Opt-in Decisions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Written Statements

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

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

The Government have decided to offer debates in Government time on the following proposals, which it is anticipated will be published in 2013:

Home Office dossiers

Proposed regulation on Europol

On 27 March 2013 the European Commission published a draft regulation to repeal the existing Council decisions governing the European Police Office (Europol) and the European Police College (CEPOL). This will establish Europol as the “European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training”. This measure has already been the subject of an opt-in debate in the House of Lords on 1 July 2013 and in the House of Commons on 15 July 2013. The Government have decided that the UK will not opt in to the regulation at the initial stages but that they should opt in post-adoption, provided that Europol is not given the power to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations or share data that conflicts with national security. The UK will remain fully engaged in the negotiations at all levels.

Proposed regulation reforming Eurojust

This draft regulation, which was published on 17 July, aims at developing and reinforcing Eurojust’s functioning and determining arrangements for involving the European Parliament and national Parliaments in the evaluation of Eurojust’s activities.

Proposal for a European Public Prosecutors’ Office (EPPO)

On 17 July, in parallel with the Eurojust proposal, the Commission also published a proposal to establish a European Public Prosecutors’ Office (EPPO). It is envisaged that the EPPO will initially be responsible for crimes against the financial interest of the EU. The Government have made clear in the coalition agreement that the UK will not participate in any proposal for a European Public Prosecutor.

Proposal on fighting money laundering

Money laundering is already a criminal offence in all EU member states and is listed in the treaty as one of the areas where the EU may create minimum standards for offences and penalties. The Commission has concluded that the absence of a common approach in member states to this issue hinders cross-border investigations and police co-operation, and is therefore suggesting the need to harmonise the offence of money laundering at EU level.

Ministry of Justice dossiers

Proposal for a directive on special safeguards in criminal procedures for suspected or accused persons who are vulnerable

The measure will aim to ensure that special attention is shown in criminal procedures throughout the EU to suspected or accused persons who are vulnerable, such as children and vulnerable adults (initiative 45). This will form measure E of the criminal procedural rights road map. It is expected that this proposal will be published in November 2013.

Initiative regarding legal aid in criminal proceedings

This will be the fourth step on the criminal procedural rights road map. The road map tasked the Commission with bringing forward a measure on access to a lawyer and legal aid at the same time. The Commission has decoupled the two, publishing the proposed directive on access to a lawyer in June 2011, with the measure on legal aid expected sometime in 2013.

Department for Transport dossier

Proposal for a directive on the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the commercial road transport field

This measure is expected to establish common minimal rules with regard to the definition of offences and sanctions, including criminal offences, in the field of commercial road transport. Such a harmonisation aims to reduce distortions of competition and the unequal treatments when committing infringements. Formal proposals are currently expected in the autumn of 2013 as part of an internal road market package.

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

The content of this statement primarily relates to arrangements for debates in the House of Commons. It is anticipated that the House of Lords will continue to call debates under existing procedures.

Regulatory Regime (Private Security Industry)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Written Statements

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

I am today publishing a summary of responses to the Home Office consultation on the Government’s preferred option for reforming how the private security industry is regulated—a transition to a business regulation regime.

The current arrangements for the regulation of the private security industry in the United Kingdom are set out in the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Responsibility for delivering regulation lies with the Security Industry Authority (SIA), a non-departmental public body accountable to the Home Secretary. Following the public bodies review in 2010, the Government concluded that the SIA’s functions should be reformed. The consultation provided a detailed proposal for a new regulatory regime for the private security industry.

Overall, there was strong support for the Government’s proposed reforms and the majority of respondents supported the introduction of business regulation, together with a new individual licensing process, as soon as possible.

The key reform outlined in the Home Office consultation was that a new regulatory regime would be introduced which will require businesses providing security industry services to be approved by the Security Industry Authority (SIA). In order to be approved, companies would be required to ensure that they meet certain minimum standards appropriate to the industry. In return, businesses will be given greater responsibility for checking their employees’ suitability for working in the industry.

A copy of the consultation response will be placed in the House Library and will also be available on the GOV.UK website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-future-regulatory-regime-for-the-private-security-industry.

Europol Regulation

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

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

The Government have decided at this time not to opt in to the European Commission’s proposal for a Europol regulation which would establish the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Co-operation and Training. The Government will however seek to opt in to the regulation post adoption provided that Europol is not given the power to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations or share data that conflicts with national security.

The Commission has a number of objectives in this proposal: to update the law on the European Police Office (Europol) and the European Police College (CEPOL) following the Lisbon treaty and to create cost savings by merging both the agencies; as well as to strengthen Europol’s role in the exchange and analysis of information on cross-border crime through increased obligations.

The Government value UK membership of Europol as currently established. The ability to access law enforcement intelligence directly from all other EU member states means UK law enforcement can significantly increase its intelligence yield and is effectively supported in the fight against organised crime and terrorism.

However, having analysed the draft proposal from the Commission the Government have identified two very serious concerns with the proposal which would fundamentally change the relationship between Europol and member states.

First, there is an increased obligation to provide data. In the proposal member states are not exempt from providing data, even where it would conflict with national security, endanger ongoing investigations or an individual’s safety. This conflicts with the national interest.

Secondly, while Europol can already request a member state to initiate an investigation, this proposal goes much further and includes an obligation to provide a reason if no such operation is conducted. Any reasons provided would be subject to challenge before the European Court of Justice. This creates a risk that the European courts could dictate what national law enforcement agencies should prioritise. This interferes with operational independence which is at the heart of UK policing.

We will remain a full and active participant in negotiations on the regulation and are committed to seeking to opt in post adoption provided that the above two concerns are met in the final text.

Scientific Procedures on Living Animals

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Written Statements

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

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

The “Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals—Great Britain—2012” (HC 549), was laid before the House today. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.

This annual statistical report meets the requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) to inform Parliament about the licensed use of animals for experimental or other scientific purposes. It also forms the basis for meeting periodic reporting requirements at EU level. The next report to the EU is required in November 2015, which will be our 2014 statistics.

The 2012 statistical report shows that there were 4.11 million scientific procedures, which represents an overall increase of 8% over 2011. This increase is largely attributable to an increase in the breeding of genetically altered mice. Excluding the breeding of these animals, the total number of procedures actually decreased by 2%. The number of animals likely to be used in any given year is dependent on many factors, including investment in research and development, strategic decisions by funding bodies, global economic trends and scientific innovation.

