who is always impressed by the power of the right hon. Gentleman’s arguments, even when I do not agree with them, I was keen to accommodate his views. Members of the Committee will be familiar with the arguments for that change.

The Home Secretary’s role in setting the strategic direction of the NCA is obviously of central importance and the Government’s intention has always been that the Home Secretary would set the strategic priorities in accordance with the power granted by clause 2. On that basis, this reasonable amendment reflects what we had envisaged in any case.

The other Government amendments in the group are either consequential on new clause 3 and new schedule 1 or, in the case of amendments 5 to 7 and 9 to schedule 8, are of a technical or drafting nature and make further consequential amendments to other enactments as a result of the establishment of the National Crime Agency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

New clause 3 and the other amendments before the House concern important issues that are fundamentally to do with protecting our society from terrorist activity. We must get these matters right. We must consider the concerns of another place and those who are involved in these issues on a day-to-day basis. I continue to have key concerns about the new clause.

The Government have tabled new clause 3 on Report following the removal of the original clause 2 in another place earlier this year. The Home Secretary has said:

“I have been clear that no decision on this issue has been taken and that none will be taken until after the NCA has been established and following a detailed review.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 635.]

I welcome that no decision has been taken and that consideration is being given to whether it is best for terrorism functions to remain with the Metropolitan police as the co-ordinating body, whether they should be transferred to the National Crime Agency or whether there is a third model that the Government could consider.

I am concerned that new clause 3 will give the Government an order-making power to implement a major change. As we have heard from hon. Gentlemen from different parties in Northern Ireland, this change would have great import and ramifications in Northern Ireland, with respect not just to terrorism and policing but to confidence in communities. I cannot support the Government’s proposal of an order-making power that would receive limited debate in this place.

I accept that these are serious issues. I remind the Minister of the concerns that were raised in another place, not just by Labour Members such as my noble friend, Baroness Smith of Basildon, but by Cross-Bench Members, about the original clause 2, which was removed from the Bill and is effectively being reintroduced with new clause 3. I fear that if the Minister proceeds to insert new clause 3 into the Bill, there will be further discussion in another place about the merits of that proposal and the concerns that were expressed when the Bill was last considered will be revisited.

Lord Blair of Boughton, who is a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner and now sits as a Cross Bencher in another place, said that

“a number of noble Lords expressed the sentiment that national security is the first duty of government. I agree with that point of view. I put my name to this amendment because I believe that Clause 2 directly affects national security and so, in my view, is more important than any other clause in this section of the Bill.”

He went on to say that

“in my lifetime no change more significant than this in the policing arrangements to protect our nation has ever been contemplated. A change in the NCA's responsibility may be right, but it may not be…Such a decision deserves primary legislation, to allow the suggestion to be scrutinised, debated and amended by both Houses of Parliament.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 114-115.]

The Minister’s proposal in new clause 3 will deny the opportunity for primary legislation to be used to deal with this issue.

I have an open mind about where we should end up on this issue. This debate is not about making the final decision about where terrorism functions should lie. We can have a debate about that. However, it is important not only that the review that the Minister has talked about takes place, but that both Houses of Parliament have an opportunity to reflect on it in a measured and considered way.

The Minister said that we are going to have a busy programme. I remind him that we are likely to have a light legislative programme this year and that swathes of time are available because of changes such as what happened to reform of the House of Lords. The Minister knows that at any time he can negotiate and secure time in this House for speedy legislation on matters of great import. He also knows, without giving any secrets away, that there is bound to be a criminal justice Bill of some form in the forthcoming Gracious Speech, to which new clauses could be added. It is therefore disingenuous of him to say that it is not practical or possible to have primary legislation to effect these changes.

New clause 3 would provide for a limited debate in this House on massive changes and significant issues that relate to the safety of citizens across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. As the Minister has indicated, and as I will come on to when I speak to new schedule 1, he has not yet secured agreement for the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland. Given that the National Crime Agency will tackle big issues such as fuel smuggling and people trafficking, which are often linked to the funding of terrorism in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, it is not good enough for the Minister to propose an order-making power, super-affirmative though the procedure may be, to deliberate and agree on these proposals.

If the Minister does not accept what Lord Blair says, perhaps he will accept the view of the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Condon, who said:

“This is a hugely important matter that deserves primary legislation rather than an affirmative order… History tells us that more than 80% of terrorist incidents in this country happen in London.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2012; Vol. 741, c. 116.]

Two former Metropolitan Police Commissioners say that this matter should be considered through primary legislation, but the Minister still wants to bring forward a super-affirmative order.

I hope that I am not doing him a disservice if I quote the views of the current Metropolitan Police Commissioner from an article in The Times:

“Bernard Hogan-Howe said he believed that the link between local policing and counter-terrorism police had been essential to the success of the anti-terror strategy in Britain.”

The article goes on:

“‘What is the problem we are trying to remedy here?’ he asked. ‘And if there is to be a change, there will be a cost—at a time of austerity that will have to be considered.’”

I do not believe that that matter can be considered in the time available under the super-affirmative procedure.

We need to support the concerns that were expressed in another place. Unless something miraculous happens, I will not recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends support new clause 3, because I do not think that it is the appropriate way forward. The other place will consider the matter and we will deliberate on the views expressed there in due course.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

As I have said, the Government have an open mind on this matter. We want to achieve the best possible protection for the public. However, the three people whom the right hon. Gentleman has cited as making the case for the Met police to continue to have the lead role on counter-terrorism are the commissioner of the Met police and two ex-commissioners of the Met police. One would expect those people to argue for the central role of the Met police. They are perhaps not such good authorities on the case for one form of parliamentary procedure and scrutiny over another. The Government will make their judgments and recommendations about where counter-terrorism should sit and people will want to contribute to that debate, but those three people have quite partial backgrounds. We will ensure that the House has the adequate opportunity to scrutinise whatever the Government propose.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Let me say to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench that I am extremely shocked by what has been said—that they are not willing to support my amendments. This is the first time in the history of the labour movement—the first time ever in the history of the Labour party—that this party has supported in Parliament the removal of trade union rights from trade unionists. That is a significant step and marks a historic change in attitude. I urge those on the Front Bench to use these moments in this debate to think about what they are doing.

This is the party that campaigned to redress the disgraceful treatment of GCHQ workers—if people remember—all through the ’80s and ’90s, when a Conservative Government removed their trade union rights. This is the party that gave commitments to the Prison Officers Association that we would address its complaint that a Conservative Government had removed the right to take strike action from prison officers. I urge Labour MPs and others—anyone who is in the Chamber and anyone watching this debate outside—to understand what is happening here today, because this is significant. This is not a minor matter; this is about taking away a basic human right from a group of workers. It has never been done before in the history of our party.

I am grateful to my friend the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) for curtailing his speech—we were slightly out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I chair the PCS parliamentary group. It is a large group—I think we have 70-odd members on a cross-party basis—that represents the workers we are talking about. The PCS represents members in the Home Office and its agencies. It currently has about 2,700 members in the Serious Organised Crime Agency and will have between 3,350 and 3,500 members in the NCA when it is established. The whole discussion up to now has proceeded on the basis that these are civil servants, who respect the right of Government to govern and will therefore do all they can when there is a restructuring of Departments or Government agencies to ensure that they support the Government in that restructuring and implement the policies effectively. However, what the PCS seeks to do as a trade union is to protect its members’ basic rights, wages and working conditions.

