Police Officer Reductions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Turner, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on securing the debate, even though I do not agree with a great deal of the assumptions and analysis he has presented this afternoon.

Perhaps we can start on a point of agreement, however, by recognising the work of the police service. As the Minister with responsibility for security during the Olympic and Paralympic games, it has been a privilege for me to work alongside the police. I pay tribute to their incredible work over the 105 days of the policing plan for the events, which ensured that safety and security were provided. We all recognise the job that the police do and the big contribution that they make to keeping our communities safe. In the context of Merseyside police, I also pay tribute to the work of Chief Constable Jon Murphy, which is providing a sense of assurance, and I want to recognise the work that individual police forces and police authorities are doing to respond to the challenge of dealing with budget settlements over the comprehensive spending review.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s central argument, the Government have no choice but to deal with the deficit that was caused by the actions of the previous Government, meaning that all public services must constrain their spending. As a service spending £14 billion a year, there is a broad consensus that the police can and must make their fair share of the required savings. The Government are clear that savings need to be made while ensuring that the quality of service that the public receive is maintained and, where possible, improved. This is not about salami-slicing policing resources; it is about transformation and long-term change in the way that services are delivered.

Furthermore, there is a great deal of talk about the reduction in central Government funding for the police, but we must be clear that that is only part of the picture. The police service, nationally, receives around a quarter of its income from the police precept element of council tax. The exact proportion varies from force to force, and I should stress, the level at which it is set is a matter for individual police authorities —or, from November, the police and crime commissioners—to decide.

Nationally, about £2 billion of savings needs to be made by the police service by 2015. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has challenged forces to drive through efficiencies, and it has shown that over half the savings required nationally—some £1.15 billion—could be achieved by forces raising their performance to that of the average of comparator forces.

Action to date in support of and among local forces includes our having extended the public sector pay freeze to police officers and staff, which will save at least £350 million by the end of the spending review period. Savings arising from the implementation of part 1 of Tom Winsor’s “Independent Review of Police Officers’ and Staff Remuneration and Conditions” will support chief officers in keeping posts and maintaining and improving services for the public. The police can, and are, making further savings by adopting an increasingly national approach to buying equipment and services, and forces can also make substantial savings in their IT spending.

On procurement, we are seeing the service operating with increasing commercial intelligence and using its collective buying power to buy more smartly and at a reduced cost. We have supported the service in doing that by mandating the use by all forces of specified framework agreements for purchases in key categories of goods and services, identified through the collaborative police procurement programme.

There is already evidence of the service’s success in delivering even better value from national frameworks by working together to purchase equipment through them. The service can go further in making procurement savings through reducing the volume of spend, as well as through price savings. The Government have consulted on extending the range of mandated categories and are considering the consultation responses. They have also identified the scope for the service to save at least £200 million a year by joining up procurement of non-IT goods and services.

Forces are also making substantial savings in IT. We have seen police spend fall by £73 million last year compared with 2009-10, and we are clear that there are real opportunities for further savings to be made. The new police information communications technology company will play a key role in helping forces make the most of such opportunities. In total, forces are planning to make about 24% of their savings through reducing non-pay costs. As just under 20% of forces’ budgets are spent on non-pay areas, that shows that forces are prioritising finding savings from non-pay budgets.

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister touched on a point that I did not raise, which was about using private companies to run police services. As he will know, that is of great concern to the Police Federation and many others. Perhaps he can help me understand how a private company, where it needs to make a profit, can run services more cheaply to the taxpayer than if the efficiencies were sorted out in-house.

[James Brokenshire]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that has been the experience; a number of private companies, in specific roles and with specific functions, have carried out those services, and many police forces around the country are utilising private companies to deliver some specialist services.

I should apologise for the absence today of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who is at the police superintendents conference and is therefore unable to respond to the debate. I know that he would want me to send his apologies. He has made the point, as the hon. Member for Sefton Central may know—my right hon. Friend’s comments were reported in this morning’s newspapers—that the private sector can and does have a role in the delivery of certain services. We are clear, however, that the fundamental principle of warranted officers conducting police services is always to be the bedrock of policing. Although the hon. Member for Sefton Central may find it strange to think that private services can deliver, and assist in the delivery of efficient and effective services, we believe that there is a role for the private sector in such a context.

The hon. Gentleman asked about officer numbers. The Government are clear that what matters is how officers are used and deployed. For instance, when the last Government left office, about 25,000 officers and PCSOs were working in non-front-line roles. In some cases, there may be understandable reasons for that, but by and large that is not where the public expect to see them. It is not where their skills, experience and professional judgment are best used and, frankly, it is not where they will deliver best value for money for the taxpayer.

The Select Committee on Home Affairs said in February 2011:

“We accept that there is no simple relationship between numbers of police officers and levels of crime.”

That point was reiterated in the report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, “Policing in austerity: One year on”, published in July 2012. It is borne out by the evidence from the majority of forces, which, despite also experiencing reductions in budgets and officer numbers, are successfully managing also to reduce crime in their areas. I pay tribute to their work and therefore disagree fundamentally with the analysis that the hon. Member for Sefton Central sought to make.

The Government have a clear vision, which focuses on restoring professional discretion and reducing bureaucracy in the police service. We are committed to taking central Government out of local policing and concentrating instead on the national issues on which the Government should focus. To increase local discretion, we have cut police red tape, saving 4.5 million police hours, the equivalent of 2,100 officer posts. Additionally, the Government are replacing bureaucratic accountability with local democratic accountability through directly elected police and crime commissioners. On national issues, we are introducing the new National Crime Agency, which will lead the UK’s fight against serious and organised crime, strengthen policing at the border and ensure that local police are linked up to work nationally and overseas.

What matters is how effective the police are at fighting crime, and the effectiveness of a police force depends not on overall numbers but, ultimately, on how well it deploys its resources. That is why although total officer numbers across England and Wales fell between March 2011 and March 2012 by 3.6%, recorded crime also fell by 4.2%. I believe that that national picture is reflected in Merseyside.

Merseyside has seen its central Government funding reduced by 6.7% in 2012-13. This year, Merseyside is receiving £264 million of Government revenue funding. The local authority also agreed to increase council tax by 3%—it was one of 22 to do so—meaning that the authority is receiving an additional £64 million of funding through precept for 2012-13. Plans show that Merseyside is planning to increase by 2015 the proportion of officers on the front line from 85% to 91%, which is higher than most other forces. The force has also planned to have 76% of its total work force on the front line—again, a higher proportion than most other forces.

Service delivery continues to be protected. In the past year, recorded crime has remained flat in Sefton Central and has fallen in each of the other Merseyside police boroughs. Between March 2011 and March 2012, total recorded crime across Merseyside fell by 3.5%. The force currently retains more than 200 points at which the public can access police services. I also point out that victim satisfaction for Merseyside is, at 88%, greater than the level for England and Wales as a whole. I pay tribute to the work that is conducted in Merseyside.

Although we may disagree on a number of fundamental issues, I trust that the hon. Member for Sefton Central will agree with me that the vast majority of police forces are rising to the challenge posed by the funding and work force reductions made necessary by the budget deficit, which, I say again, was caused by the actions of his Government.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Friday 13th July 2012 Commons Chamber

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

May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on his second place in the ballot and on introducing this Bill on a subject that rightly interests all hon. Members? Hon. Members from across the House vividly described the impact of metal theft on communities, so it is right that we had the opportunity to debate these issues this morning. There is a great deal of consensus on the nature of the problem, the scale of its impact and the need to examine solutions to deal with this crime, which is adversely affecting many of our communities, and that has been reflected in debates in this House over a number of months.

Some issues do deserve further scrutiny, as my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) have identified, but I believe that they can be dealt with in Committee and that the Bill addresses a number of significant issues and concerns that have been raised. Although I take on board the effect that initiatives such as Operation Tornado have had—it is important that we recognise that—they can take us only so far. In order to get a universal approach—universal buy-in—legislation is required. I believe that there is broad recognition of the fact that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is no longer fit for purpose, which is why it is appropriate that we are considering these matters in detail and why my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South is right to introduce his Bill today. It deserves fair consideration and a fair hearing, and the support that I hope there will be from hon. Members from all parts of the House.

The Bill is not a silver bullet, as my hon. Friend rightly said. We need to take a balanced approach between enforcement, prevention and disruption, but the legislation contemplated in the Bill is important in addressing a number of those elements. This is about being balanced within a broader framework of enforcement. The investment that the Government have provided through the metal theft taskforce is a significant step forward in seeking to deal with the intelligence and to build partnerships together. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) highlighted the issue of exports, and he was fair and right in putting the matter in that broader context, too. However, his comments showed why intelligence is also being co-ordinated. I hope that what we are doing will telegraph some further support for the National Crime Agency, as that proceeds, in harnessing intelligence and ensuring a cohesive, co-ordinated approach to dealing with serious and organised crime.