The Home Office, as regulatory authority under ASPA, ensures that its provisions are rigorously applied and only authorises work that is scientifically justified and minimises the numbers of animals used and the animal suffering that may be caused.

The statistical report and supplementary information can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statistics-of-scientific-procedures-on-living-animals-great-britain-2012.

I am pleased to inform the House that I have also today placed in the Library the annual report of the Home Office “Animals in Science Regulation Unit” (ASRU) for the year 2012. The annual report can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/research-and-testing-using-animals.

The report describes how we have delivered our responsibilities under ASPA to regulate the use of animals, work to support the delivery of the transposed directive and provides information about cases of non-compliance with ASPA and the outcomes of those cases.

All establishments that carry out procedures on animals are subject to scrutiny by Home Office inspectors who play a key role in the implementation of ASPA. Inspectors implement a risk-based approach to inspection. Based upon an overview of risk across all licensed establishments, the chief inspector annually proposes a programme of inspection, agreed with the Minister, which best utilises the resources available. The risk-based approach and programme for 2012 is described in the ASRU annual report.

The transposition of directive 2010/63/EU into UK legislation during 2012 was a major undertaking. From the 1 January 2013 we harmonised standards with other EU member states where required and, where appropriate, maintained our higher standards whilst avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and cost burden.

The programme for Government provides a commitment to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research, an ambitious but achievable goal. We recognise that the use of animals in scientific research is a small but essential function in improving our understanding of medical and physiological conditions, the research and development of new medicines and the development of leading-edge medical technologies and is necessary to ensure the safety of our environment. Scientific advances in knowledge and new technologies present significant opportunities to replace animal use, reduce the use of animals, and, where animal use is unavoidable, to refine the procedures involved so as to minimise suffering (3Rs). It is key that we take these opportunities to ensure that replacement, refinement and reduction in the use of animals is integral to conducting animal research recognising that this not about baseline numbers. The statistics published today are evidence of a significant reduction in the use of animals for shellfish toxin testing. In 2009 the number of mice used in this test totalled 7,670 whereas in 2012 this has been reduced to 42. This is a prime example of successfully implementing a non-animal alternative.

In 2012, my predecessor announced the science-led programme being taken forward by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), which is primarily funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I am pleased to report a number of significant advances in this area. Over the past 12 months, the NC3Rs has secured new funding which has helped launch the first 3Rs evaluation framework; made the biggest single investment in 3Rs research to date with new grant awards of £5.1 million; supported new approaches to replace animal use with £750,000 for interdisciplinary awards between toxicologists and mathematicians; and awarded four fellowships for exceptional early-career scientists developing models and tools with reduced reliance on animal research and improved welfare. The wider programme encompasses collaborative work led by the Home Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, between Government Departments and agencies, the Home Office inspectorate, the research community in both academia and industry, and others with relevant animal welfare interests. Significant progress has been made in developing a cross-Government action plan and we intend to provide a statement in the autumn that details our agreed plan and describes progress to date on the coalition agreement.

As the Home Office Minister responsible for ASPA, I was extremely concerned to read the allegations of non-compliance at Imperial College London (ICL) published by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). The use of living animals in scientific procedures which may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm is strictly regulated under ASPA and I am determined to ensure that animal research is carried out humanely and only when necessary. The provision of a licence to an individual not only entrusts them to uphold their legal obligations but also to behave in ways which ensure the highest standards of animal care and welfare at all times. I take any reports suggesting that individuals or establishments are falling short of the high standards required by the Act very seriously.

I have met with the ICL establishment licence holder and other relevant senior individuals to discuss the independent investigative report that ICL have commissioned and agreed to publish. They have provided strong assurances of a rigorous inquiry. I have also had a meeting with the BUAV to assure them of the seriousness with which we are considering their allegations.

Visits by inspectors to licensed establishments, many of which are unannounced, are an important aspect of determining compliance with ASPA. An additional important role of inspectors is to advise those working under ASPA and encourage best practice with respect to the 3Rs. Inspectors have a right of entry to licensed establishments at all reasonable times and ready access to all records and it is, therefore, right and proper that they should investigate allegations when they are made. Home Office inspectors have been investigating the allegations against ICL at pace and I intend to publish a report later this year.

It is an imperative that lessons learned and broader issues for the wider community are taken from this incident. I have therefore requested the Government’s independent expert advisory body, the Animals in Science Committee (ASC), to review both the inspectorate’s report and the ICL independent report, when both are available, and to provide me with advice. The ASC report will also be made public.

Central to our work on openness and transparency is the review we are undertaking of section 24 of ASPA. Section 24 of ASPA provides for the protection of confidential information provided in connection with our regulatory activities under ASPA. A breach of section 24 can result in criminal sanctions. The requirements of section 24 are now out of step with our policy on openness and transparency and with the approach taken in other legislation, such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The solution we develop must improve the overall transparency surrounding research using animals, to create an environment which fosters informed debate leading to greater public trust, and also must protect personal identities and intellectual property.

The first stage of the review; engaging the full diversity of stakeholders in developing options has now been completed. The next stage of the process is to present those options in a wider public consultation, the outcome of which will further inform the direction of our work. We envisage completing the review and selection of the preferred option by the end of this year to enable us to present any legislative changes to Parliament in the new year.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

13. Whether the Government plan to bring forward legislative proposals on communications data.

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

The Government remain committed to ensuring that the police and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to catch paedophiles, terrorists and those involved in organised crime. Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech in May stated that we would

“bring forward proposals to enable the protection of the public and the investigation of crime in cyberspace.”

We will do so in due course, and this may involve legislation.

[John Robertson]

I thank the Minister for his answer. However, it is well known in political circles that the Home Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister do not exactly see eye to eye on communications data. Could we therefore have a Bill where we can put forward proposals that we can debate? Could we ensure that we put a communications data Bill before Parliament in the way that we expect, and not have a fight between the two coalition parties?

[James Brokenshire]

There is understanding across government on the challenges and issues involved in protecting the police’s ability to fight crime and on the fact that a gap is emerging in this whole issue of communications data. It is important that we strike an effective balance between keeping the public safe and protecting civil liberties. That is why we are taking this issue seriously and considering it carefully—I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the previous Labour Government did not do that. We will make proposals in due course to get this right.