The process of negotiation on the restructuring and the new agencies has been going on apace for a number of months. That is what trade unions do: they engage in negotiations. We thought that there would be discussions about negotiation structures and thus the opportunity to reach agreement, which is what has been achieved on a number of issues in these sorts of restructurings right across the civil service. However, we now have proposals, almost out of the blue, to introduce a no-strike provision and remove the right of this group of workers to take industrial action, as my friend the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said, and, in addition, to install a pay review body appointed by the Government, again without a negotiated agreement.

That is not the way to set up a new agency, lift people’s morale or secure their involvement and engagement in the implementation of policy; it is a rebuttal of all the negotiations that have taken place. It will mean that a large number of people will basically lose the right to take industrial action when they have a grievance. What we are talking about is some people who have the powers of a constable—the powers of arrest. I understand some of the concerns about that, but we are also talking about Revenue and Customs officers and immigration officers, who have been treated no differently in the past from any other civil servants. They have had the same rights of representation and the same trade union rights.

It is interesting that back in November the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed its concerns about the plans for NCA officials with operational powers to be forbidden to take strike action. The Committee said:

“we question whether the Government has yet demonstrated by reference to actual evidence that there is a pressing need to restrict the right of NCA officers to take strike action, bearing in mind that SOCA has so far operated with no restrictions on its officers’ right to strike. In our view, NCA officers are closer to SOCA officers than police officers. Even if there were evidence of such a need, on the evidence currently available to us we do not consider it to be proportionate to apply the no-strike provision to NCA officers who hold some of the operational powers, including officers who only exercise the operational powers of a customs officer or immigration officer and not those of a constable.”

So this is a human rights issue: the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said so. It has expressed its concern while these discussions have been going on. To be frank, the industrial relations atmosphere has been good. There is no evidence of any demand from management for the new power. Quite the reverse: management have been proceeding in the normal way in the negotiations, to see what structures are required to ensure worker engagement.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

Given all the points the hon. Gentleman is making and that he started his speech by saying that this was a historic first for the Labour party, I am curious to know why he thinks those on the Labour Front Bench do not agree with his arguments.

[John McDonnell]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I am not playing party politics with this. I do not have a clue why not: this is the first time I knew of it. If this issue was dealt with in Committee and I missed it, I apologise, but I thought that the attitude was to listen and wait for this debate. I thought we would listen to the members themselves who are on the front line—some of them, just like police officers, risk their lives in the work they do—yet who have never caused a problem in industrial relations.

Management have not come forward with these proposals; they have been brought forward by the Government. This is a Government whim. Someone in Government decided it would be worth trying for a no-strike provision on this group of workers. It is the thin end of the wedge, because there are some Conservative Back Benchers who have been seeking to introduce a no-strike provision across whole sectors of industry. I think this is the start. This group of workers is the experiment, to see whether people will acquiesce, and I am amazed that those on the Labour Front Bench have rolled over. That sends a signal to this Government to come forward with proposals for the transport sector and many others, as some have been planning to do for many years. I am absolutely staggered. How can these measures be brought forward unopposed at this stage, when negotiations are continuing? There could have been a negotiated settlement on the new structures and we could have avoided this kind of imposition. I will not spend too long on this, because there is another debate in Westminster Hall on the privatisation of the probation service that I would like to get to. This just goes on and on, but at least my own side is putting up some opposition to those proposals.

Let us be clear what clauses 12 and 13 will do. They will take away from civil servants a fundamental right that they have at the moment: the right to take industrial action. This is the crossing of the Rubicon. The clauses will bring in a ban on industrial action that extends well beyond the police and prison officers, where it already exists, to civil servants, on whom such a ban has never been imposed before. This is an unnecessary and unwelcome political device that is being used by the Government to test the water around their future policies on trade union and employment rights in this country.

As I have said, I think this is the thin end of the wedge. If the clauses are accepted by the House—and certainly if they are accepted by my party—on this occasion, this will be used as an example in other areas. That is why I am urging people to vote against them, and I will seek to divide the House on the matter. If I have to walk through the Lobby on my own, I will do so, because this is a fundamental matter of principle.

The workers involved are dedicated civil servants, but they deserve the right to protection and to basic human and trade union rights if they feel that management or others are imposing something on them that is unacceptable. Most of them never go on strike or take industrial action, but they deserve to have the right to do so if necessary, because that is the only protection they have against oppressive management or employers.

I urge comrades on this side of the House—members of the parliamentary Labour party—to use whatever time we have left in the debate to think again. This is not a trivial matter. It is not a simple “tidying-up exercise” in employee-management relationships in the new body; it will undermine a fundamental human right. This Government have already been criticised for their refusal to give the right to industrial action back to prison officers. They were criticised by the International Labour Organisation for being in contravention of all the international conventions on employment rights, yet there are people here on the Labour Benches today who are rolling over without a whimper of opposition to extending that denial of human rights to this group of workers. That is unacceptable.

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope to call a Division on this matter when I have the opportunity to do so, and I urge Members to vote against the measures. This is a significant matter; it is absolutely critical. It is a matter of conscience, not a matter of administrative convenience for management and the Government. It is a basic human rights issue, and I urge Members to vote for our amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

I wish to deal with one other point. When we raised concerns about constabulary powers, we were accused of wanting all the paedophiles and child exploiters to be free to do what they want. That was what was said about the National Crime Agency not having constabulary powers, but of course the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre does not have constabulary powers, and it does not particularly need or want them. Some of the issues we raised are shared by Jim Gamble; he has shared in some of our concerns and highlighted others of his own. Those of us who have issues are not purely playing politics; we are trying to make sure that policing, at all its levels, and in all its natures and its full character, is right and stays right.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

Time is short and so, although I will try to give a thorough response, I may be sparing in the number of interventions I take, for reasons that hon. Members will understand.

A lot of points were made about new clause 3 and the changes with regard to Northern Ireland. I will deal with those and then briefly with the amendments. I will not address the Government amendments, even though I have not yet spoken about those. The right hon. Members for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) made particular points about new clause 3, with the former making the point that a super-affirmative order could not be amended.

It is worth drawing the House’s attention to the fact that the procedure in the Bill requires the Home Secretary to

“have regard to

(a) any representations,

(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and

(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House”.

As I said earlier, we envisage that in those circumstances the cross-party Select Committee on Home Affairs would consider proposals brought forward. After the Home Secretary has considered those matters, she may revise the order before inviting each House to agree the amended order. The point I am making is that, although there may not be a provision for the House to amend such an order at the end of the deliberations, there will be multiple opportunities for different bodies of Parliament to inform any recommendations that the Home Secretary may wish to bring to our attention. That detailed scrutiny process may be more comprehensive and may contain more provision for amendment and scrutiny than attaching an item of primary legislation into an overarching so-called Christmas tree Bill at another stage. There is a danger of the House underestimating the degree of scrutiny that will be available to Members, and the Government would certainly wish such a serious measure to be scrutinised effectively.