The 1964 Act is widely seen as being outdated and in need of reform, and as not reflective of the current £5.6 billion industry. It is important to recognise the wide support that the Bill has already attracted. We have heard clearly about the impact that metal theft has had on churches, cathedrals and other places of worship. Notably, the Archbishops Council of the Church of England has given its support, recognising the steps the Government have taken and saying that

“now is the time to support the introduction of new legislation for the scrap metal trade.”

The Local Government Association highlights the fact that nine in 10 councils are affected by such crime and says that further steps are required, that there is a need to introduce further regulation and that it supports the proposals for local authorities to have that stronger say in and control over the licensing of scrap metal dealerships.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley highlighted the importance of contributions made by the British Metals Recycling Association, and it is important to note that Ian Hetherington, the director general, has said:

“The Private Member’s Bill will help close the numerous loopholes present in the current regulatory framework that will enable stolen metal to continue to be sold for cash and bolster unlicensed operators at the expense of compliant businesses.

BMRA hopes the Bill makes swift progress through the legislative system in order that the full range of regulatory measures can be implemented in a single process to avoid confusion for the industry and for the police, Local Authorities and other enforcement agencies.”

There is broad consensus across a number of different parts of the industry as well as law enforcement and other agencies, and that is reflected in the Bill. It is therefore important to recognise the impact of metal theft.

The incidence of metal theft has increased rapidly in recent years and the Home Office estimates that there were between 80,000 and 100,000 reported metal theft offences in 2010-11, costing the UK economy some £220 million to £260 million a year. That is one estimate, but I also recognise that there are higher estimates. The Association of Chief Police Officers provided an estimate of as much as £777 million when the costs of the direct result of infrastructure disruption are also factored in.

We see the impact on so much of our infrastructure, on power companies and on our rail infrastructure, as we try to get around when signalling has been disrupted as a consequence of metal theft. Only this week, we saw 89 homes without power in Stockport following an attack at a local substation. We simply cannot put a price on the costs incurred by members of the public and businesses as a result of the disruption. It is not just about infrastructure, however. Our churches and our community monuments feel the impact of this appalling crime. In London, 16 brass plaques from different monuments and cemeteries have been stolen over the past two years, including from my own constituency in Sidcup. The plaques remembered more than 15,000 war dead. We also saw the shameful theft of the river of life memorial plaque to Johnathan Ball and Tim Parry in Warrington and the destruction and theft of Barbara Hepworth’s bronze sculpture from a south London park over the new year. That sculpture was insured for £500,000.

Such crimes are wanton, selfish and callous and show no respect for our communities. Frankly, those who are responsible deserve our contempt. I point out to those watching our debate this afternoon the personal impact of the crimes. I do not think that anyone present in the House today could have been anything other than moved by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) about the personal and emotional impact of these crimes. That is why it is important to take action to deal with such incidents.

I know that the police have undertaken considerable work to identify where stolen metal is being sold and where it is going to. The UK is a major exporter of scrap metal, with more than 9 million tonnes of metal leaving the UK legally last year. Although we must be aware of the risk of stolen metal being directly exported, we believe that the vast majority of stolen metal is still being laundered through the scrap metal industry. It is therefore right that our attention should be focused on that industry and it has become clear that the regulation is woefully outdated and in desperate need of reform.

However, I put it clearly on record that the industry does vital, good work, and clearly benefits our economy. We should recognise that there are many reputable scrap metal dealerships, but the industry itself acknowledges that to protect the legal part of the industry and raise the bar, legislation and further regulation are required.

The Government have already taken action, both operationally and by making some initial legislative changes. As Members will know, in the previous Session the Government made initial legislative approaches in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which received Royal Assent in May. It prohibits cash payment for scrap metal, amends police powers of entry to unregistered scrap metal sites, and increases the financial penalties for offences under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. We anticipate that those measures will be brought into force in the autumn.

However, we did say that that was a first step, and we always considered the 1964 Act to be outdated and in need of reform. That is why the Bill is important. Through the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, we have an opportunity better to regulate the industry. The Act is ineffective and needs change. It does not reflect the 21st-century scrap metal industry, and the materials that dealers now purchase. It does little to ensure that dealers maintain accurate records of transactions, or verify a seller’s identity. The Act merely requires records of transactions to be made. It does not enable a local authority to refuse to register a dealer, or to remove a dealer from the register, if that dealer is not suitable to operate as a scrap metal dealer. Nor does it provide any powers to close unregistered businesses. Scrap metal dealers can register at no cost, so local authorities cannot cover their costs. There is also the issue of itinerant collectors, which is largely an issue of enforcement. Many of the people who go round with vans have not registered with local authorities or been recorded by the police, as is required under the legislation. That needs to be addressed as part of broader reforms, and to be covered by a broad legislative framework.

In effect, the Act does little to stop the purchase of stolen metal or encourage higher trading standards across the industry. The Bill before us will change that, by putting in place a more robust, local authority administered, licensing regime for the scrap metal industry. It is right to allow only those individuals and businesses that are considered suitable to operate as scrap metal dealers. The test for suitability should mirror the one used by the Environment Agency in relation to its environmental regulations, and should include a consideration of all relevant unspent convictions. That will support law-abiding scrap metal dealers, while ensuring that elements in the industry that are only too happy to purchase stolen metal can be effectively tackled and closed. The Home Office agrees that the licensing authority should be the local authority, rather than the police, the Environment Agency or some other local body.

It is right to introduce a fee, so that local authorities can recover the cost of administering and seeking compliance with the regime. That should ensure that the regime is effectively managed, and that illegal operators can be tackled. The Home Office has been working with the Local Government Association to cost that licensing fee. We believe that it will be a reasonable fee that will not be disproportionate. It will cover local authority costs relating to the administration of, and compliance with, the regime. It is right and proper that details of that should be provided clearly in Committee, so that the industry is cognisant of how a proper balance will be achieved.

It is important to note the requirement for verification—a point that the right hon. Member for Delyn highlighted. I point to the reference in the explanatory notes to how identity could be verified; it could be done through documentation including passports, driving licences, and bank and utility documents, but not identity cards, which this Government did not consider an appropriate measure. That is why it was one of the first things we scrapped. If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in issues that have not hung around for very long, I challenge him back on that topic.

It is important to note that the Bill will provide powers to close unlicensed scrap metal dealers. The regime will provide for the courts to close premises that should not be operating—the ultimate sanction.

The Bill has been widely called for by Government Departments aware of the need to regulate the industry, by parliamentarians, not least through the Commons motion passed in February, by law enforcement organisations, by victims of metal theft, by public and private industry and those who represent the third sector, and most notably by the scrap metal industry itself. The Government believe that action will be limited without necessary reform to regulate the scrap metal industry. The private Member’s Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South provides us with the opportunity to make the necessary changes. We must seize the opportunity, and I hope that all Members of the House will support this much-needed reform.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63.)

Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

4. What progress she has made on the draft Communications Data Bill; and if she will make a statement.

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

We published the draft Communications Data Bill on 14 June. The draft Bill will now be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses and a parallel inquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Joint Committee has begun its work and is due to report in November.

[Simon Hughes]

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. He will know that the draft Bill, particularly in clause 1, gives very wide powers to the Secretary of State by order. Will he tell us whether the Secretary of State has yet written those orders? In any event, will he give the undertaking that they will be published at the earliest available date?

[James Brokenshire]

It is worth underlining that communications data are an essential tool in solving and prosecuting crime. It is important that that is not eroded by changing technologies, which is why we need the flexibility to respond to change. We are working closely with the Joint Committee. We are absolutely committed to the pre-legislative scrutiny and to ensuring that the Committee can conduct robust scrutiny of the Bill.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Minister said that he was working with the Joint Committee on which I serve. He will be aware that the Joint Committee has not been given sight of the order. Will he promise that we will have a chance to see it while we are carrying out the pre-legislative scrutiny?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will know, scrutiny of the draft legislation is only just starting. I understand that the first sitting of the Joint Committee is due to take place this week. Officials from the Department will consider this matter and give evidence to the Committee. I will commit to keeping the issue under review as the legislative process develops, because we recognise the need to ensure that the Bill and the scrutiny that we will respond to are effective. We need to recognise that this is an important matter in ensuring that crimes continue to be prosecuted.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking to help the police prevent crime in rural areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

12. What assessment she has made of the likely key areas of expenditure in implementing the proposals contained in the draft Communications Data Bill.

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

As I told the House some moments ago, the Government published the draft Communications Data Bill on 14 June. It was accompanied by an impact assessment, which estimated overall cost for the likely areas of expenditure.