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

Most people on both sides of the House, at least in the major parties, recognise the need for communications data to be preserved so that terrorist needles can be found in a communications haystack. Will the Minister confirm that we should be reassured by the fact that the people who preserve the communications haystack for a limited period are not the Government but the suppliers from the communications industry themselves?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is clear that, in about 95% of serious organised crime cases, and in virtually every terrorism investigation, the use of communications data has been extremely important. The structure that has been established is that communications providers themselves retain the information, and safeguards are in place for the requests that are made. It is precisely that structure that we are examining carefully to see how it can be strengthened to reflect changes in technology.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

14. How much has been received under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 from those convicted of human trafficking in the last three years; how much has been paid out to victims of trafficking in compensation; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

If a US citizen had been held in Britain without charge, it would quite rightly not be accepted or tolerated. Shaker Aamer is the last British citizen at Guantanamo Bay. He has been there for 11 years without charge and has faced more than four months on hunger strike. All of us supported the Home Secretary’s determination to deport Abu Qatada from the UK. Will she demonstrate that same determination and energy to make sure that we see the release of Shaker Aamer so that he can return to his family in Britain?

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

The UK is committed to using its best endeavours to secure Mr Aamer’s release and return to the UK. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Prime Minister spoke to President Obama at the G8 in June and has followed that up with a subsequent letter. We have long held that indefinite detention without review or fair trial is unacceptable, and we welcome President Obama’s continuing commitment to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

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

Victims of serious crime will be reassured that the Government are minded to opt back into the European arrest warrant. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much support across the EU for adopting the sort of proportionality tests that the Government are minded to introduce in amendments to legislation?

Proposed Europol Regulation

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8229/13 and Addenda 1 to 6, a draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA; and agrees with the Government that the UK should opt into the Regulation post-adoption, provided that Europol is not given the power to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations or share data that conflicts with national security.

The motion sets out the position that the Government intend to take on the new Europol regulation, which the Commission published at the end of March. The motion makes clear our view that we should not opt into the regulation now but only after it is adopted, provided that the two conditions set out in the motion are met. Those are that the regulation does not empower Europol to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations and that it does not require them to share data that conflict with national security. To join the regulation with those requirements in it would not be acceptable.

In making the recommendation, the Government had two choices. We could opt into the new Europol regulation by the initial deadline of 30 July—in other words, within three months of its publication. That would give us a vote in the negotiations, but would mean that we were bound by the final text even if it contained measures that we could not support. Alternatively, we could wait until the negotiations were finished and then make a decision, knowing exactly what we would be signing up to. That is the approach that the Government are recommending tonight.

In saying that, I recognise, of course, the important help that Europol gives us in the fight against cross-border crime. I have seen that at first hand and I know it has played a crucial role in helping the police catch some very serious criminals. For instance, Operation Rescue brought together law enforcement authorities from 13 countries to tackle an online paedophile network. Europol cracked the security features on the network’s server, which allowed law enforcement to identify the offenders. As a result, 121 suspects were arrested in the UK and 230 children were protected from abuse.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I join the Minister in praising the work of Europol, which I visited four weeks ago. I saw the superb work that is being done. Is it not better that we should be part of the discussions, influencing them, rather than just accepting the new architecture after it has been arranged?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will be there, influencing and seeking to negotiate the measure. We may not be opting in at the outset, but that should not in any way, shape or form be taken as the UK Government’s not wishing to seek to influence the measure and create the changes that we believe are necessary for us to consider a subsequent opt-in, post adoption.

The right hon. Gentleman will want to congratulate Rob Wainwright, whom he spoke to on his recent visit, on the important job that he is doing to make Europol an effective, well-managed and widely respected organisation in the fight against international crime.

We can point to other examples. Operation Golf, which has been cited several times previously in this House, was a joint UK-Romania investigation team targeting a specific Romanian organised crime network. Offences associated with the network included human trafficking, money laundering, benefit fraud, perverting the course of justice, theft, and handling stolen goods. Europol provided analytical support and facilitated real-time checks on its systems, and 126 individuals were arrested in the UK. Europol’s help in Operation Seagrape led directly to the identification of bank accounts used by a people-smuggling gang based near Dunkirk. French, Belgian and British agencies worked jointly to target a specific organised crime group, and 36 arrests were made. It is for those reasons that the Government believe that it is in the national interest to seek to rejoin the current arrangements for Europol agreed back in 2009 as part of the 2014 decision. That was made clear in our discussions in the previous debate.

However, that is not the matter before us now. Instead, we need to decide whether to opt into the new regulation, which sets down new rules and powers for Europol and, we believe, would change its relationship with member states in some quite troubling ways. Our first concern is with the proposals on data exchange. The Commission wants member states to share more data with Europol. That is a good idea in principle; after all, Europol can only be as effective as the information it holds. However, a strong legal obligation to supply it with data, as proposed in the draft regulation, is a different matter. It would undermine member states’ control over their own law enforcement intelligence, which we regard as absolutely fundamental.

Even more worrying is the fact that the draft regulation does not exempt member states from providing information even if it could damage national security, or endanger ongoing operations or an individual’s safety. These protections are explicit in the existing instrument governing Europol but absent from the new proposal. That is a significant change. The proposal also strengthens Europol’s power to request investigations. It can already do this to some extent, but the new proposal creates a presumption that member states will comply with a request. It also strengthens their duty to give reasons if they decide not to do so. That is particularly worrying because any reasons could be subject to challenge before the European Court of Justice.

The European Scrutiny Committee has asked whether article 276 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union would protect us from having a refusal challenged in the Court. We are not convinced that it would. Article 276 prevents the Court from reviewing

“the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the police or other law enforcement services”.

It is highly debatable whether a decision to refuse to open an investigation would constitute

“operations carried out by the police”

because, by definition, no operation would have been carried out. We therefore do not think that article 276 provides enough protection against the Court’s involvement. This creates a real risk of the European Court being able to second-guess our policing priorities. That would simply be unacceptable. Policing is a core function of a sovereign state and it must remain a member state responsibility.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Minister raises two concerns that I share to some extent. Presumably other member states have also had these concerns. What conversations has he had with them about whether other countries will be joining us to try to get this changed?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Discussions have already taken place and member states have voiced concerns. Our certainty faces a challenge because, as I will come on to say, there is an element of risk with regard to what will happen, given that there is qualified majority voting and the European Parliament can make a co-decision. Given the significance of the issues, it is right that we wait to see what the final measure looks like before deciding whether to opt in. I think that that is the right approach, which is why we tabled the motion. However, as I told the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, that does not mean that we will not engage in active discussions with member states, the Commission and others in order to seek to influence this measure as it is negotiated.