We had a lot of debate about Northern Ireland, and it is worth stressing that I agree with the central thrust of the points that have been made by nearly every Member who has spoken; the United Kingdom Government wish the NCA’s provisions to reach right across the UK, and in so much as they do not that is a source of regret to us. I therefore think that there is no difference between the Government’s position and that of most Members who have spoken on that point. Obviously, a number of meetings have taken place between officials, Ministers here in London and Ministers in Northern Ireland, but David Ford, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, has led the main body of discussions. As legislative consent is a devolved process, it was for him to take forward the discussions with his Executive colleagues and the political parties. That is the proper way to proceed.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

There is a lot of desire to discuss proceeds of crime in Northern Ireland, so, ironically, the longer I speak, the less chance Members will have to speak about Northern Ireland matters. I will give way once, but I will not give way again, unless I have said something that offends people’s sensibilities.

[Ian Paisley]

The Minister certainly has not offended my sensibilities. He accepts that the Bill is deficient and will be deficient in its operation—he accepted that in Committee—and as he cannot obtain consent for the legislation in Northern Ireland, he is left with a choice. He can either ignore that and plough on without that consent or implement the legislation from this place. I think that it will boil down to that choice. The House will have to determine whether it will face down the unjustified opposition to the implementation of the Bill in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, if only because it allows me to clarify that it is our intention to abide by the Sewel convention. We are not in the business of facing down, as he puts it, elected representatives in Northern Ireland, as we want to proceed with their approval and consent.

It is worth making it clear to the House that the NCA will still have a role in Northern Ireland, as there is a danger that a casual observer of our deliberations might think otherwise. I can confirm that some types of cross-border crime will fall within the remit of the NCA in Northern Ireland, even in its constrained form. For example, the NCA in Northern Ireland will be able to tackle immigration or customs offences. The NCA and CEOP will continue to be able to co-operate with partners in Northern Ireland and we are seeking to mitigate the operational impact of the situation we find ourselves in.

The NCA and CEOP will continue to operate in Northern Ireland, but it is worth saying that that operation will be curtailed as a result of the absence of legislative consent. In a way, that illustrates the wider point. There will be an NCA function in Northern Ireland and obviously we hope and believe that it will benefit the people of Northern Ireland. It will not be as comprehensive as we would have wished, but there is provision for it to be made more comprehensive in the future, as and when the political will and consensus in Northern Ireland provide for that.

Let me deal briefly with the non-Government amendments. New clause 2, tabled by the right hon. Member for Delyn, seeks to provide for a review of the NCA within 12 months of Royal Assent. I think I said earlier that the NCA would come into effect in October 2013, but for the avoidance of doubt let me clarify the Government’s position. We wish the NCA to come into effect by the end of 2013. Our target date is October, but that will obviously depend on matters that are not necessarily directly within our control, including potential issues to do with Parliament.

The new clause asks for a review during the 12 months after Royal Assent. Obviously, we want to keep a close eye on the effectiveness and accountability of the NCA when it is up and running and that is a core job of Government and Parliament, but the Government do not believe that an additional formal review mechanism is necessary. There are plenty of other means by which Ministers and Parliament can examine the progress made by the NCA and by which Parliament can examine the actions and decisions of Ministers.

Amendment 3 would make the director general’s power to provide assistance to any overseas Government or body subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of State. It is worth noting that there is no equivalent requirement for the Secretary of State to seek consent in statute for SOCA, HMRC or the security and intelligence services. We see no reason why we should create unnecessary statutory barriers to continuing the good work that already happens. Day-to-day assistance between the NCA and its overseas partners will be so routine that it would be completely impractical to require the Secretary of State to give consent in every instance.

On amendments 95 and 102, I must say that it was refreshing to hear the principal argument being made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who made the case for trade unionism. Those points were not given more than a passing and cursory airing in Committee and were not raised by the Labour Front Bench, so we are not minded to agree to the amendments given that, as I understand it, there is consensus among the political parties that the Government are right and the Labour party enthusiastically supports the Government’s position on the trade unions.

[Mr Hanson]

Would the Minister clarify for me, given what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has said, who he believes will be covered by the provisions of clause 12 in addition to those, such as Keith Bristow, who are accredited police officers?

[Mr Browne]

It is interesting; we now do have interest from the Opposition Front Bench.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I will speak to the amendments in the group.

[John McDonnell]

It is important that we hear a response to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), because the people who are covered in the legislation are not just police officers; they are immigration officers, they are customs officers. What has also happened is that, as of three weeks ago, the staff have been notified. Some of those officers from SOCA who will be moving across had no powers; their powers had lapsed. They have been told that by October, investiture day, their powers will be returned to them and they will be included in the cache of people to whom the no-strike provisions apply. That means that, already, 1,500 people—possibly—will be included, as well as potentially another 900 staff. The provision goes beyond police officers to immigration officers and customs officers.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Let me explain the Government’s position and see whether I can persuade him to take the same view as those on the Labour Front Bench. [Hon. Members: “Answer the question.”] I will; I am coming to it. Calm down. Those on the Labour Front Bench have supported us on this all along, and they have good reason for doing so. I want to try to persuade the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that Labour is right to support the Government’s position, so let me explain our position.

Amendments 95 and 102 seek to remove the restriction on the right to strike for NCA officers with operational powers. This is an important measure to ensure that the NCA can protect the public from the threat of serious and organised crime and be operationally effective around the clock, every day of the year. Criminals do not stop when there is strike action. The threat to the British public from serious and organised crime is a constant threat and we do not want NCA operations disrupted or jeopardised by striking NCA officers. In the interests of public safety, it is therefore necessary that we restrict the right to strike of certain NCA officers. That will apply to NCA officers with operational powers. This is not about banning NCA officers from being members of a trade union, should they wish; it is about ensuring that the public remain protected at all times.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been clear that our strong preference is to put in place a voluntary no-strike agreement with those unions that will be recognised by the NCA. That would, in practice, impose strike restrictions on the vast majority of NCA officers and establish an alternative method for resolving disputes with the organisation. If that is achieved, the Bill gives the Home Secretary a power to suspend the operation of the provisions restricting the right to strike. In essence, therefore, the no-strike provision is designed as a reserve provision.

I return to the central point: I think the public will not be able to understand why, if they are at threat from serious and organised crime, the agencies of the state, which are paid for from our taxes to protect the public from that serious and organised crime, should not be available 24 hours a day to do so. The threat to the public exists 24 hours a day. I would ask the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to reflect on that central point, because as I understand it, unless those on the Labour Front Bench have changed their position, it has been accepted by the Labour party that we should be seeking to protect the public around the clock. I invite the hon. Gentleman to accept that point too.

[John McDonnell]

Of course that is the case; we all accept the need to protect the public. Until now, customs and revenue officers—the immigration officers—have been able to do that without having the right to strike withdrawn. That is what the Labour party thought was happening. The Labour Front-Bench team thought that the provision related to policing powers, but it has gone well beyond that. A briefing was circulated to all MPs on Friday to explain that. Some people are saying that they did not receive it. I have a list of the e-mail addresses that it went to, so I know who got it. That briefing showed, in the explanation from management to staff, that the provision has gone well beyond what Ministers originally proposed, which was just for police officers. It has been extended to immigration officers—customs officers—who have always had the right to strike and yet have always protected our country. This is a massive step beyond anything that was proposed initially in the Bill.

[Mr Browne]

If the Opposition spokespeople have changed their position—

[John McDonnell]

They have not changed their position.