[Duncan Hames]

That estimate of overall costs was £1.8 billion. When the last Government first introduced plans for identity cards, the Home Office estimated costs at between £1.3 billion and £3 billion. By the time the coalition Government wisely cancelled ID cards, that estimate had passed £5 billion. How can we have confidence that these proposals will not also prove to be a burden on industry and the taxpayer alike?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the ID card scheme was disproportionate and intrusive, and a waste of public expenditure. Our proposals for communications data are critical to support for essential day-to-day police operations. The alternatives—covert human intelligence sources, directed surveillance and undercover officers—are more expensive, more intrusive and less effective.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the potential ability of terrorists to find their way around the provisions of the Bill?

[James Brokenshire]

The whole point of the Bill is that it provides flexibility. The key aspect of it is that it allows co-operation and collaboration with internet service providers to ensure that we respond to the changing nature of criminal operations. Criminals are changing their tactics, and the legislation needs to move with them.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

13. What progress she has made on the matter of deportations and article 8 of the European convention on human rights; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

T10. The recent conviction of rioters from Nottingham was secured in part by forensic evidence recovered from the wicks of smashed petrol bombs, but the Forensic Science Service has been abolished, staff numbers have been slashed and local forensic services still face multi-million pound cuts. What assurance can the Secretary of State give my constituents that front-line forensic services will not be harmed by her Government’s cuts?

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

We had to address the problems with the Forensic Science Service, which was, sadly, making unsustainable losses. New arrangements have been put in place with private contractors and we are confident in the robustness of those measures.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

The median income in my constituency of Bradford East is £16,200, more than £2,000 below the income threshold to bring a spouse to the UK. How on earth does it help integration to deny people the right to a family life?

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 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 2012, which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.

The Government are determined to do all we can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We would therefore like to add the organisation Indian Mujahideen—the IM—to the list of 47 international terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 10th proscription under the 2000 Act.

Section 3 of the 2000 Act provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes 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 through the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation only if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, she may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way so early in what will probably be a short contribution. What reviews have been conducted of all the other organisations on the list? Every time these orders come up, we seem to add to the list, rather than subtract from it.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to tell the House that an annual review is undertaken in respect of all the proscribed organisations. I also note the recommendation from David Anderson, the independent reviewer on terrorism, in respect of a mechanism for de-proscription. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are examining that recommendation carefully, and that we will respond to David Anderson’s report in due course.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Select Committee’s report on the roots of radicalism supported what the Government were doing, but suggested that the matter needed to be looked at. It is six months since the publication of the report. Given that the Minister is now bringing another organisation before the House, will he tell us when we can expect a definitive answer from the Government on what form that mechanism will take?

[James Brokenshire]

I acknowledge the Select Committee’s interest. Indeed, I gave evidence to the Committee, and I remember the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked me during the evidence sessions. The matter is being considered, in relation to the Select Committee’s report and in the context of the recommendation made by the independent reviewer. All I can say is that we will make a further announcement in due course. Unfortunately, I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a more specific answer now, but I acknowledge the point that he is making, and we will respond to the points made by the Select Committee and by the independent reviewer shortly.

We recognise that proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that the proscribed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the United Kingdom. Proscription makes it a criminal offence for a person to belong to, or invite support for, the proscribed organisation. It is also a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of the organisation, or to wear clothing or carry articles in public that could arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual was a member or supporter of the relevant organisation.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe an organisation only after thoroughly reviewing all the available relevant information and evidence on that organisation. Having carefully considered all the evidence, she firmly believes that IM is involved in terrorism. Hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to go into much detail, but I am able to give them the following information. IM is a terrorist organisation based in India. It emerged in 2007. It uses violence in its attempts to achieve its stated objectives of creating an Islamic state in India and of implementing sharia law there.

The organisation has frequently perpetrated attacks on civilian targets, such as markets, with the intention of maximising casualties. In May 2008, for example, a spate of bomb detonations in the city of Jaipur killed 63, and in September last year an explosion outside the high court in Delhi reportedly killed 12 and injured 65. IM has sought to incite sectarian hatred in India by deliberately targeting Hindu places of worship. An example of that was an attack on a prayer ceremony in Varanasi, which killed a child, in December 2010.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I understand and wholeheartedly support the reason for proscribing the organisation here, but is it proscribed in India as well?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, the organisation is proscribed in India and in several other countries, including the United States and New Zealand. The proscription here will align the UK with the emerging international consensus.

It is important, in the context of this order, to state that the group is also known to target areas popular with tourists. A shooting incident in Old Delhi wounded two Taiwanese tourists in September 2010, and there was an unsuccessful attempt to detonate an explosive device at the scene. The organisation has also publicly threatened to attack British tourists, so it clearly poses a threat to British nationals in India.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the fact that the United States and other countries have also condemned these terrorist organisations. What international co-ordination is there to ensure that if such an organisation is proscribed in one country, it is proscribed in other countries that we see as our allies?

[James Brokenshire]

I understand my hon. Friend’s particular interest in this subject. Clearly, we need to be satisfied that a particular organisation meets the statutory requirements for proscription, which I outlined at the start of my contribution. We seek to draw on information wherever it is available so that we can determine that the relevant steps are met in respect of the statutory tests, thus giving the Home Secretary the discretion to exercise a determination to proscribe an organisation.

We believe there is ample evidence to suggest that IM is concerned in terrorism, and I believe it is right to add the organisation to the list of proscribed organisations under schedule 2 to the 2000 Act. I commend the order to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

With the leave of the House, I shall be brief. Important points have been made, and I will reflect on de-proscription and the other things that have been raised this evening. I shall certainly write to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Select Committee, about relevant matters. I welcome support across the House for the measure. Unfortunately, there are a number of things on which I cannot comment because of intelligence and security matters, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand.

A number of issues were highlighted with regard to specific organisations. The Home Secretary has to be satisfied through the tests that I outlined that an organisation is connected with terrorism, so this is not a step that is taken lightly—it is a serious issue. I hope that the House understands that the Home Secretary has considered the issue carefully and that the IM has been engaged in indiscriminate mass-casualty attacks in India. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order, which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.

Late Night Drinking

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend Lord Henley, the Minister of State for Crime Prevention and Antisocial Behaviour Reduction, has today made the following written ministerial statement:

The response to the consultation on the secondary legislation for the late night levy and early morning alcohol restriction orders has been published today.

The late night levy and early morning alcohol restriction orders (EMROs) are two alcohol measures in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The extension of EMROs will allow local councils to restrict the sale of alcohol in their local area flexibly between 12am and 6am. This is a tool that licensing authorities can use to prevent problems in the night-time economy in either a part or the whole of their area. The late night levy will fulfil our commitment to allow councils to levy a charge from those selling alcohol late at night in their area to help contribute towards high policing costs in the late-night economy. Again, it can be applied flexibly between 12am and 6am. These measures will empower local communities to act to achieve a more viable night-time economy and contribute to the Government’s alcohol strategy to turn the tide against irresponsible drinking.

The response to the “Dealing with the Problems of Late Night Drinking” consultation considers the various comments received from a wide range of respondents. Their views have contributed to the development of the regulations that detail how these policies will be implemented. The first of these regulations have been laid today.

Copies of the response to the consultation will be placed in the House Library and it is also available on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk

National Fraud Authority (Annual Report and Accounts)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Written Statements

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

The National Fraud Authority (NFA) annual report and accounts 2011-12 has been laid before the House today and copies will be available in the Vote Office. They will be published shortly on the NFA’s pages of the Home Office website.

Scrap Metal Theft

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) on securing the debate. I think that the number of hon. Members who have stayed at this hour to hear his comments and intervene to make their own contribution underlines yet again the significance that many of us attach to this important issue, one that I know we will return to in the fullness of time when we might be able to debate some of the very important issues he has rightly brought before the House this evening.

The real problem, of course, is that the metal that is stolen is not scrap at all, as he has rightly identified. The metal being stolen has a very real purpose: it powers our train lines, supplies electricity to our towns and cities and commemorates loved ones. In London, 16 brass plaques from different monuments and cemeteries, including in Carshalton and Croydon and in Sidcup in my own constituency, have been stolen over the past two years. Those plaques commemorate more than 15,000 war dead. We have also seen the shameful theft of the River of Life memorial plaque to Jonathan Ball and Tim Parry in Warrington and the destruction and theft of Barbara Hepworth’s bronze sculpture “Two Forms (Divided Circle)” from a south London park over new year. The sculpture was insured for over £500,000. Only last week it was reported that 50 metres of lead roofing had been stolen from a funeral directors in Glenrothes in Scotland. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have their own sad and appalling examples of such theft and the impact it has on their communities.