I have discussed the proposal personally with senior law enforcement officials from across the UK. Like us, the law enforcement community supports Europol as it is now, but the senior officers I spoke to agreed that our issues with the new text are real and serious.

On the Opposition’s amendment, the Government agree entirely that it is right to consult chief constables and law enforcement partners as part of this process. We have consulted senior law enforcement officers from across the UK, including the Metropolitan police and policing partners from Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, I ask the House to reject the amendment, because ultimately this is a decision for Parliament and the amendment does not contemplate Parliament coming to a view on whether we should opt in post-adoption.

Some hon. Members may argue tonight that we should opt into this proposal and negotiate out the elements that cause us concern. The problem with that is that the proposal is subject to qualified majority voting and we cannot guarantee that we would get the changes we need. We could quite easily be outvoted in Council, and then we would be bound by the final text, even if it contained elements we could not accept.

The Government are not prepared to take risks on something as important as this, which goes to the very heart of our law enforcement. We therefore intend not to opt in at this stage, but to remain fully engaged in negotiations and work with other member states and the European Parliament to push for the changes we need.

We know that member states and the EU institutions value our experience in this area. We have already had indications that others recognise our concerns and are prepared to work with us to try to find a solution.

We do not expect the regulation to be agreed much before the end of 2015. When it is agreed, we will consult Parliament on it again, depositing the final text with an explanatory memorandum, and, as this House knows from the handling of the human trafficking directive, we will be able to hold another debate at that time.

I stress that the Government’s position has no immediate implications for our participation in Europol. As I have said, we believe it is in our national interest to seek to rejoin the existing Europol legal instrument as part of the 2014 decision process. By doing so we will retain our full membership of the organisation throughout the negotiations, so nothing will change for the foreseeable future.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

The Minister is setting out cogently the scrutiny being exercised by the Government and the pros and cons. If we cannot remove the supranational whistles and bells, what contingency planning or negotiations are in place so that, if we do not opt back in, we can still retain operational co-operation, which, whatever anyone’s views from an ideological standpoint, most people would regard as important?

[James Brokenshire]

I heard my hon. Friend speak in the preceding debate about the importance of continuing operational co-operation. Members from all parties recognise the transnational nature of crime and the subsequent operational need for law enforcement divisions from all European member states to be able to collaborate and co-operate in order to fight it. We certainly believe that, because of the way in which Europol can bring a number of member states together in one space, it is the most effective way to proceed, provided that the appropriate safeguards are met when the measure is finally concluded and negotiated, and that they reflect the concerns that my hon. Friend raised in the previous debate about extensions into supranational competency. The Home Secretary also made clear in the previous debate her views on a European police force.

Subject to those safeguards being introduced, we believe that a reformed Europol measure is the optimum way forward, but it is clearly open to us to negotiate individual operational relationships with other member states. However, in our judgment, the nature of Europol and the intelligence work that it conducts in support of member states’ law enforcement agencies mean that our emphasis will be on seeking to influence the measure and to be in a position to opt into it following its adoption, provided that the appropriate safeguards are achieved. Again, that will be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny, and to the potential for a further debate in this House, to assess and analyse the provisions and to ensure that the appropriate safeguards are provided.

We wish to remain part of Europol, and will do so provided we get the amendments that we need, but we cannot support it at any price. We will not put our sovereignty and security at risk by committing ourselves in advance to a proposal that, as drafted, poses significant risks to both. The Government’s approach shows that we are serious about international police co-operation and about protecting the autonomy of our law enforcement agencies. I urge the House to support the motion tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). He should not apologise for making a brief speech: they are most welcome in the House after seven hours debating the European Union. It is not the length but the quality of what he has to say that matters.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that everyone who has spoken so far supports Europol—one wonders what we are debating—and is full of praise for Rob Wainwright, who is one of the very few British people to head a European organisation. Everyone who has spoken has been full of praise for an organisation that can look back at a history of co-operation between all European countries. I had the privilege of visiting Europol five weeks ago, and meeting Rob Wainwright and looking at the various methods by which countries co-operate. It was fascinating, and I would urge every Member of the House to go. The Select Committee on Home Affairs will probably go later this year, during our inquiry into international crime and terrorism.

Europol basically has an office for every European country, with its police officers present in those offices. If people wish to try to track down criminals who have left this country and gone to other countries, our office can be contacted. Those officers then cross the corridor—literally—and hand the information to a police officer in another country. Almost immediately the information is transmitted to that other country, so while the serious and organised criminals are out there trying to commit crimes, here we have an organisation that is working to cut through the red tape of the European Union and producing some superb results. As the Minister said, not only did Operation Golf—the operation that brought together our police force and the Romanian police—result in many strands of human trafficking being disrupted, but we caught real criminals. That was a great benefit to both countries.

I heard what the shadow Minister said about the Association of Chief Police Officers, and he is absolutely right: we should take into consideration what ACPO is saying. He is right to draw the House’s attention to the fact that ACPO has written to the Prime Minister and others about its concerns. However, at the end of the day, such decisions are matters for this House and those who sit in it. Although ACPO can be helpful in providing advice to this House and to Ministers, ultimately it is we who need to make the decision.

The debate comes down to this point. We need to opt in because Europol is a successful organisation—one that actually catches international criminals and disrupts criminal networks. In the area of Europol dedicated to monitoring the internet, I saw how, almost hourly, ACPO officials can view sites that are dedicated to supporting and encouraging terrorism. If we did not have organisations like Europol, our job in this country and the job of our police service would be much more difficult.

However, I think the Government are making a mistake in this motion. I supported the Government in the last vote because the Government accepted the amendment of the Chairs of the Select Committees and allowed us the opportunity to scrutinise the opt-out arrangements—and, we hope, the opt-in arrangements—when we have finished our scrutiny. The mistake that has been made is this: if we are not at the table influencing the way in which Europol 2, if we can call it that, will develop, I feel that we will not do justice to the police services in this country and we will not do justice to what we want to see happen in the fight against international crime.

We need that seat at the table if we are to influence the new architecture of the fight against international crime. That view has been put forward not just by ACPO but by others who seek to try to influence how this develops. Frankly, if we are not there and are not able to participate in those discussions, we will not be able to influence what the new architecture will look like.