[Mr Browne]

Well, if they have come to see the wisdom of the position adopted by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and accept the inadequacies of their previous position, they will support him when he presses the amendment to a Division.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

Let me finish the point. [Interruption.] I will give way; I have already done so, and I will do so again, but there is a serious point to be made. NCA officers with operational powers should, as they are paid to do from our taxes, protect the public 24 hours a day from the threat of serious and organised crime. We want that arrangement to be secured through negotiation, as I have outlined, but the bottom line is that we want the public to be protected by the NCA around the clock, because the threat from serious and organised crime exists around the clock. If Opposition Members do not want NCA officers with operational powers to be available around the clock, they should say so explicitly.

[Mr Hanson]

It may come as a surprise to the Minister, but part of the purpose of Report is to discuss matters of implementation. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has raised concerns that were circulated late on Friday. I just want clarification from the Minister as to what he means by “some officers”. Will he confirm whether customs officers and immigration officers will be included in the provision under clause 12, as opposed to just police officers, whom we understand to be those who have constable roles, as the Opposition understood in Committee?

[Mr Browne]

Let me say two things. Nothing in the Government’s position has changed since Committee. There is an idea that this is something that has been circulated at the last moment and which Labour has suddenly discovered, but the Bill is the Bill. If there are agonies in the Labour party about where—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should wait a second; I am trying to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point. If the Labour party cannot decide where it stands on the matter, that is for it to resolve internally.

I have been given a note that confirms what I have said. For the avoidance of doubt, I said that the measure applies to people with operational powers, and the Bill has always provided that those NCA officers designated with operational powers— police, customs or immigration powers—will be prevented from striking. That is what the measure said from the outset. I feel bad, because the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is being told by Labour Whips that they are all on his side and so on. He should have served on the Committee, because Labour Members did not object to the measure there. They have to resolve that between themselves, but our view—the bottom-line view, which is the same as when the matter first came up; nothing changed in Committee or elsewhere—is that the provisions on the NCA should be there to protect the public around the clock from a threat that they face around the clock.

[John McDonnell]

This is about exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said. This is what we call legislating; this is what we call debate. We discover during the passage of legislation the implications of that legislation. I did not serve on the Bill Committee, so this is my opportunity to discover and debate. We have all discovered that the intention of the Bill is to remove the right to strike, not from police officers but from immigration and customs officers, who are civil servants—they are not police officers. That was never the intention behind any of the debates until now, and on that basis, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote for the amendment. If the Government need to return with clarification at a later stage in another place, that is fair enough, but we must ensure that we do not introduce legislation in the House that is a fundamental attack on a fundamental human right.

[Mr Browne]

I will clarify the fact that the intention of this part of the Bill is very straightforward. There is a serious threat to the public of the United Kingdom 24 hours a day from serious and organised crime, and we want the new National Crime Agency to meet and counter that threat from the people who perpetrate it 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. So we want a consensus to be arrived at about the best way that these affairs can be structured, but we do not want people to be threatened by serious and organised crime and for operational officers at the National Crime Agency to be unavailable to counter that threat.

Labour Members appear to have changed their position and we will have a Division in the House of Commons on that. I hope that enough Members of the two parties in the coalition will share my view and the view of the Government that it is not appropriate for the public to be left exposed to the threat from serious and organised crime in the way that is envisaged by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, which appears, in this ever shifting situation, now to be endorsed by the right hon. Member for Delyn as well.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

Having been told that Labour Whips wanted us to proceed quickly, I give way for the fifth time to the Opposition.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister. He should know that one of our concerns is that police officers should not have the right to strike, and we have supported that. I wanted clarification from him, which perhaps we should have sought in Committee when we discussed the detail of the matter, but he appears to be getting notes from his officials about that. Information has come to light with regard to customs officers and immigration officers, and we wanted clarification on that. I cannot support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington calling for the removal of the whole clause, but clarification is certainly needed on the matter.

[Mr Browne]

I received a note because I said to Parliament that the provision applied to NCA employees with operational powers, and Labour MPs who have hitherto been entirely happy to endorse the Government’s position suddenly changed their mind. That gave me cause for concern that I may inadvertently have made a mistake when I said that the provision applied to NCA officers with any operational powers, so I sought clarification from officials that I had been right all along and that Labour had been happy to endorse that position, and they reassured me that I had been right and Labour had been happy to endorse that position.

I commend the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington on the power that he wields within the Labour party. Labour had been entirely happy to endorse the Government’s position, which is that we believe that people who are potentially victims of serious and organised crime should not have the National Crime Agency unavailable to protect them from that serious and organised crime. Labour now takes a different position so, as I say, when there is a Division on the matter, we will have to see which vision of public protection commands the support of the House. With respect to all the other new clauses and amendments in this group, I hope the House will see fit to support those of the Government and reject those tabled by other Members.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the Chair has not been advised of such a sale, but his point is now on the record, and I am sure that since he has raised it, the Prisons Minister will get in touch with him to say whether it has been sold. I look to the Government Front Bench as I say that I presume that has been taken on board.

New Schedule 2

Proceeds of crime provisions: Northern Ireland

Part 1

Civil recovery provisions

Meaning of “relevant civil recovery provision”

1 For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, each of the following is a “relevant civil recovery provision”—

(a) section 33(2), (3), (5) and (6);

(b) section 33(7) so far as it relates to amendments made by section 33(2), (3) and (5) and Part 2 of Schedule 17;

(c) each provision in Schedule 17;

(d) each amendment or repeal made by the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (c).

Relevant civil recovery provisions not to extend to Northern Ireland unless order made

2 (1) The relevant civil recovery provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland.

(2) But that is subject to paragraph 3.

Power to provide for relevant civil recovery provisions to extend to Northern Ireland

3 The Secretary of State may, by order, provide for one or more of the relevant civil recovery provisions to extend to Northern Ireland.

Relevant civil recovery provision extending to Northern Ireland

4 (1) The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant civil recovery provision extending to Northern Ireland.

(2) An order under this paragraph may, in particular—

(a) provide for section 282A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to have effect in relation to orders made by the High Court in Northern Ireland;

(b) provide for an enforcement authority in relation to Northern Ireland to make requests for assistance under section 282B of that Act;

(c) provide for a receiver appointed under an order made by the High Court in Northern Ireland to make requests for assistance under section 282C of that Act;

(d) provide for the High Court in Northern Ireland or a receiver appointed by an order made by that court to make requests for assistance under section 282D of that Act;

(e) provide for an enforcement authority or trustee for civil recovery to make a request for assistance under section 282F of that Act where a recovery order has been made by the High Court in Northern Ireland;

(f) provide for section 316(8B) of that Act to have effect in relation to an enforcement authority in relation to Northern Ireland.

Relevant civil recovery provision not extending to Northern Ireland

5 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant civil recovery provision not extending to Northern Ireland.

Consent of Northern Ireland Assembly to transferred provision

6 (1) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this Part of this Schedule which makes transferred provision unless the Northern Ireland Assembly consents to the making of that provision.

(2) In this paragraph “transferred provision” means provision which, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—

(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and

(b) would deal with a transferred matter without being ancillary to other provision (whether in the Act or previously enacted) which deals with an excepted or reserved matter.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

“ancillary” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;

“excepted matter”, “reserved matter” and “transferred matter” have the meanings given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Orders under this Part of this Schedule: particular provision

7 (1) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph 3, 4 or 5 (whether by virtue of that paragraph or section 43(12)) includes—

(a) provision conferring, removing or otherwise modifying a function (whether or not exercisable in, or in relation to, Northern Ireland);

(b) provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any enactment (including an enactment contained in, or amended by, this Act).