[Graham Jones]

When looking at the list of crimes, will the Minister take into consideration the several kilometres of overhead power cable stolen in east Lancashire by organised criminals in the past seven days? They are quite thick cables, as I am sure the Minister is aware, so cutting them down and transporting them requires a high degree of skill, professional expertise and equipment.

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly will, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for his continued interest in and focus on the issue. I well appreciate his attachment to this policy issue, which I am sure he will continue in the months ahead. He is right to highlight the fact that the damage, destruction and vandalism to our local communities, businesses and transport infrastructure are what cause us such concern and, in many cases, rightful outrage and anger when we are confronted by this particular crime. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North highlighted, these crimes can result in the needless deaths of the perpetrators—eight individuals were killed in 2011 while trying to steal metal.

I assure all hon. Members in the Chamber that the Government take our responsibility for tackling and reducing this crime very seriously. Therefore, I very much value the opportunity we have had tonight to put some of these points on the record. I found the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to the debate helpful and interesting, and I am convinced that this is an area where continued co-operation and collaboration by all agencies involved will certainly go some way towards tackling this criminality, as he rightly highlighted.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the legislative action that we have taken through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which provided an early opportunity to take some initial legislative steps in support of the fight against metal theft, reflecting our belief that legislation, backed up with enforcement activity, is the only sustainable, long-term solution. Within the Act, we included measures to prohibit cash payments for scrap metal, to amend police powers of entry into unregistered scrap metal sites and to increase the financial penalties for offences under the current Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. The 2012 Act received Royal Assent last month, and we expect each measure to be enacted in the autumn.

The banning of cash payments is a UK first, although the legislation will apply only in England and Wales and the Government have not taken the measure lightly. We certainly recognise, however, that more needs to be done, and the hon. Gentleman highlighted the action that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) has very constructively taken forward. My hon. Friend is in discussions with hon. Members from all parts of the House to introduce a private Member’s Bill to revise the regulation of the scrap metal industry, and we recognise that the 1964 Act is outdated and in need of reform.

However, rather than being cast in the role of dark assassin, as I think the hon. Gentleman said, the Government intend to work closely with my hon. Friend and, we hope, to help to ensure through collaboration that his Bill delivers a stronger and more effective licensing regime for the scrap metal industry, thereby replacing the outdated 1964 Act.

Without wishing to pre-empt my hon. Friend’s Bill, I note that there is certainly a need to remove existing exemptions from which some itinerant collectors benefit, and to ensure that the Bill fully reflects the 21st century industry. I hope that it receives support from all parts of the House, but legislation needs to be supported by effective enforcement, and I am pleased to see the considerable efforts that the police service—in particular the British Transport police and their Deputy Chief Constable Paul Crowther, through his leadership on metal theft on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers—and other law enforcement agencies continue to make to tackle metal theft.

In November, the Government announced an additional £5 million of funding to establish the national metal theft taskforce. We wanted it to support and to enhance existing law enforcement activity throughout the United Kingdom, building upon the good work already being done by many, and, although the taskforce is referred to as one and is co-ordinated centrally by the British Transport police, it is actually made up of various regional hubs, involving officers and partners undertaking additional proactive reduction and enforcement activities—all aligned to overall strategic objectives.

The objectives of the taskforce include to reduce metal theft and to disrupt the active organised criminal networks. As the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) said in his intervention, organised groups are involved in metal theft, and we are also looking to expand intelligence on the stolen metal market, including by visiting every scrap metal dealer. The taskforce went operational in January and it has already achieved notable results, including the arrest of almost 400 individuals and the recovery of hundreds of thousands of pounds in cash and significant volumes of stolen metals.

[Graham Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I have just a few moments left. I will try to make a bit more progress, but if I can come back to the hon. Gentleman at the end, I will try to. I hope that he understands.

It is important to highlight that through the taskforce we have seen the development of Operation Tornado, a voluntary scheme supported by the British Metals Recycling Association, the trade association of the scrap metal industry. The operation encourages scrap metal dealers to require and record the identification of those who sell metal. It was launched in the north-east of England in January and is now being rolled out across England and Wales. I was pleased to hear that it has been rolled out in Nottingham, and I know that it is moving further across the country. Initial results have been exceptionally positive, with metal-related police-recorded crime reducing by half in the first three months of 2012 across the three north-eastern police force areas of Northumbria, Cleveland and Durham.

I am aware of the interest of the hon. Member for Nottingham North in the use of forensic property markers. The Home Office certainly welcomes their use and we consider that such products can be an important tool in the fight against crime. Although I am unable to endorse any particular commercial products, I am aware of the considerable progress that continues to be made in this area of innovation and would welcome their use when it is proportionate and reasonable. We have seen some notable successes when such products have been used, including their application on national infrastructure. Such products can equip police forces with information to identify the origins of particular metals, as well as providing essential evidence potentially to bring a conviction.

The hon. Gentleman also highlighted the role of the Environment Agency. Although Treasury rules mean that the Environment Agency cannot use income from the regulated sector to pay for its enforcement work against the unregulated sector, the agency does use DEFRA grant in aid for this purpose; it currently allocates a little over £17 million a year of its core budget to tackling waste crime, which includes identifying, investigating and taking action against illegal waste sites.

I also highlight the fact that the Environment Agency has been allocated additional funding over an 18-month period to create a taskforce that it hopes will bring about a lasting reduction in the number of illegal waste sites of all types. In the 12 months to the end of March 2012, using its resources the agency stopped 759 illegal waste sites from operating, 190 of which were scrap metal yards. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about co-ordination and how we can ensure that the enforcement agencies, the police, the local authorities and the Environment Agency work together effectively. I am sure that we will return to that issue in our consideration of the Bill be to presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South.

I hope my comments today go some way to answering the issues raised this evening and provide some reassurance that the Government are committed to preventing and tackling scrap metal theft. Time is short tonight, but I look forward to a longer and further debate to allow more contributions on this important issue. There is more to be done and I am certain that the Bill being introduced by my hon. Friend will go even further in tackling these damaging crimes.

Question put and agreed to.

Proceeds of Crime

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 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. 7641/12 and Addenda 1 and 2, a draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union; and supports the Government’s intention to not opt-in under Protocol (No. 21) to the European Union Treaties at this stage.

I welcome the opportunity to debate this important draft directive in the House this evening, but I should say at the outset that I am sorry that it has had to be scheduled on a day when a number of members of the European Scrutiny Committee cannot be present. It was originally scheduled for 23 May, but it was necessary to move it in order to give more time to consider fully the views of operational partners before deciding whether or not to opt in. Given the weight of parliamentary business and the limited time available before the opt-in deadline, it was not possible to find a time for this debate when members of the European Scrutiny Committee had returned from their pre-presidency visit to Cyprus. That is not as I would have wished, and I have offered to meet the Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), to discuss the directive.

I also recognise that, in order to inform these debates, we must ensure that the House is informed at an earlier stage of the Government’s position on such directives. I have written to the European Scrutiny Committee Chair to underline the high priority that I attach to ensuring that this process and these debates provide more effective scrutiny, and my officials will work with the Clerk of the European Scrutiny Committee and with the European Union Committee in the other place to that end. I am also arranging a discussion with the Minister for Europe to consider how the matter might be addressed effectively.

On the subject of the motion, asset recovery is a hugely important weapon in our efforts to tackle organised crime. The proceeds of crime are not only a central motivation for organised criminals; they fund further criminality. Freezing and confiscating criminal finances hurts organised criminals and protects the public, and I have no doubt that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will have examples of when the use of asset recovery has been a very effective weapon in providing relief to communities from serious organised criminals. It is an effective means of tackling and putting increased pressure on organised crime groups.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Minister is absolutely right, but we must do much better, and the better way is to make sure that there is more co-operation between EU countries on ensuring that those who try to find a safe haven for their money in another EU country are caught and their money confiscated as quickly as possible.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, makes an important point about international co-operation—one that we certainly recognised in the organised crime strategy that was published last summer. Criminals may wish to hide or to secrete assets not only in the EU, but throughout the world, so the need to look at the matter in an international context is an important one to which I shall return during my contribution.

In our domestic legislation, we have taken some important steps forward. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is the principal piece of domestic legislation for the restraint and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. It is an advanced and powerful piece of legislation that in most areas goes beyond the minimum standards of the directive that we are debating this evening. It provides a single scheme for the confiscation of the value of the proceeds of crime, following any criminal conviction and regardless of the amount.