[James Brokenshire]

I hope I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will be there and will remain fully engaged in the negotiations so that we are able to influence them. For the reasons he highlights, although we might not be opting in at the outset, I can assure him that the influence and the focus will be there and time will be spent to exert influence in a positive way. I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point; we are very cognisant of it.

[Keith Vaz]

I am not saying that Ministers, officials and UKRep will not be working very hard, but there is a big difference between opting in and being right at the top of and part of the process, and being able to engage in influence: they are two quite different things. The view of the officials I met at Europol was that they really needed to be there, and they could not understand why we were not going to be there, taking part in these deliberations and discussions.

Another one of the Minister’s arguments is “If we are there, it has to go to qualified majority voting”. He could ask the Minister for Europe about this, but I think he will find if he looks at the figures that we are almost always on the winning side when it comes to QMV. I do not know whether he has the figures, whether his officials could give him them or whether he could tell us about them if he makes a winding-up speech, but unless things have changed in the last 10 years, when a British Minister sits at a table where European issues are being discussed and it goes to a vote, we are almost always on the winning side.

I think we will be on the winning side on this particular issue because it is to do with policing and we are hugely respected for the work we do in the fight against international crime. I think the Minister’s argument is weak when he effectively says “We are afraid of the results at the European Council and we cannot take a risk because we might lose”. Of course we might lose, but I think we can make these arguments, especially because we have a British head of Europol, who has recently been confirmed for another term—four years, I think—in office.

I urge the Minister to think again. He says we are going to have some influence and be engaged, but it is really not the same if we are going to be on the sidelines and exert influence only after all the negotiations are over. I think people will accept the words of a British Minister who would be widely respected on the justice and home affairs agenda. He would be able to put his views forward in his articulate and intelligent way while sitting at a meeting. He will obviously draw on the efforts of ACPO, but I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that ACPO is not the be-all and end-all of policing.

You will remember, Mr Speaker, although I do not want to draw you into the debate, when the 42 days issue was being discussed we were all told, “ACPO and the police service all want the House to vote for 42 days. It is everything that everyone has always wanted so we all have to vote for it”—until, of course, it changed its mind and we did not follow that approach. We hugely respect ACPO and all the people in it, but at the end of the day we need to make this decision. I very much hope that the Minister will think again and allow us the opportunity to be there at the top table, influencing these discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker, may I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions in this short debate? Let me be clear that our recommendation in the motion is about participation in a future measure governing Europol; it has no impact on our current participation in Europol, which does benefit our law enforcement agencies. That point was made by everyone who has contributed to this debate: the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz); and my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). That highlights the issues at hand in respect of the benefits that accrue from our current relationship.

I underline the fact that nothing that the Government have proposed reduces our commitment to tackle cross-border crime. However, we cannot risk the operational independence of our law enforcement agencies, and we need to ensure appropriate safeguards within the text so that that does not happen. I say very clearly to right hon. and hon. Members that we will play an active role in negotiations to ensure that we achieve our negotiating aims, which will allow us to opt in post-adoption. In response to the challenge from the right hon. Member for Leicester East, we consider that it is possible to achieve key negotiating objectives, even when we have not opted into a proposal before the negotiations. We have already done that on a number of measures, and we are clear about the influence that can be applied, and that is precisely what we will do. As I said, we consulted a number of our operational colleagues across the UK when considering the proposal. They all agree about the value of Europol as it currently operates, but not at any cost.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman was not here at the beginning of the debate, so he may not have heard what I said.

[Jim Shannon]

In Northern Ireland, we face a particular threat from dissident republicans. What assurance can the Minister give me as the MP for Strangford that we will not lose the ability, through Europol, to address the threat of terrorism at home and globally, because dissident republicans have contacts in other countries?

[James Brokenshire]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here to hear my opening speech, he would know that we have discussed our approach with the Police Service of Northern Ireland as well as other operational partners across the UK. While we are not seeking to opt in at this stage, we wish to negotiate and seek to influence so that we are in a position to opt in post-adoption, with the red lines.

The hon. Gentleman should accept that the information- sharing provisions in the EU document could put our national security at risk by virtue of the fact that we would not be able to control the information provided to Europol, which is precisely why we have sought to take this approach, with national security in mind. The law enforcement community shares our concerns about the risks that would be posed if we were directly tasked by Europol to undertake operations or to provide increased amounts of information to it without the necessary safeguards.

It is not the case that as a result of the approach that we have taken we have given up our seat at the table. We shall continue to play a full part in negotiations, attending the discussions and working with member states that share our concerns to seek to deliver a text that we can rejoin. Ultimately, this is a political decision for the Government, with appropriate scrutiny from Parliament. That is why we will consult and listen to the views of our law enforcement partners across the UK, but ultimately this a decision for Government and Parliament, which is why the motion is framed in this way.

Opting in at this stage poses too great a risk to our security and the autonomy of our law enforcement agencies, but once the text has been negotiated we intend to opt in if we secure the changes set out in the motion, and we will consult Parliament before doing so. Our position on the proposal is sensible and pragmatic, reflecting the need for effective co-operation and the importance of protecting our sovereignty and security. I urge the House to support the Government motion.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Powers of Entry

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Written Statements

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

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

The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 requires Ministers across Government to undertake a review of powers of entry over a two-year period due to conclude in early 2014. The Act requires Ministers who are Members of the Cabinet with responsibility for powers of entry to examine their powers and to consider whether they are still necessary, proportionate and contain sufficient safeguards.

Ministers are required to report on outcomes of the review to Parliament by 1 May 2014.

During the passage of the Act, Ministers agreed to provide an update of progress of the review and I have today placed copies of the second six-month progress report in the Library of the House.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.

The Government are determined to do all they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We propose, through the order, to add both Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad, more widely known as Boko Haram, and Minbar Ansar Deen, also known as Ansar al-Sharia UK, to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 12th proscription order under that Act.

Schedule 3 of the Act provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently “concerned in terrorism”. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation, having taken into account a number of factors. Those factors are: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation. This includes open source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These decisions are taken with great care by the Home Secretary and it is right that the case for proscribing new organisations must be approved by both Houses.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Can the Minister tell me, as someone who has been on the sharp end of attack by Muslims Against Crusades, whether having organisations out in the open where they can be monitored is preferable to proscribing organisations, which makes it harder to monitor them?