(2) Such an order may provide for provision amending, repealing or otherwise modifying Chapter 2 or 4 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to have retrospective effect.

(3) The making of an order under any provision of this Part of this Schedule does not prevent—

(a) a further order from being made under that provision, or

(b) an order from being made under any other provision of this Part of this Schedule.

(4) An order under paragraph 3 or 4 may modify or reverse the effects of an order made under paragraph 5.

(5) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (4) do not limit the powers conferred by paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.

(6) In this paragraph—

“enactment” means any enactment, whenever passed or made, contained in—

(a) an Act of Parliament;

(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(c) Northern Ireland legislation;

(d) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;

(e) an instrument made under any such Act, legislation or Measure;

(f) any other subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);

“function” means a function of any description, including a power or duty (whether conferred by an enactment or arising otherwise).

Part 2

Investigation provisions

Meaning of “relevant investigation provision”

8 For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, each of the following is a “relevant investigation provision”—

(a) each provision in paragraphs 2 to 13, 25 to 27, 29 and 30 of Schedule 18 (including each amendment or repeal made by those provisions), and

(b) section 34 so far as it relates to each of those provisions.

Relevant investigation provisions not to extend to Northern Ireland unless order made

9 (1) The relevant investigation provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland.

(2) But that is subject to paragraph 10.

Power to provide for relevant investigation provisions to extend to Northern Ireland

10 The Secretary of State may, by order, provide for one or more of the relevant investigation provisions to extend to Northern Ireland.

Relevant investigation provision extending to Northern Ireland

11 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant investigation provision extending to Northern Ireland.

Relevant investigation provision not extending to Northern Ireland

12 The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, a relevant investigation provision not extending to Northern Ireland.

Consent of Northern Ireland Assembly to transferred provision

13 (1) The Secretary of State may not make an order under this Part of this Schedule which makes transferred provision unless the Northern Ireland Assembly consents to the making of that provision.

(2) In this paragraph “transferred provision” means provision which, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—

(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and

(b) would deal with a transferred matter without being ancillary to other provision (whether in the Act or previously enacted) which deals with an excepted matter or a reserved matter.

(3) In sub-paragraph (2)—

“ancillary” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;

“excepted matter”, “reserved matter” and “transferred matter” have the meanings given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Orders under this Part of this Schedule: particular provision

14 (1) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph 10, 11 or 12 (whether by virtue of that paragraph or section 43(12)) includes—

(a) provision conferring, removing or otherwise modifying a function (whether or not exercisable in, or in relation to, Northern Ireland);

(b) provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any enactment (including an enactment contained in, or amended by, this Act).

(2) The making of an order under any provision of this Part of this Schedule does not prevent—

(a) a further order from being made under that provision, or

(b) an order from being made under any other provision of this Part of this Schedule.

(3) An order under paragraph 10 or 11 may modify or reverse the effects of an order made under paragraph 12.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) do not limit the powers conferred by paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.

(5) In this paragraph—

“enactment” means any enactment, whenever passed or made, contained in—

(a) an Act of Parliament;

(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;

(c) Northern Ireland legislation;

(d) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;

(e) an instrument made under any such Act, legislation or Measure;

(f) any other subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978);

“function” means a function of any description, including a power or duty (whether conferred by an enactment or arising otherwise).’.—(Mr Jeremy Browne.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 61 to 71, 75, 86 and 88.

[Mr Browne]

I do not propose to detain the House long on the new schedule and amendments. In essence, they deal with the consequences of the failure to agree a legislative consent motion in Northern Ireland for the proceeds of crime provisions in the Bill, just as similar amendments in the previous group dealt with the consequences of not securing an LCM for the NCA provisions. As I have already explained the context of the amendments and it has been given an extensive airing, I do not propose to cover the same ground again.

The amendments made to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in Committee to remedy the effects of the Perry judgment will operate UK-wide, but as with the NCA provisions, which we have just discussed, in the absence of an LCM it is necessary that we amend those provisions so that they do not extend to Northern Ireland. In new schedule 2, a similar approach is adopted in respect of the proceeds of crime provisions to that taken in new schedule 1 in respect of the NCA. It provides that “relevant civil recovery provisions” and “relevant investigation provisions” do not extend to Northern Ireland.

The primary outcome of the new schedule and the associated amendments to clause 33 and schedule 17 is that the High Court of England and Wales will be able to make a civil recovery order against property located outside the UK where there is, or has been, a connection between the case in question and the relevant part of the UK, and the Court of Session will have similar powers in Scotland, but the High Court of Northern Ireland will not be able to make such an order. If the unlawful conduct occurred in Northern Ireland but the property was located outside Northern Ireland, the High Court of Northern Ireland would have no power to make an order over that property.

Like new schedule 1, however, which we considered in the last group of amendments, new schedule 2 contains a number of order-making powers that will enable the Secretary of State to extend certain civil recovery and investigation provisions to Northern Ireland at a later date. In respect of matters falling within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Secretary of State must secure the Assembly’s consent before doing so. As I have indicated, we will continue to work with the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice to secure all-party agreement to the full application of the Bill’s proceeds of crime provisions to Northern Ireland, but for now we must ensure that the Bill respects the Sewel convention.

[Mr Hanson]

I say again to the Minister that this is a really difficult issue for Northern Ireland. It is a big hole in the Bill. He has just said that because we do not have agreement with the Northern Ireland Assembly, from Royal Assent Northern Ireland will not have asset recovery powers, because of judgments that have been made in relation to the UK as a whole. Because Northern Ireland’s jurisdiction has not agreed to the provisions in the Bill, we will face difficulties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

This is an extremely serious issue, and I want the Minister to say not just that there is a problem—he has done that—but what the solution is in relation to getting parties around the table to discuss the Executive agreeing to provisions on asset recovery. This is not a hypothetical issue. On 6 March a British newspaper stated:

“Briton hunted as police crack IRA and Mafia fraud scheme…A British man…is being sought by detectives investigating the £390m fraud which was based around a development on the…coast of…Southern Italy.”

Italian authorities arrested people in dawn raids and a warrant has been issued for the arrest of an individual from Belfast whom I shall not name. If that individual is convicted of fraud in Italy, his Italian assets cannot be confiscated because he is resident in Belfast. If he was resident in our constituencies of Delyn, Darlington, Walthamstow, Taunton or Middlesbrough, however, he could be taken to court and his assets taken from him.

There is a massive incentive for criminals to relocate to Northern Ireland, and for those operating criminal activities across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to continue doing so. I know there are issues in some political parties about the provisions and the legislative consent motion, but I appeal to the Northern Ireland Executive to consider the matter again because it is undermining action against criminal activity in Northern Ireland.