If a defendant has been convicted of a listed serious offence or has a number of convictions, the court can assume that all their property is the proceeds of crime and can be factored into the amount of a confiscation order, a power known internationally as “extended confiscation”. It allows for the confiscation of assets that have been transferred to family members or other third parties; it enables the freezing of assets by a court from the beginning of an investigation in order to prevent their dissipation; and it provides civil recovery powers, an intrinsic part of our approach to this area of law, whereby the focus is on the property, not on the person who holds it, and no conviction is required. That is a particularly useful tool for tackling high-level organised criminals for whom it is hard to obtain a conviction.

In 2010-11 UK law enforcement agencies froze or recovered more than £1 billion of criminal assets. The amount of assets recovered has increased year on year since the 2002 Act, and one of this Government’s first steps on entering office was to do away with some of the arbitrary targets that the previous Government imposed on law enforcement professionals. This has galvanised their professionalism and their approach to ensuring that more assets are recovered or frozen. Certainly, the UK is recognised as a leader in this field. However, the Government want to do more, particularly on international asset recovery, as we made clear in our organised crime strategy of July 2011.

In 2008, it was estimated that some £560 million-worth of UK criminal assets were held abroad. That underlines the level of sophistication that a number of organised crime groups are seeking to deploy in order to hide or to shield assets. Improved international co-operation is therefore a necessary step towards recovering that money. That is why we welcome the aims of the directive, if not some of its provisions. It is right that we seek to drive up standards throughout the EU and find better ways of working together with our EU partners. To that end, the directive covers confiscation following a criminal conviction, extended confiscation, third-party confiscation, non-conviction-based confiscation, and powers to freeze assets. The UK already has all those powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act, and so, in almost all areas, we exceed the minimum standards established by the directive.

The purpose of the directive is to require member states to be able to freeze and confiscate the proceeds of cross-border serious and organised crime. The Commission argues that the confiscation of the proceeds of crime in the EU is under-utilised despite the existing EU legal framework. It says that there are three problems with the current EU legal framework: its incomplete or late transition into domestic law, diverging national provisions that make mutual recognition more difficult, and the low utilisation of confiscation in practice. The directive therefore creates minimum standards for the freezing, management and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. The Commission intends that minimum standards will lead to greater co-operation, but a mutual recognition instrument has not yet been published.

It is vital that we get the detail right, and we must pay great attention to the effect of the directive on our existing domestic regime and its likely operational impact. In that regard, the Government have identified a serious problem with the directive. As drafted, it poses a very real threat to our domestic non-conviction-based confiscation regime. Operational partners have expressed concern that opting in at this stage poses a risk to the powers used by our law enforcement agencies to target and disrupt the most serious organised criminals. Our non-conviction-based confiscation powers are civil law measures that allow prosecution agencies to take action against property that they think has been acquired through unlawful activity. The action is not taken against an individual, and no criminal conviction is necessary. As I said, it is a particularly useful tool for tackling the high-level organised criminals against whom it is very difficult to achieve a criminal conviction.

In 2011-12, approximately £20 million-worth of criminal assets were recovered using non-conviction-based confiscation powers. It is important to note that the Proceeds of Crime Act, and the use of the civil standard of proof as structured within the Act, has been upheld by the Supreme Court, and therefore its operation has been subject to judicial scrutiny at the highest level. Because of its criminal law legal base, the directive risks placing non-conviction-based confiscation measures in the UK on to a criminal law footing, opening new avenues of legal challenge to our powers and, in many ways, undermining the court judgments that have been secured in relation to the operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act. If criminal law procedural protections and a criminal law standard of proof were introduced, our domestic regime would be severely weakened and our law enforcement agencies would find it harder to disrupt the workings of some of the most dangerous organised criminals.

This is a technical argument, but it is of great importance to the law enforcement agencies that protect our country from organised crime. Under qualified majority voting, there is no guarantee that we can secure the necessary changes to the text. This Government will not risk hindering the work of law enforcement agencies in tackling high-level criminality. The risk is simply too great.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Is it not the case that non-conviction-based confiscation powers exist in many other EU countries and that the directive is therefore likely to be changed to increase flexibility and incorporate those powers, rather than to reduce it?

[James Brokenshire]

There is likely to be negotiation and discussion on the directive, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, given the manner in which such instruments are taken forward. However, given the significance of the existing powers and the way in which the regime has been tested before the courts, the key point is that because of the use of qualified majority voting, which I have mentioned, there is no guarantee that there will be the outcome that he suggests. The Government have taken the judgment that that risk is too high. On balance, we believe that not opting in at this stage is the better option. The risk to our civil recovery regime is simply too great, and I am not willing to take it, especially when operational partners have expressed such concern to us.

None the less, it is our intention to play an active part in the negotiation on the directive. Our experience on the recent human trafficking directive shows that the UK can have an influential voice, even when it does not opt in at the outset. In that case, we opted in to the directive at the post-adoption stage. The UK’s recognised experience and expertise in asset recovery will certainly help with the negotiations.

Our wider aim is to establish effective mutual recognition arrangements for both conviction-based and non-conviction-based confiscation orders. Although the draft directive adds nothing to our domestic asset recovery regime, mutual recognition arrangements could greatly improve our ability to recover the proceeds of crime held in other member states. The draft contains no proposal to establish an effective system for the mutual recognition of confiscation orders. Law enforcement partners say that they would welcome such proposals. The Government will consider how best to use our influence on that matter.

It is important to underline the comments of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee on how mutual recognition can be a powerful tool. It is important to focus on that point. Indeed, the EU Select Committee in the other place has highlighted it as an issue with the directive and it needs careful attention.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Is it not the case that there is bilateral mutual recognition in almost every case and that we do not necessarily need mutual recognition under the aegis of the European federal government in Brussels?

[James Brokenshire]

It is certainly true that bilateral arrangements can be structured. All that I am seeking to say is that negotiations on the directive provide the UK with an opportunity to have an influence. They do not affect our decision, reflected in the motion, not to opt in at this stage because of the serious risks and operational requirements that I have identified.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I urge the Minister to be very cautious about mutual recognition, because it means that countries that do not have a legal system that is as robust as ours can have their orders enforced in this country. It therefore threatens the rights of British subjects.

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly hear my hon. Friend’s point, and we will monitor that carefully in relation to the directive. As I have indicated to the House, there is currently no proposal in the directive dealing with mutual recognition.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I hear what the Minister says, but I wish to clarify it. In another place’s proceedings on the matter only recently, on 22 May, Lord Henley, the Minister, said:

“The directive offers us a valuable opportunity to raise the standard of asset recovery legislation in the EU, enhance our co-operation with member states, and increase our powers to recover criminal assets held overseas.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 778.]

Why did the Minister in the Lords say that only two weeks ago, whereas the Under-Secretary is saying today that we are not going to opt in?

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman reads the report, he will see that my noble Friend underlined clearly that the Government had not concluded their consideration of the directive at that point and had not formulated their decision on whether to opt in. We have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by law enforcement partners about civil recovery powers, and we have determined that the best course of action to protect our laws and our current civil recovery operation is not to opt in. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman seems to challenge that view. He seems to have determined that it would be appropriate to opt in.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take a different course, I am happy to give way to him.

[Mr Hanson]

I was simply looking at what was said only three weeks ago in another place and what the Minister is saying now. Given what he has said today, is he willing to publish in the Library at least some sort of précis of the responses that he has had from the agencies concerned, so that we can examine them in the light of the directive?

[James Brokenshire]

I am certainly happy to consider that, but the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are sometimes operational sensitivities attached to doing so. We have heard clear representations from operational law enforcement partners, which have been an important factor for the reasons that I have outlined. We none the less recognise that the UK would benefit from the directive raising standards across the EU regardless of whether we opted in, because of the developed legislation that we have in place in this country.

Not opting in at this stage is not a sign that we do not care about asset recovery. It is a sign that the UK takes it very seriously and is committed to getting legislation right for the UK and all member states. Our ultimate aim is to achieve better mutual recognition of both criminal and civil confiscation. The directive will not achieve that, and we will press for a further instrument or instruments in due course that would have that effect. We will analyse the directive carefully, but in the context of the current version, and for the reasons that I have explained, our clear judgment is that the UK should not opt in at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

Case proved, m’lud: the hon. Gentleman, along with the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others, does have concerns about this issue in principle. What I take from the Minister this evening is that the advice that he has received from operational organisations points to concerns about the ability of the measure to deliver what it should deliver, which is an increase in the assets taken from criminals and terrorists, and their repatriation to the United Kingdom. If that is the reason he is lukewarm this evening about progressing the measure, I will look at that in detail. If the reason is the pain and suffering that hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others may bring upon him—because of their fundamental objections to further European co-operation on such matters—that is something that we will also revisit in due course. If the Minister can provide us with a timetable for further discussion and examination of the issues, and if he is saying that he will rule out for ever signing up to this—[Interruption.] If he would like to say that on the record, that would be helpful.