[James Brokenshire]

I note my hon. Friend’s comment. Clearly, his own experience was very shocking and I well understand why he would wish to intercede in the debate to make that point clearly. Proscription can be an important mechanism to disrupt activity. We therefore believe that it is an appropriate mechanism to send a strong message that terrorist organisations are not tolerated in the UK and to act as a deterrent to their operating here. It also means that an organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate.

It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation, invite support for a proscribed organisation, arrange a meeting in support of that organisation, or wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that they may be a member or supporter of such an organisation. We believe that proscription is a powerful mechanism to disrupt and take firm action against terrorist groups, which is why 49 international and 14 Northern Irish terrorist organisations are currently proscribed.

On the specific groups before the House this evening, having carefully considered all the evidence we firmly believe that both organisations, Boko Haram and Minbar Ansar Deen, are currently concerned in terrorism. Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, but I can provide a brief summary of each group.

Boko Haram is a prolific terrorist organisation based in Nigeria whose ultimate goal is to establish the Islamic caliphate. Seeking to undermine democratic government through its campaign of violence and attacks, it has targeted all sections of Nigerian society—Muslims, Christians, rich, poor, civilians and members of the security forces alike—as well as members of the international community. For example, an attack near Abuja on Christmas day 2011 that killed at least 26 people, and an attack on a bus station in Kano City in March 2013 that killed over 60, were both attributed to the organisation. The organisation has also sought to attack international targets in Nigeria. In August 2011, it claimed responsibility for a suicide attack against the UN building in Abuja that killed 26. It has also targeted westerners for kidnapping in the past few years.

I stress to the House that the Government are aware of the concerns over the approach used by the Nigerian Government to defeat Boko Haram. While the UK Government continue to work with Nigeria to fight terrorism, we make it clear that human rights must be respected at all times in our work to defeat terrorism across the globe.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning some of the disgusting attacks by Boko Haram in Nigeria. We live in an interconnected world and I am sure that the Government of Nigeria will be pleased at the action being taken by the British Government today. Has my hon. Friend had any conversations with the Nigerian Government with respect to the motion before the House?

[James Brokenshire]

What I can say to my hon. Friend is that Boko Haram has carried out indiscriminate, mass-casualty attacks, and clearly we are conscious of all the events I have outlined. We believe that proscribing that organisation shows our condemnation of its activities very clearly and will prevent it operating in the UK and give the police powers to tackle any UK-based support for it, so proscription is an important step. I cannot comment on specific discussions we have had with the Nigerian Government, but clearly those continue. I stress the point I made earlier about condemning any human rights abuses in that regard. I think it is important to state that in this context.

The second group we are proscribing is Minbar Ansar Deen, a Salafist group based in the UK that promotes and encourages terrorism. It distributes material through its online forum, which promotes terrorism by encouraging individuals to travel overseas to engage in extremist activity, specifically fighting. The group is not related to Ansar al-Sharia groups in other countries. Proscribing it sends a clear message that we condemn its terrorism activities.

Decisions on when and whether to proscribe an organisation are taken only following extensive consideration and in the light of emerging intelligence. It is important that decisions are built on a robust evidence base, do not adversely impact on any ongoing investigations and support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. It of course would not be appropriate for us to discuss specific intelligence that leads to any decisions to proscribe, but clearly we keep the whole area under constant focus.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am sure that the House will support what the Minister is proposing, so he must not take anything I say as criticism of the Government’s decision. He will know that whenever the matter has come before the House I have raised the necessity of a time limit on some of these orders and, in particular, the report by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC. The Minister told the House almost exactly a year ago, on 4 July 2012, that the Government’s response would be published in due course. The Immigration Minister said on 22 November 2012 that it would be published shortly. When will it be published?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that this is an issue that the right hon. Gentleman has pursued through the Home Affairs Committee and through interventions in debates of this kind. I can tell him clearly that we have noted carefully the comments in David Anderson’s report about the de-proscription process and that we responded to the report in March. In that context, under the current regime any person affected by a proscription can submit an application to the Home Secretary requesting that she consider whether the organisation should be de-proscribed. The Home Secretary has received no de-proscription applications, and I understand that none was received by her predecessor since 2009. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that officials continue to explore options for improving the de-proscription process. That is under active consideration and we will inform Parliament of any resulting changes to the regime. Our current thinking is that there are ways in which the existing regime for de-proscription can be used effectively. We will report back to the House shortly, and I genuinely mean that—the right hon. Gentleman smiles. I assure him that this is under active consideration. There are issues that need to be worked through carefully, and we will report back to the House at the earliest opportunity. I say to him genuinely, the matter is being considered carefully and actively in the light of David Anderson’s recommendations in his report, and in looking more generally at the proscription regime, as well as de-proscription within it.

[Keith Vaz]

I am sorry to do this, because I like the Minister, but he has said absolutely nothing that he did not say a year ago. It is important to distinguish between the process, which we all know about, and the issue that David Anderson has raised about time-limiting orders. The Minister has used the words “under active consideration” and said that officials are doing this or that. That is all very well, but ultimately Ministers have to make a decision. Either they are in favour of a time limit or the order will be endless, subject to somebody’s application. We need to know precisely at some stage—not today, obviously.

[James Brokenshire]

As I said, we responded to David Anderson’s report in March. I understand that this matter is of concern to right hon. and hon. Members, and we are therefore examining how the existing de-proscription process can be used more effectively.

I hope that, following my comments, the House will be minded to support the proscription of both groups and support the Government’s focus and clear intent to combat terrorism in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, which has been well informed and well focused on the tasks at hand and the specifics of the order before the House.

Let me comment at the outset on the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) about the appalling murder in Woolwich of Drummer Lee Rigby. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will join me in saying that all our thoughts and prayers are with the family in their preparation for Drummer Rigby’s funeral in just a few days’ time. Can I also echo—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Will the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) move away from the Front Bench? Only the Minister is supposed to be standing there, no other Member.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I echo the comments of the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs about the work of the Security Service, as well as the police involved in counter-terrorism work and, indeed, all officials engaged in keeping our country safe. That includes activities overseas, as well as in the United Kingdom. I wholly endorse his comments about how so much of that work necessarily has to be done out of sight. In my role as security Minister, I have the genuine privilege to have some insight into that work and to see the professionalism, focus and drive that those people have in seeking to keep all of us safe. I entirely endorse the comments that the right hon. Gentleman made in that connection.