In the few minutes remaining I would welcome the Minister outlining a clear road map and stating how he intends to resolve this problem. It is not simply about bringing an order forward in the future, but about how we can reach an agreement where such an order can be effected to close this appalling loophole.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

In a way, points or lines of difference are being drawn between the two Front Benches that do not exist. The right hon. Gentleman described the situation correctly because the status of a criminal from Taunton—that was his example—would be different from that of a criminal from Belfast when it came to the seizure of assets. The Government of the United Kingdom do not want that to be the case and wish the arrangements to apply universally across the United Kingdom. That is partly because measures to rectify the offence of illegally acquired assets and to address that wrong should apply regardless of where in the United Kingdom it took place, but also because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, this situation creates an extremely worrying incentive for people wishing to perpetrate organised crime and acquire financial assets to base themselves in Northern Ireland. That is an extremely worrying development, I would have thought, for any Member who represents a Northern Ireland constituency, but it is also a concern for the United Kingdom Government as a whole, because we do not want such perverse and malign incentives to result from decisions made by politicians.

[Paul Goggins]

rose—

[Ian Paisley]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

One second.

Our position is clear. In a way, this is a strange debate, in that I am explaining the reality as it stands, but it is not the reality as I would like it to be. The British Government would like the NCA to apply in Northern Ireland in the way I have been describing throughout this afternoon. At the same time, we cannot have a system of devolution that applies only when the United Kingdom Government approve of the decisions made by the politicians in the devolved Executive and legislature. For devolution to mean anything, where the politicians in the devolved Executive and legislature—in this case in Northern Ireland—are not willing to endorse the preferred option of the United Kingdom Government, there obviously has to be a sense of discretion among those politicians. I want the politicians in Northern Ireland to arrive at the outcome that the United Kingdom Government seek, because I think it would be in the interests of the people in Northern Ireland.

[Ian Paisley]

That analysis might come back to bite the Minister under another set of circumstances. All I would say is that the First Minister of Northern Ireland said in evidence to a Select Committee in this House that, because of the disagreement, this sovereign Parliament should rule on it. That is the test for the Minister. Rule on it! He should make the sovereign decision if there has been no agreement. Let us remember that the majority of the Assembly has voted in favour of this proposal and the majority of the Executive is for it, but it is being held to ransom by a tiny, tiny minority.

[Mr Browne]

The point I am making is that the proposal is not being held to ransom by the UK Government. I agree with the hon. Gentleman; indeed, if I may say so, the tone of his intervention would rather imply to anybody who had not followed our deliberations carefully that he and I are on different sides of the argument. I agree with what he has said: I want people in Northern Ireland to have just as much protection under the NCA as people in my constituency of Taunton Deane, but I also recognise that the constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland is different from that in Somerset. Therefore, different considerations apply.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the Minister not accept, however, that on this issue there is a big difference? The inability to seize assets that criminals who operate from Northern Ireland might have outside Northern Ireland is a UK-wide problem, in so far as criminals currently involved in activities here in Great Britain could relocate to Northern Ireland and thereby escape losing their ill-gotten gains. From that point of view, this is not simply a Northern Ireland issue or an issue for the Government of Northern Ireland; rather, it becomes an issue for the Government of the United Kingdom. At least on this issue, he could override the views in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Browne]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

I look forward to the Minister’s response and to a full explanation of just how he will make the offence of drug-driving a reality in this country in the years ahead.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

I will talk mainly about drug-driving because that has been the largest part of our debate, but I will pick up on the points that have been made in relation to other amendments.

On drug-driving, it is important that we consider carefully any extra burdens that we place on the police, the Crown prosecutors and the Courts Service when introducing a new offence. The Government published an impact assessment in May last year that considered those issues. It shows that removing the requirement to prove that a driver is impaired will make it easier to enforce the law against drug-drivers.

In 2010, about 40% of the proceedings in magistrates courts for driving while impaired through drugs were withdrawn or dismissed. The comparable figure for exceeding the drink-drive limit is just 3%. In addition, research for Sir Peter North’s review of drink and drug-driving law found that in one police force, only 35% of positive preliminary impairment tests led to findings of guilt at court in 2008 and 2009. It is clear, therefore, that the existing law on drug-driving is unsatisfactory, resulting in costs being incurred unnecessarily by the police, the CPS and the courts.

The new offence will reduce the wasted time, expense and effort involved when prosecutions under the existing impairment offence fail. It is not surprising, therefore, that the new offence is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers. ACPO has been fully involved in the development of the proposal and is fully aware of the resource implications for the police.

Depending on the level at which specified limits are set and on the drugs specified for the offence, it is possible that introducing the new offence, which does not require proof of impairment, will increase the number of proceedings against drug-drivers. However, based on the Government’s estimates, those costs will be more than offset by savings from fewer road deaths and serious injuries. Indeed, the impact assessment published in May 2012 records an overall net saving of some £86 million over a 10-year period.

I acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, there is still work to be done and that getting the technical details right is difficult and important. Although she said that this work is being done at the last moment, we do not envisage the offence coming into effect until the later part of next year, so there is time to get the details right. The Department for Transport and, where relevant, the Home Office will be concerned to ensure that the details are in place.

The hon. Lady asked about police equipment and training to support the enforcement of the new offence. Equipment was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). We have already granted type approval for the first station-based drug screening device for use in enforcing the existing impairment offence. We are also committed to type approving roadside devices for use in enforcing the new offence. Work on that will be taken forward once we have determined the drugs to be covered by the new offence and the specified limit for each drug. Our aim is to have approved roadside devices available as soon as practicable after the commencement of the new offence. As hon. Members will know, training on the use of new equipment is an operational matter for chief officers in consultation with roadside drug-testing device manufacturers. I acknowledge the validity of the observation made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow that the Government do not have the answers to every question, but I hope that I can reassure the House that the work is ongoing.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister respond to the question that I asked him about the expert panel, which has set out a series of substances that should be tested for? Will the Government accept its recommendations in full and ensure that every police force can test for all the substances that it has outlined?

[Mr Browne]

No final decision has been made on the precise list of what will be tested for. We are grateful for the contributions and representations that have been made, and when we are in a position to provide the details we will do so. We obviously want to ensure that a wide range of drugs whose consumption could lead to increased risk on our roads are covered, but the line will need to be drawn somewhere and there will be practical considerations to take into account. We will obviously want to ensure that we inform everybody once the deliberations have run their course.

On new clause 18 and amendment 120, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has explained that he is concerned about the penalty regimes for drink and drug-driving. That is the issue that has exercised people the most, so I think it will be helpful if I dwell on it for a while. The new drug-driving offence created in clause 41 will be subject to the same penalty regime as the existing drink-driving offence of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. The penalties available are mandatory disqualification from driving for at least a year, and a fine of up to £5,000, and/or imprisonment for up to six months. In addition, there is the offence in section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, which carries a penalty of up to 14 years’ imprisonment. It is necessary for the prosecution to show that a person’s driving was careless to secure a conviction for that offence.

Section 3ZB of the 1988 Act makes it a criminal offence to cause death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both. Amendment 120 would amend that section to include people who were driving with a specified controlled drug in their body in excess of a specified limit. Importantly for my hon. Friend, carelessness does not have to be proved to secure a conviction under that section. I know that he is concerned that requiring the prosecution to prove carelessness puts too great a burden on it, but the Government are not aware of any recent cases in which that has proved problematic. The hon. Member for Walthamstow made that point.