[James Brokenshire]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not rule anything in, and we do not rule anything out. It will depend on how the negotiations proceed. The EU itself will be leading the timetable, and the presidency will take that forward. I understand his desire for a timetable, but that is not within my gift.

[Mr Hanson]

We have heard an interesting development in the consideration of the order this evening. There has been a clear position change from that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, only two weeks ago.

[James Brokenshire]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hanson]

I am afraid there has. The Minister has explained this evening the basis on which he has made his comments on the order. I will seek to obtain further information on that, as that would represent valuable progress. I suspect, however, that underneath all this there is a slight concern about the reaction of some Conservative Members, who will undoubtedly raise the concerns that I have mentioned, during the rest of the debate.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am grateful to have been called so early in the debate to represent the European Scrutiny Committee, replacing my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is away. I apologise if, in comparison to him, I am more loquacious.

I want to start by raising a few points relating to scrutiny. The Minister was gracious in accepting that there had been problems with it. The document was first made available for an opt-in decision in the middle of March, with a three-month time scale for making a decision which ends on 15 June. It is a pity that Her Majesty’s Government could not have made up their mind on this matter slightly earlier in the process.

I also want to raise a point about the other place. The debate in this House was cancelled on the ground that we were unable to debate the matter until the Government had made up their mind, but in the same circumstances the other place was able to debate it. I am not entirely sure whether that is a discourtesy to the other place or to us, but it seems odd that such a rule should apply in one place and not the other.

[James Brokenshire]

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. There was a distinction, in that the debate in the other place was on an Opposition motion, rather than a Government motion.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for that clarification. I should also like to say, for future reference, that I have been given hope that the Government might occasionally listen to what the House says, and that having debates before a decision is finally made would not necessarily be a bad thing. It might be a pious hope that speeches made from these Benches might influence the wise thoughts of Her Majesty’s Government, but it is one that I hold to. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but I hope that we can have better scheduled debates in future. From a personal point of view, I believe that the slot at the end of business on Wednesdays is extremely convenient for most people.

It is also a shame to be having this debate now, when half the members of the European Scrutiny Committee are away in, of all places, Europe. They are visiting Cyprus, in preparation for Cyprus taking over the European Union presidency. I was glad to have the opportunity of staying in the House. Like you, Mr Speaker, I prefer not to leave. I believe that you require specific permission to leave the country, and I would not mind being under the same constraint myself.

I shall move on to the substance of the opt-in decision, and to the Minister’s comments. It is tremendously important that, under our current law, any freezing order requires the order of a court, but that would not be the case under the proposed document from the European Union. It is unsatisfactory to allow the administrative freezing of assets without a court interfering. That is an important principle of justice, and on that basis alone it would be wise of the Government not to opt in to the directive.

As the Minister said, the directive would offer no direct benefit to our domestic asset recovery regime. That being the case, the only argument for opting in would be to have more Europe, and that is not the policy of Her Majesty’s Government, who are committed to keeping Europe closely under watch and limiting any extension of its powers. It is therefore difficult to see what changes to the draft directive the Government would find acceptable in order to make it better, or whether there is any prospect of their insisting that anything that happened under it should require a court order before being implemented. It would be interesting to know from the Minister what would be the consequences of our not opting in—by what would we be bound in our existing agreements and how would they develop, and what would be our ability to maintain bilateral arrangements with other member states in future? Might that not be a more suitable way of approaching the matter?

There are concerns about the standing of the directive under European constitutional law. As the Minister and other Members know, we have the ability to opt out of a great number of the crime and justice directives in 2014, but—and there is a but—if we signed this proposed directive, it would not be part of that block opt-out and it would remove our ability to opt out of three other directives that we have so far opted into. The block opt-out does not apply to EU policing and criminal justice legislation adopted following the Lisbon treaty’s entry and coming into force where the UK decides to become bound by it, and neither does it apply to pre-Lisbon treaty legislation that was amended once the Lisbon treaty came into effect. The three pieces of pre-Lisbon EU treaty legislation that we would lose are on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime under the framework decision 2001/500/JHA on the same subject, and another framework decision on the confiscation of crime-related proceeds. We would thus be tightly binding ourselves into all our future confiscation and money laundering policies being determined at the European level.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

Of course. A RABIT—rapid border intervention team—is a rapid deployment force used by the EU to go to countries that face influxes of migrants who are illegally trying to enter the European Union. It is not the furry thing that runs around the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

When the Minister winds up—I will read his reply in Hansard, and I apologise, Mr Speaker, for not being here for the wind-ups—I hope that he will look at the issue of the new National Crime Agency to see whether any of this affects the way in which the NCA is going to deal with the mutual co-operation that exists between our agencies and other EU countries. I have mentioned the visit that the hon. Member for South Ribble and I made to Colombia. The one agency that was praised, from a front-line commander in the middle of the jungle that we visited to the President of Colombia, President Santos, was the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It was praised particularly for the way in which it has worked with the Colombians and with other Governments throughout the world to combat illegal drug activity.

[James Brokenshire]

As the right hon. Gentleman will not be here for the wind-ups let me say now that I will reflect on his comments. I am certainly very appreciative of and recognise the work that SOCA undertakes around the globe in a number of different regions. The development of the NCA, and certainly the utilisation of legislation on the proceeds of crime, will be part of our approach to strengthening and developing our response to organised crime. The NCA is one part of that.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the Minister for that answer.

Finally, when we spend money on organisations such as SOCA, on which we spend £0.5 billion pounds a year, we expect value for money. We expect it to be able to go out there and seize assets. At the end of the day, that is how the public will judge the effectiveness of these organisations. Working with our European partners can only help us to achieve that. We do not need more legislation or, necessarily, more directives, but we do need the co-operation of our partners to succeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. I think we saw a classic piece of fence-sitting. There is a clear contradiction in the position set out by the shadow Minister, which I shall refer to briefly in due course.

The second argument against opting in is, as the explanatory memorandum explains, that there has been no formal domestic consultation yet, so the House does not have the official and formal views, based on operational law enforcement experience, of the police, SOCA, the intelligence agencies and other departments, let alone external experts and groups, on the need for and the practicability of what is being proposed. The Government are therefore right to be cautious and not to be bounced into signing up to a broad new law with far-reaching implications that have not been properly thought through. I noted that the shadow Minister has explicitly requested some gist, explanation or consultation in respect of the nature, character and substance of those submissions, yet without having seen them, he would be happy to opt in anyway. I respectfully suggest to him that the ideological view in this debate and in this House is his, in favour of more JHA integration, irrespective of the scrutiny of the merits and the substance.

The third argument against opting in relates to the costs associated with this directive. Those remain unquantified, but they could well be substantial. The directive will require changes to UK primary legislation. It would introduce new data collection requirements, specifically for evaluation purposes at the EU level. Those would create a pointless administrative burden for UK authorities and lead to an additional bureaucratic tier of EU monitoring of our practices. In addition, as has been said and as the explanatory memorandum explains, the directive’s insistence on effective remedies could add to the legal aid bill, just as we are taking difficult decisions to reduce it which require uncomfortable sacrifices at home.

The fourth objection is that the UK already has ample powers in the area of asset confiscation and freezing. The Government’s explanatory memorandum states:

“We believe that the UK exceeds many of the minimum requirements and so we do not foresee that it would have an impact on the number of cases.”

If anything, those powers have become too broad in the post-9/11 era. The amount of money confiscated by the UK authorities rose by more than 500% between 2003 and 2009, which is scarcely the symptom of a weak regime. The reality is that the directive is neither necessary nor desirable.

Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the UK framework for dealing with the confiscation and freezing of assets is perfectly robust. Let us be honest about this—I think that the shadow Minister should be honest about it: by legislating on this matter in Brussels, we would be legislating for the failings of other EU member states whose regimes are criticised by the Commission as “underdeveloped and underutilised”. In other words, we are expected to sign up to this blunt EU directive to try to encourage other EU states to pull their socks up. That is not a satisfactory basis for legislation in this country. For one thing, most of the failings in other member states arise less from legislative defects and more from deficiencies in operational law enforcement capabilities. The statement from the Commission suggests that the problem is less one of legislation and more one of law enforcement.

The Home Office recognised that point in its explanatory memorandum, which states:

“The UK does not consider that non-legislative options have been fully considered”.

That is the fifth objection to opting in. If there are alternatives to legislation, why have they not been thoroughly and properly examined by the Commission before it rushed to churn out yet another intrusive and in certain respects draconian directive?