Let me deal with a number of the points that were flagged up. On Boko Haram, we have regular dialogue with the Government of Nigeria on a broad range of mutual terrorism concerns. The Nigerians have proscribed Boko Haram and are aware of our intention to do so.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked about the timing of the order being laid before the House tonight. The decisions on whether to proscribe a particular organisation are taken after careful consideration and in the light of emerging intelligence. It is important that such decisions should be built on a robust evidence base and that they should support other members of the international community in their fight against terrorism. It would be inappropriate for me to discuss specific intelligence matters, but I can assure her that these issues are carefully considered in this context, and in the context of our broader support for others around the world in their fight against international terrorism. I note the points that she has raised, however.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark spoke of the need for balance and the need to ensure that, when we take action, we properly consider individual freedoms as against the need for collective security. Sometimes the challenges might be pushed in one direction or the other, but I am clear that they should be mutually reinforcing. If we are to uphold our values and traditions, and uphold who we are as a country, we must ensure that we properly respect individual freedoms and liberties while providing collective security for the country as a whole.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked about Hizb ut-Tahrir. That organisation is not proscribed, and proscription could be considered only when the Home Secretary believed it to be involved in terrorism, as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000. However, I want to make it clear to the House that the Government have significant concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we will continue to monitor its activities closely. Such groups are not free to spread hatred and incite violence as they please. The police have comprehensive powers to take action under the criminal law to deal with people who incite hatred, and they will do so. We will seek to ensure that Hizb ut-Tahrir and groups like it cannot operate without challenge in public places in this country. We will not tolerate secret meetings behind closed doors on premises funded by the taxpayer, and we will ensure that civic organisations are made well aware of Hizb ut-Tahrir and groups like it, and of the names under which they operate and the ways in which they go about their business. It would not be right for me to comment on individual cases, but we keep all organisations of concern under review.

The hon. Lady will be aware of the taskforce that the Prime Minister has set up to examine the further options that we can take in the context of preventing terrorism. We are looking again at how we might deal with groups that fall below the current threshold for proscription but none the less espouse extremist views.

[Keith Vaz]

Will the Minister tell the House how many times the taskforce has met?

[James Brokenshire]

The taskforce has met twice, and it has considered a wide range of issues. We are focused on taking action to build on the very good work of the Prevent strategy. An example is the work of Prevent co-ordinators in universities to provide support and advice and to highlight understanding of the potential of extremist groups to operate on university campuses. The Prime Minister made it clear in his statement on the matter that he wants to examine all the issues closely to determine what further work and action could and should be undertaken. That work is progressing, and I am sure that the Prime Minister will continue to update the House on the work of the taskforce.

Let me address the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North about the People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran. That organisation was proscribed in 2001 and was de-proscribed in June 2008, following the judgments of the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission and the Court of Appeal. An appeals process can be undertaken in respect of a proscribed organisation.

I should perhaps have underlined in my initial response to the Chairman of the Select Committee that proscribed organisations are kept under constant review. There is a rolling 12-month basis on which those organisations are reviewed by a group that draws in experts from across government. It is not the case that an organisation that has been proscribed would have to stay proscribed, as there is an ongoing process. I am sorry if he was not satisfied with my initial response to him. The work I highlighted related to how to ensure that the process of the annual reviews and what they produce can be strengthened and developed further to give greater assurance in respect of some of the issues that he highlighted.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their considered comments. I believe that the proscription of Boko Haram will demonstrate our condemnation of that group’s activities. Proscribing it will also enable the police to carry out disruptive action against any of its supporters in the UK and ensure that they cannot operate here. The proscription of Minbar Ansar Deen will be a powerful tool for the police to help them successfully disrupt the organisation, and it will also send a powerful message that the promotion and encouragement of terrorism are not acceptable and that we will take action against organisations that partake in such activities.

On the basis of those comments, I hope that the House will support the actions proposed by the Government, and I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.

Alcohol Licensing Advertising

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this occasion, Mr Streeter. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and I had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship during the Public Bill Committee stage of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It is good to see you in the Chair again today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this debate today, and on providing an opportunity to debate the important issues relating to the advertising requirements that pertain to alcohol licensing. My hon. Friend is a strong supporter of local media. He is proud to be a true man of Kent. I welcome his using the opportunity to champion the Kent Messenger and other local Kent titles, whose influence even reaches across the borders to my constituency. I hope that the Bexley Times and the Bexley News Shopper provide some local competition to his titles, too.

I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) and for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for their interventions. The strength of support for the local press and local media comes through clearly in our debate, and I will deal with those comments later, feeding back on a number of points during my response this afternoon.

I welcome the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North to her place. As she highlighted, we had many happy hours together, debating the detail of alcohol licensing policy during the Public Bill Committee stage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, when we highlighted a number of important points and added to the scrutiny of the Bill. Although I no longer hold the policy lead on alcohol, which is with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), the crime prevention Minister—he is not able to respond to this debate because he is in Committee—I welcome the opportunity to revisit some of the ground that we debated at that time. I had not appreciated that the hon. Lady was a Daily Mail reader, albeit the Hull Daily Mail.

Local newspapers have more than 30 million readers in the UK, through their print titles alone each week—some 61% of all UK adults—as well as 62 million web users a month. My hon. Friend talked about the immense value and importance of local newspapers and that was emphasised by additional contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Lincoln and for Dartford, particularly on the benefit that they provide to people who do not have internet access.

Like my hon. Friend, I am also committed to a strong, local, independent media. I reassure him that this Government regard the independent local press as essential for local democracy, as it helps local people to hold their local council and other agencies to account. The Government have recently introduced measures in the Local Audit and Accountability Bill to protect the independent press from unfair competition from council newspapers—the so-called “town hall Pravdas” that disregard the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity. The code restricts the publication of council newspapers and news sheets to once a quarter, but some local authorities are disregarding it by publishing their newspapers as frequently as weekly, taking paid advertising revenue away from the independent local press. The new legislation will enable the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to direct authorities to comply with the code.