The test for carelessness is broad, and CPS guidance suggests that a wide variety of circumstances should be considered as carelessness. Indeed, in the case of Lillian Groves, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell)—although he is in another debate now, he has been extremely vigilant in pursuing the case on behalf of his constituents—the driver was convicted of causing death by careless driving. It therefore seems likely that if the new offence had been in force when the tragedy took place, the defendant would have been tried under the section 3A offence, provided that the prosecution could also show that he had a specified controlled drug in his body in excess of the specified limit.

However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate or interested groups can provide evidence that prosecutors are failing to prosecute drivers for the section 3A offence because they cannot show that the driver was careless, the Department for Transport has undertaken to review the case for amending legislation. The changes in the Bill will make a difference, but the carelessness provision already stands and we have no reason to believe that it will prevent prosecutions, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow suggested. However, if evidence of that is brought to our attention we will of course consider it properly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate also proposed new clause 18 that would increase the maximum sentence for the prescribed limit drink-driving offence to two years’ imprisonment. The United Kingdom already has the toughest drink-driving penalties in Europe. Sir Peter North’s 2010 review of drink and drug-driving law examined the penalty regime and did not identify any evidence that would support that increase in the maximum sentence. The Government are not aware of any new evidence that has come to light since the North report was published.

The Government consider that the existing offence framework is sufficient and appropriate, and ensures that those who ought not to be on the roads are removed from them. Where more serious offences are committed—such as where others are hurt or killed—other relevant offences could be pursued. I do not want to suggest in any way that the Government are complacent about or insufficiently vigilant in the face of such matters. We want to make our roads as safe as possible, but it is worth noting that Britain has some of the safest roads anywhere in Europe and the western world. That is due to responsible social attitudes but also the fact that the legal framework in place has been shown to be effective. I understand, however, why people involved in each individual case and each individual tragedy would feel strongly about these matters.

Amendments 89 and 90 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) bring me to the subject of public order offences. I suggest that the amendments would limit the police’s ability to deal with those who can be shown to be intentionally provoking violence, causing others to fear violence, or causing harassment, alarm or distress to others. They would do that by removing the word “insulting” from the offences under sections 4 and 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

My hon. Friend may see the amendments as a helpful intervention to bring those sections of the 1986 Act into line with the amendment to section 5 of that Act set out in clause 42, but that would be a mistake as it would ignore the thorough consideration, consultation and debate undertaken by the Government, both here and in the other place, before agreeing to reform section 5. It would also ignore the significant differences between the section 5 offence and the more serious offences described in sections 4 and 4A. This is not just a tidying-up exercise; sections 4 and 4A are materially different from section 5. Offences under sections 4 and 4A require proof of intent to cause harm to another person, and proof that harassment, alarm or distress was both intended and actually caused to another person. The intent and harm caused are the differentiating features of those offences, rather than the likely effect of the words used or behaviour involved.

Using insulting words that cause someone to fear violence against them, or that have the deliberate intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress, is a far more serious matter than the section 5 offence in which the perpetrator might not intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and indeed none might have been caused. In the Government’s view, using insulting words or behaviour in the context of sections 4 or 4A oversteps the line between freedom of speech and the freedom of someone to live in peace and safety. The line must be drawn somewhere, and the Government believe it right to draw it between sections 4A and 5.

Furthermore, during the long-running campaign that culminated in clause 42, one key argument put forward by those seeking to remove “insulting” from section 5 of the 1986 Act was that removal would not have a negative impact on minority groups. The reasoning behind that was that the police have more appropriate powers available to deal with such unacceptable behaviour under sections 4 and 4A of the 1986 Act. Having accepted that argument as part of the reasoning behind the removal of “insulting” from section 5, it seems perverse to remove the protections for minorities provided by the “insulting” limb in sections 4 and 4A.

In summary, for reasons that I hope I have explained to the satisfaction of the House, the Government are not persuaded of the case for making the same change to section 4 and 4A offences that clause 42 makes to the section 5 offence.

Finally, I ought to speak briefly to the single Government amendment in this group, amendment 84, which provides for the enhanced householder defence provisions in clause 30 to come into force on Royal Assent. Clause 30 is designed to give householders greater latitude to protect themselves in those terrifying circumstances when they are confronted by intruders in their homes. We recognise that it is unusual, although not unprecedented, to commence provisions of this nature on Royal Assent. We would usually allow a gap of at least two months between Royal Assent and commencement, to allow the enforcement agencies time to prepare. However, in this case we are anxious to avoid any unnecessary delay in delivering a coalition commitment and, more important, a tangible enhancement of the protection that householders have to defend themselves. The Government have discussed the amendment with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which are content with clause 30 being commenced on Royal Assent. We think the public would find it difficult to understand why commencement had been delayed beyond Royal Assent, particularly if a householder was attacked by an intruder in the intervening period while acting to protect themselves or family members, but could not rely on the heightened householder defence.

For all the reasons I have set out, I would invite Opposition Members and my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Bury North not to press their amendments. I recognise that I cannot provide the House with all the practical details of the methods that police forces will use to test for drug-driving, but we are at the broad legislative phase, not the practical implementation phase. I can assure the House that we will no doubt discuss such practical considerations in due course, but they are not necessary to approve the proposed legislation before us.

[Stella Creasy]

Given the Minister’s open, earnest and welcome admission that he cannot answer the questions raised today and that the spirit of our amendment 2 is precisely to get at that information, will he tell the House when we will have that information about the implementation of the offence and the ability of our police forces and courts to deal with it? After all, our amendment calls for information one year after the introduction of the offence, which seems a reasonable amount of time to expect police forces to deal with it, so can he explicitly set out for the House when he expects to report back on these issues?

[Mr Browne]

The Government will publish a revised impact assessment alongside our consultation on the drugs to be covered by the new offence and the limit for each, and we will revise it again, if required, before the draft regulations are laid before Parliament. As the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, they will need to be debated and approved by each House before they can be made and come into force. Given the requirement to consult on the draft regulations and then to have them approved, we are working on the basis that the new offence will come into force in the latter half of 2014, as I said a few moments ago.

On that basis, I would suggest that requiring a full evaluation of the impact of the new offence just 12 months after Royal Assent would be premature. However, I can assure the House that the Government will commission research to evaluate the effectiveness of the new offence once it is in operation. The research will take account of the impact of the new offence on the police, prosecutors and the courts. The results of such research will be published on the Department for Transport’s website. A lot of the responsibility sits with the Department for Transport rather than the Home Office, but I am not in a position to give the hon. Lady a definitive date when these matters can be considered in detail. All I can give is an assurance that this work is being undertaken and that opportunities will exist to consider such matters. I say this entirely in a spirit of openness, but I see no reason why we would not wish to give Members in all parts of the House an opportunity to consider the progress the Government have made when we are in a position to bring forward proposals that will stimulate a debate and consideration of that type.

With that, I hope that Members will see fit not to press their amendments, and I commend Government amendment 84 to the House.

[Mr Burrowes]

I welcome the debate on new clause 18. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) referred to the proposals as a “bauble”, but this is a serious matter and I am not sure that the victims, the police and the road safety charities behind the new clause would appreciate it being referred to as a bauble. However, I appreciate that her comments were being made in the general context of the Bill.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme No. 2)

Jeremy Browne Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the Order of 14 January 2013 (Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:

1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.

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

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

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

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is trying get a balance on the scrutiny issue. Is the simple way of doing that not by trying to guess where the knives come but by simply not having a programme motion and letting this House debate things, as it should do, until it has scrutinised everything? That is what we used to say in opposition, so why are we not saying it in government?