The final objection is the impact on the UK’s 2014 opt-out decision on crime and policing, which has already been mentioned. Every time the UK opts in to one of the 130 or so measures that are subject to our block opt-out, that measure is removed from the list of laws that the UK will have the chance to repatriate by 2014. In other words, if we opt in we will automatically become subject to the jurisdiction and interpretation of the Commission and European Court of Justice. Given that Brussels will be assuming competence over broad and, for the UK, unprecedented security powers, that is not an ideological issue but a major constitutional one.

The directive is in part draconian, but it is in whole costly and unnecessary. It conflicts with basic principles of British justice and would undermine Britain’s opportunity to wrest back democratic control of justice and home affairs legislation. There is no good reason why Britain should opt in—the Opposition have not advanced one—and for principled and practical reasons, we should remain out. I commend the Home Secretary and the Minister for their rigour in reaching this decision based on the substance and merits of the matter.

[James Brokenshire]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Minister is seeking briefly to reply to the debate.

[James Brokenshire]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I will be brief given the late hour. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions tonight and I think that the debate shows the importance not just of the subject matter but of debating such decisions in the House to allow a full exploration of all the issues before a final decision is made.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who are members of the European Scrutiny Committee, let me underline the comments I made at the outset. The Minister for Europe is alongside me on the Treasury Bench tonight and we will work with the Committee and consider ways in which we can seek to ensure that Government decisions are communicated to the Committee and the House in advance of such debates so that we can facilitate further scrutiny and examination of the matters before us. I give the House a commitment that we will take that forward after this evening’s debate.

On the issue of mutual recognition, it may be of assistance if I say that the UK already succeeds in recovering assets from member states and other countries outside the EU in the absence of a directive. Some of that co-operation is a result of working through an existing mutual legal assistance framework on criminal matters that exists independently of and will not be affected by the directive. As I have said, the directive does not and is not intended to contain any further mutual legal assistance measures. However, as I said, we will explore the options for new mutual recognition for both conviction and non-conviction-based confiscation as these measures have the potential greatly to improve our ability to recover the proceeds of crime held in other member states.

I certainly recognise the emphasis on practical co-operation—a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and by the Chair of the Select Committee. Practical co-operation is a very important aspect, which I underline in my discussions with other EU members in relation to this subject matter.

I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that I have stated clearly in my letter to the European Scrutiny Committee that irrespective of whether the UK opts in to the directive, we will take an active part in negotiating the directive to shape it in the national interest. In response to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), may I say that we have set out in our letter to the Select Committee our negotiation objectives? I will consider ways in which we may be able to share information with him on that and in relation to the representations that we have received from law enforcement partners in connection with the directive.

Ultimately, the risks posed to our domestic non-conviction-based confiscation powers are too great. We will seek to negotiate the directive into a more acceptable form and we will keep the progress of those negotiations under close consideration. We believe that the right approach is not to opt in at this stage, but to stay out and negotiate, to underline the need for continued focus on our international relationships in respect of asset recovery and to ensure that we have a robust system to monitor this. If necessary, I shall come back to the House in the future, should the situation change. At this stage we do not judge that opting in is in the best interests of our country.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7641/12 and Addenda 1 and 2, a draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union; and supports the Government’s intention to not opt-in under Protocol (No. 21) to the European Union Treaties at this stage.

Emergency Services (Interoperability)

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Havard. I echo the clear and common message that has emerged from this debate, which is to thank the emergency services for their contribution, day in, day out, to keeping us safe. I thank them for their significant professionalism and bravery, examples of which have been cited during the debate. I am sure that the House would underline that clear message of gratitude for the work of our blue-light emergency services.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on securing the debate and on chairing the all-party parliamentary group on the emergency services, following that work through and facilitating a good and constructive discussion on the issues that are relevant to interoperability, to which I will seek to respond in my comments. I am certainly pleased to have this opportunity to update the House on some of the work that we have been doing to support the emergency services and to promote a better joined-up working approach.

It is clear that police, fire and ambulance teams work together on a daily basis with successful outcomes. Although the response to major incidents from our emergency services is among the best in the world, we are not complacent. The emergency services face significant challenges in responding to major incidents, particularly in the initial stages of a complex and fast-moving situation when the picture can be confusing and there may be unseen dangers. The three services must be able to come together as quickly as possible to share information about what is going on, to manage the risks and rescue any casualties. When the emergency services work together in that way, they save lives.

We continue to learn from events, such as the 7/7 London bombings and the shootings in Cumbria, and from regular national exercises designed to test the joint response. The severe impact and complexity of major incidents and other civil emergencies mean that we must strive for continuous improvement in the combined performance of the emergency services in joint operations.

The Home Secretary has asked the emergency services to set up a new programme of work designed to further improve our joint response to emergencies. The overall aim is to ensure that the blue-light services are trained and exercised to work together as effectively as possible in response to a major incident, including fast-moving terrorist scenarios, so that as many lives as possible can be saved.

The programme will be led by the emergency services through a joint forum, which will enable them systematically to plan, test and learn together. We fully support the delivery of the programme and have provided dedicated resources to look at how future improvements can be made.

I am conscious that a number of contributions highlighted the need for effective co-ordination and joined-up working at national level. Let me assure my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) that the Government are working collectively on this important issue. There have been a number of cross-departmental ministerial meetings to agree how to promote interoperability. The most recent was last month when the Home Secretary and her colleagues met senior representatives from the emergency services to discuss the plan for the new joint emergency services interoperability programme, which I will talk about in more detail shortly.

It is also worth highlighting that the Home Office, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government are working closely together on a daily basis. The Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Health, the Minister for the fire and rescue service, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and the Minister for the Cabinet Office will oversee that work through a cross-departmental ministerial board. We understand that we cannot work in silos and that a unified Government response is required.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) rightly highlights the need for engagement with the devolved Administrations, as policing, health and fire and rescue are devolved matters. We continue to work with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations, as do our emergency service partners, on the breadth of the programme, to promote a consistent approach to the development of responses and response capabilities and to facilitate the sharing of best practice.

At local level, the local resilience forums have an important role to play. Emergency services are required by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to come together with other organisations defined as Category 1 or Category 2 responders to identify and assess the risks in the area and develop and validate plans to respond to them.

Let me talk a bit more about how we will address the need for overarching co-ordination. At national level, the Government have set out in both the draft strategic policing requirement and the draft fire and rescue national framework, the requirement for connectivity between the emergency services. The strategic policing requirement will, for the first time, set out the national threats and the appropriate national policing capabilities that are required to counter them. The election of police and crime commissioners allows Government to get out of the way of local policing, rightly putting accountability in the hands of local people. The strategic policing requirement demonstrates our commitment to get a better grip on the national threats that we face and to ensure a unified approach. Under the strategic policing requirement, police forces will consider consistency between forces and connectivity with other emergency services so that we can improve interoperability between the police, other blue-light emergency responders and other partners in responding to significant emergencies.

The new police professional body will take on the policy functions of the Association of Chief Police Officers and set standards for police professionals. It will ensure that police officers and police staff have a common skill-set and common tactics, where appropriate.

We have talked about the need for interoperability. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby said that it was important to recognise joint working between individual agencies: the fire service, the ambulance service, the police and other agencies. Equally, there is a need for individual agencies to operate effectively themselves, and communication is certainly one element of that. I shall highlight some of the work that has been done around communication.

At this stage of the programme, our highest priority is the interoperability of police, fire and ambulance responders operating in a time-critical environment, where speed and accuracy of information are fundamental to the saving of life. However, we accept that the requirement for interoperability extends to a wider group of emergency responders and other agencies, who will be involved in and consulted on the development and implementation of the programme. I join right hon. and hon. Members in praising the work of local resilience forums, including their efforts to bring local responders together and to plan for risks that local communities might need to deal with, and I agree that such forums are a strong example of interoperability in action.

Future work, led by the joint emergency services interoperability programme, will ensure that responders have effective communications, guidance, training and exercises to support their response to a major incident. In response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, the programme will also consider opportunities for equipment and procurement sharing.

There are three key priority areas for the programme. The first is communications. Rapid sharing of information and intelligence is at the core of an effective response. It is needed to establish the type of incident, and to mobilise and co-ordinate the appropriate response. Ongoing communication within and between the emergency services will support on-scene commanders, who need to work together to make decisions and take urgent action.

The sharing of information within and between the emergency services is supported by Airwave radio communications. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby clearly highlighted the importance of strengthened joint communication. The programme will seek to ensure a common approach to the use of mobile communications during major incidents. Effective communications will also be enabled by the national resilience extranet, which is an information-sharing tool. In addition, the Government are working to pilot the direct electronic incident transfer, which will allow the electronic exchange of incident logs between front-line responders.