The Government are committed to tackling alcohol-related harm and developing a licensing regime in which the public have a strong voice. At the same time, we want to lift the burden of bureaucratic processes from licensing authorities and responsible businesses. The proposal to remove the relevant requirement on licensing applicants, many of whom are small businesses, was introduced to remove what some see as an unnecessary burden. I should like to be clear and say to my hon. Friend that there is no desire to prevent local people getting information about new licensing applications or playing an active role in the licensing process. This Government have done more than any other to increase the ways in which local communities and local people have a say in whether pubs and clubs should be open in their areas, and for how long. Ensuring access to local information about licensing is key to that.

As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said, I led on much of the Government’s legislation in the 2011 Act, to overhaul Labour’s Licensing Act 2003 and rebalance it in favour of local communities. We gave local people a stronger voice by scrapping the old vicinity test that the hon. Lady mentioned, so that, now, anyone can make representations and object to licensing applications regardless of where they live in relation to the premises. In addition, we made it easier for licensing authorities to respond to local concerns about irresponsible businesses selling alcohol and close problem premises down. We have lowered the evidence threshold for decision making and the burden of proof to show that a premises is causing public nuisance or crime and disorder, for example. That is helping to ensure that the appropriate balance is given to local communities to make those decisions.

We have also given responsible authority status to licensing authorities, ensuring that those are better able to respond to the concerns of local residents by taking swift action to tackle irresponsible premises, without having to wait for representations from the police or other responsible authorities. At the same time, we have given local health bodies a greater say in licensing and increased the availability of information about alcohol licensing online.

More than 40% of violent crime is alcohol related. In October last year, new powers were introduced and made available to help local communities tackle the problems of crime and disorder caused by late-night drinking. The late-night levy allows local councils to charge pubs and clubs opening late at night for a contribution to policing costs. The early morning alcohol restriction order allows for alcohol sales to be banned between midnight and 6 am, if there are local grounds to do so. The powers commenced on 31 October 2010. Many licensing authorities, including the London borough of Islington, and Newcastle, are considering carefully whether the late-night levy could benefit their area. They must also consult publicly before introducing the levy. I hope that hon. Members will note that Newcastle has already begun to do so. Early morning restriction orders, as I said, were introduced at the same time and allow councils to prohibit the late-night sale of alcohol. A number of licensing authorities, including West Lancashire and Northampton, are considering such orders for their areas.

The hon. Lady asked me about minimum unit price. She will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane responded to an urgent question in relation to this matter and highlighted that the Government are carefully considering responses to the alcohol strategy consultation. We will publish a response to that in due course, taking into account all the representations.

As well as measures to tackle alcohol harms, the public consultation recognised the contribution that the responsible alcohol trade makes to our economy and society. The Government sought views on ways to cut red tape in licensing for responsible businesses, while not, of course, undermining safeguards against the harms that alcohol can cause. The consultation sought views on a number of areas relating to proposals to cut red tape, including whether to give discretion for licensing authorities to develop their own simplified processes for temporary event notices and reducing the burden of alcohol licensing for certain types of premises that provide minimal alcohol sales as part of a wider service.

It is important, as hon. Members have said, to recognise that the vast majority of our pubs are vital community assets, contributing to the economy and providing local jobs, in many ways at the heart of communities, fostering strong social values and encouraging responsible drinking. The alcohol strategy reflects that. It is also notable that each pub contributes an estimated £100,000 annually to its local community. The Government are helping pubs through a wide range of measures. In the last Budget, we scrapped the beer escalator and cut alcohol duty, resulting in a pint of beer being 4p cheaper than if we had done nothing. We have also extended the business rates holiday for a further year, until the end of March 2014, and got rid of much of the red tape that frustrated landlords and kept them from focusing on what they are best at: running a business and managing drinking in a safe environment. Most recently, on 15 June, we announced that new CCTV guidelines will mean that pub landlords no longer have to pay for intrusive and costly surveillance cameras where they are not needed.

One proposal to cut red tape that the alcohol consultation considered—it has obviously been mentioned in the debate—related to whether to remove the requirement for applicants to place advertisements in local newspapers or circulars when applying for a premises licence, provisional statement or club premises certificate or for a full variation of a premises licence or club premises certificate. Some in the licensed trade found that burdensome and pointed to other mechanisms whereby local people could find out about new licensing applications.

I understand hon. Members’ concerns. Similarly, I understand the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, as well as his motives in calling for the debate. Adverts in local newspapers are one way in which local communities can find out about premises licence applications, and I note the contributions that have been made about the importance of that and the reach it provides.

I should highlight that there is a requirement for applicants to advertise information about a premises licence application by displaying a notice at the premises. That, too, can be a way of alerting a community to the fact that a licence may be being sought in respect of the premises. Alongside that obligation, the Government have added a new requirement, from April last year, for licensing authorities to publish details of such licence applications on their websites. Some licensing authorities have gone further than the strict legal requirements, and they proactively provide e-mail alerts to those interested in licensing applications. The Government’s guidance to licensing authorities encourages them to ensure they comply with legal requirements. We will look to ensure that licensing authorities consistently publish the relevant information. I recognise the points made by my hon. Friend, but it is important to recognise the changing ways in which information is provided and the importance of online platforms in communicating information. We should look at innovative ways of strengthening that further.

The Government’s consultation received a large number of responses from business, the public and local government. A number of arguments have been made for and against the proposal, and the Government are grateful for how the public have engaged and for the information that has been provided, including by those in the newspaper industry and the licensed trade.

The arguments in favour of abolishing the advertising requirements include the burden it places on licensing applicants, who must pay for the cost of the advertisements. However, others have pointed out—this is reflected in the mood of the debate and the comments that have been made—that newspaper adverts provide a valuable source of information for those who might not see notices on premises or licensing authority websites.

Let me be absolutely clear: the Government do not wish to remove the say that local people and communities have in the licensing process. There is an important balance to strike, and we must consider whether there are already adequate ways for people to find out about premises licence applications. We also acknowledge the role newspapers have as a central point for local information. That, and the other points I have mentioned, need to be weighed up by the Government as we consider our response to the alcohol strategy consultation. As I said, we will publish our response in due course.

I am grateful for the contributions that have been made this afternoon, which amplify some of the representations that have been made as part of the consultation. We will reflect further on the clear points that have been made in the debate. We continue to listen to the points that are flagged up. I very much hope that that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance that we take this matter very seriously and that the proposal in the consultation document continues to be given detailed consideration. We will continue to reflect on the proposals, and we will publish our formal response in due course.

EU Police, Justice and Home Affairs

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

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