[Mr Browne]

If we were to do that in this specific case, we would default to having the one day of debate that has been allowed for by this House; the Government are expanding the opportunities for the hon. Gentleman by introducing this programme motion to allow two days’ debate. On his more general point, I think it is fair to say that there is general agreement across the House that legislation that is not timetabled at all is not the collective will of the House, if I can put it that way.

[Mr Bone]

rose—

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

rose—

[Mr Browne]

I will give way in a moment. I do not want to get too far off the beaten track, but I think that under the previous Government and under this one there has been a presumption that scheduling business—with a few provisions made for financial legislation, for example—is a sensible way to conduct our deliberations in this House. This is not a debate about whether the procedures of the House have changed; it is about the programme motion for this Bill.

[Mr Bone]

We are seeing new Government policy here. This was never in the coalition agreement and, until now, it has not been the view of the coalition. The coalition wants to have a business of the House Committee, so that the Government would be taken completely out of these programme motions. Is this another Liberal Democrat U-turn?

[Mr Browne]

As the last bit of that intervention was so trite, I will give way to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and then deal with both interventions together.

[Mr Llwyd]

I just wish to make the point that there is no unanimity across the House that every piece of legislation should be programmed. I was a Member in the early ’90s, before the hon. Gentleman was elected to this House, and under the Conservative Government of that time programming was used rarely indeed and things seemed to work out all right.

[Mr Browne]

I was not wishing to get off the beaten track, and I did not say that there was unanimity in the House. There may be Members who want to debate the motions and business before the House until 5 or 6 o’clock every morning, and they are perfectly entitled to take that view. All I am saying is that we have come to a reasonably settled collective agreement that some sort of timetabling of legislation gives clarity. The balance we are trying to obtain is between ensuring that clarity and providing sufficient scope for all the different points of view to be aired. That is why, as I say, we are making generous provision in this programme motion for this stage of the deliberations on this Bill. I am sure that the wider points that have been made have been heard by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and, indeed, by the shadow Leader of the House. They no doubt spend a lot of time deliberating these matters and can now spend more time considering the issues raised this afternoon.

I have an important and specific extra announcement to make, which relates to the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment. The Government will also introduce a supplementary programme motion if the cross-party talks have concluded—either with or without agreement—to allow debate of Leveson-related amendments on the second day of business on this Bill. On that basis, both coalition parties will support the programme motion, having had the assurances that I have just delivered at the Dispatch Box, and will support the supplementary motion. I hope that we will now get on and debate the many important issues addressed in this Bill and in the amendments already tabled by right hon. and hon. Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

There are two parts to our deliberation: first, whether the House should programme business at all; and secondly, a specific set of points about provision for discussion of Leveson. On the first part, within about a minute, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) went from describing me as a great democrat, which is extremely flattering, to suggesting that I was an exponent of Stalinist central control. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), however, said that we had a benign Government, so we need to discuss whether Stalinism can be benign. I hope that we are on the benign end of the scale.

There was a vote only a few months ago not to reduce the number of hours, but to adjust Tuesday sitting hours and other provisions, so that we would finish, apart from in exceptional circumstances, at 7 o’clock on Tuesday evening, rather than at 10 o’clock. The majority of Members who voted in that Division favoured the earlier finish on Tuesday. I was not one of them, but the majority made that decision. I do not detect—but I am not responsible for these matters—a groundswell of support for the proposal routinely to sit late into the night to deliberate on Bills, as most Members find it helpful to timetable our business, as long as the Executive make reasonable provision for those deliberations. As I have tried to explain, we are doing precisely that with the Bill.

On the new dimension of Leveson and the points made by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), for the benefit of the House, may I underline the crucial point? The Government will bring forward a supplementary programme motion if the cross-party talks have concluded, whether that is with or without agreement. If those talks have concluded, we will introduce a supplementary programme motion. With that assurance, the Opposition amendment is not necessary. If those talks have not concluded, we can proceed as we are currently proceeding, and if they have concluded, the Government have given an undertaking—I have given that undertaking on behalf of the Government—that we would in those circumstances introduce a supplementary programme motion. As for the question of when we will introduce that motion, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn, the answer is that we will do so when the cross-party talks have concluded, either with or without agreement.

[Chris Bryant]

There are two issues that the Minister has not addressed. First, we do not know what “concluded” means. It could mean “came to a conclusion with which everybody agreed”, which might not be the view of the whole House, or it could mean “came to an end” because those talks collapsed. I should be grateful if the Minister provided clarification. Secondly, he has not told us which day has been chosen for the second day. If it is still next Monday, it will be virtually impossible for Members to table amendments that could be selected for Monday, unless there is an announcement today.

[Mr Browne]

On the first point, on when something can be said to have concluded, I had not realised that that was something on which I would be called to judge. It is when it has finished, I suppose: when there is no more left to discuss, or when the cross-party talks have concluded—[Interruption]—as I said, with or without agreement. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked what would happen if they had come to an end but there was no agreement. In that case, they would conclude without agreement. When the process of cross-party talks has been exhausted, that is the point at which a supplementary programme motion will be—

[Ian Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Browne]

Wait a second. Hon. Members keep making points that I am about to address in response to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Delyn. When the talks have concluded, whether with or without agreement, we will bring forward a supplementary programme motion: that is the first point. Secondly, on when that will take place—

[Ian Lucas]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

Okay. Given that I am trying to help the House by responding to questions in the debate, I shall give way, but then I shall get down to answering the core points.

[Ian Lucas]

Who makes the decision on whether the talks have concluded or not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

The participants in the talks, I assume. It will be apparent to them whether they have finished talking. I do not want to make it sound like a papal exercise, but I am sure that the appropriate metaphorical smoke will come out of Government buildings and everyone will be able to recognise when talks are no longer taking place.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

I am fearful of running out of time before I have answered the substantive points, rather than the issue of whether a conclusion means something has finished or not, which is a point that we could debate at length, but not very productively. On the substantive points, to which I have substantive answers to give, the right hon. Member for Delyn asked whether there would be a debate. The answer is yes. On the question of whether there will be a vote if the House wishes to vote, the answer is yes. This will be an amendment to legislation. There is provision to vote on all aspects of legislation, subject to the usual caveats and the Speaker’s discretion. Given that everything is subject to those caveats, the answer to the question of whether there will be a debate is yes; and yes, there will be an opportunity to vote.

On the question of when that will take place, at the moment the second day of our deliberations on the Bill is scheduled for Monday. I am not the Leader of the House—a far more distinguished Member has that role—but there is a business statement tomorrow. If the Government wished to suggest to the House that the business should be altered, that would be the appropriate time to do so, not now.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister has made the position clear to the House. The official Opposition have taken from that that there will be a debate, there will be a vote, and there will be an announcement about both the supplementary programming motion and the day of the debate in business questions. On that basis, I am content, if the House will allow me, to withdraw the amendment, allowing the Government to continue the discussions that have commenced. That is our position, to reassure the Minister on those points.

[Mr Browne]

On that extremely consensual and sensible point, the Opposition spokesman has come to my view after some initial wobbles, and everyone agrees that I have come up with a very sensible way to proceed. On that basis, I hope that the House endorses by popular acclaim the Government’s proposal, so there is no need to proceed to a vote.

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.