The right hon. Member for Delyn highlighted the future of Airwave and it might assist him if I gave a further response on that subject. The Airwave contract across the police and other emergency services expires between 2016 and 2020; I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself indicated that that was the case. As a consequence, the emergency services mobile communications programme has been commissioned by the Home Office to examine potential replacement solutions for the emergency services post-Airwave. Future service provision will be based on a review of the anticipated operational needs of the emergency services, and the technical capabilities and commercial opportunities available. Various technologies are being considered, but at the moment the programme is at an early stage of technology evaluation, with the first version of the strategic outline business case due in October.

For the future, interdependent relationships with the emergency services mobile communications programme will ensure that interoperability is a central feature of the future replacement for the Airwave service, when the current commercial contract expires. We will certainly provide further details to the House, as and when they are available.

[Mr Hanson]

I seek clarification from the Minister on just one point. Will it be mandated that police commissioners have to allocate budgets to purchase the system replacing Airwave? Is that the plan?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

As I think I have already indicated in my comments thus far, the work is ongoing. It is important to recognise—as I think I have done—the need to join up the emergency services, and to consider that broader context for the use of Airwave and its replacement in the future. Therefore, it is clear that careful consideration will be given to the implementation of the new emergency services mobile communications programme.

I am conscious of the need to deal with guidance or doctrine, which is the second element of the joint emergency services interoperability programme. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby pointed out that there is a requirement for a well understood set of joint operating principles that apply to all major incidents and risks, including terrorism, public order incidents and civil emergencies. That is exactly what the programme will seek to develop. I should point out that currently there is not an absence of emergency command doctrine, but we agree that doctrine and guidance is a priority area, which is essential to support the emergency services working together to use a common approach.

If my hon. Friend reads the Government’s response to Lady Justice Hallett’s recommendations following the 7/7 inquest, he will perhaps note that the use of plain English was a key element that was highlighted. Although it was not a recommendation, it is something that the Government have been taking forward in providing an updated lexicon. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the Government’s response, which was published a month ago.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I have been listening carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. It is all very well putting all these protocols and procedures in place, but does he agree that emergency planning, emergency training and interoperability between all the emergency services—not only between the blue-light services but between the blue-light services and those in all the other silos that he has mentioned—are equally important?

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely agree; indeed, my hon. Friend’s intervention is timely, because I was about to come to that precise point. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, joint training and exercising is a key part of the joint emergency services interoperability programme. It will be at the front and centre of all our future work. We strongly believe that interoperability comes down to individual behaviour—knowing fellow commanders and responders. These foundations are built through joint training and exercising. Of course, interoperability needs to be supported by the right equipment and assets, but at its heart it is about working together at the scene of an incident. Training and exercising work will build on the programmes that already exist, including the counter-terrorism national exercise programme, which involves the blue-light emergency responders. Forward Defensive, conducted in February, was part of a series of exercises to test and rehearse Government and police readiness for the Paralympic and Olympic games, ensuring that the joint operation—going all the way up to how the Government, through Cobra, operate—is followed through and tested.

My hon. Friend will be interested to know that interoperability training is taking place this week in Moreton-in-Marsh, involving the police, fire and ambulance services, specifically training for the response to a firearms attack and examining how such major incidents occur. That is the third set of exercises that we have run to test the joint response since January 2010. I hope he will be reassured by that, and by the emphasis that we absolutely give to the issue.

I shall talk briefly about the co-ordination of air assets. We have developed a project that is scheduled to become operational later this year. The National Police Air Service is a police aviation service designed to provide centralised air support to the 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales, replacing the current structure. The creation of the NPAS demonstrates co-ordination of air assets within the police service.

In conclusion, I hope that my comments this morning have underlined the importance that we attach to interoperability between the emergency services. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby for securing the debate, and I again thank the emergency services for their continued commitment to public protection, reducing harm and, of course, saving lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Brokenshire Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

11. Whether her Department has carried out an impact assessment on removing the deterrent of a criminal record in dealing with antisocial behaviour.

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

No, because we are not removing the deterrent of a criminal record in dealing with antisocial behaviour.

[Robert Flello]

I thank the Minister for that interesting answer. Under Labour, antisocial behaviour was driven down and my constituents saw the real benefit. With front-line policing now being hit by Tory cuts, my constituents are facing a weakening of powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, despite the spin we heard a moment ago. In drafting the upcoming White Paper, will the Minister acknowledge that public confidence is low and a weakened rebranding of antisocial behaviour orders is the wrong priority at the wrong time?

[James Brokenshire]

It may not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not share his characterisation of the antisocial behaviour measures on which we have been consulting. The criminal behaviour order would carry a tough criminal sanction for breach, and other measures, such as the crime prevention injunction, are about having speedier justice to bring relief to communities. These measures are about strengthening the response to antisocial behaviour, not weakening it. The hon. Gentleman will see that when the White Paper is published tomorrow.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to strengthen the impact of antisocial behaviour legislation would be to extend the welcome category of offences that he and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are considering for which the police can themselves prosecute, without having to go through all the bureaucracy of the Crown Prosecution Service?

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely agree. This is about reducing bureaucracy and giving discretion to the police to be able to get on and conduct such charges. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is examining precisely that issue and the relevant offences which may apply.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

Stockport Homes is very effective in dealing with antisocial behaviour by its tenants, using a number of measures made available under legislation introduced by the previous Labour Government. Does the Minister agree that civil orders and injunctions should still be available to social landlords, on application, in any future proposals?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with the hon. Lady about the role social landlords can play in dealing with antisocial behaviour. Injunctions and civil orders are important tools. We are looking at how to extend them, and to make them more flexible and speedier, so as to bring relief to social tenants and others who are victims of antisocial behaviour.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

13. What recent reports she has received on the time taken to enter the UK through Heathrow airport; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

14. What recent assessment she has made of the preparedness of the police for the London 2012 Olympics.

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

The Government and everyone involved are focused on delivering a safe, secure and successful games. We are confident about police preparations, which are at an advanced stage of readiness and are on track for the Olympic and Paralympic games.

[Mark Pawsey]

I thank the Minister for his reassuring words. To ensure a safe Olympics, it will be important for the police to work closely with other blue light services, such as the fire and ambulance services. What discussions have taken place on collaboration between all the emergency services?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I know that as chair of the all-party group on emergency services he takes a keen interest in these issues—indeed, I understand that he recently arranged a visit to the Olympic park. I can assure him that the Home Secretary has chaired various cross-governmental meetings with ACPO, the fire service and the ambulance service to ensure that there is a strong and co-ordinated blue light response, enhancing our emergency services.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Of course, the 2012 Olympics are not only taking place in London; many events will also be held in Cardiff, including the first one, before the opening ceremony, at the millennium stadium. What consultation has the Minister had with South Wales police to make sure that people attending the Olympics in Cardiff and other cities across the country have just the same level of safety as will be enjoyed in London?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the connections; indeed I visited Weymouth last week to examine the preparations for the Olympic sailing event, which we are very much looking forward to there. The police and the national Olympic co-ordinator have been actively bringing the police response together. We have been testing and carrying out exercises, and focusing not simply on London, but on all parts of the country involved in the Olympic games. We look forward to celebrating them very much.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

15. How many children and their families are being held in immigration detention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

17. What recent assessment she has made of any link between sales of the drug khat and serious organised crime; and if she will make a statement.

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

The Government are currently reviewing the case for control of khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will consider all available evidence, including any links with serious organised crime. Its advice will inform the Home Secretary’s decision.

[Mark Lancaster]

The UK will shortly become the only legal port of entry for the drug khat in western Europe, so what steps will the Government take to ensure that the UK does not become a drug smuggling hub for the rest of Europe?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that my hon. Friend has followed this issue with close interest. The Government are monitoring the situation carefully and seeking evidence from the Serious Organised Crime Agency and others to inform the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. That advice is due in October, earlier than expected, and we will form our final decision on the basis of that.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister study the evidence that every ban on every new drug since 1971 has resulted in an increase in that drug’s use? A ban on khat will not only increase its use but drive a wedge between the police and the Somali and Yemeni communities. Is this a sensible idea?

[James Brokenshire]

We will form our decision based on the evidence and the information provided by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation; bans can be very effective. For example, part of the problem with legal highs has been that young people have been taking them because they equated legality with safety. That is why we have taken action in that sphere and we will continue to take action on the legal framework.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

21. What recent steps she has taken to eradicate human trafficking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I thank the security Minister for the interest that he has taken in the superfluous security fencing at Milngavie reservoir since I raised the issue with him in 2010. Can he confirm that the Home Office has now acted, along with the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, to give Scottish Water the power to remove any unnecessary and unsightly security fences?

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

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that important constituency issue. As she knows, the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure has reassessed the site following the installation of a water treatment facility and confirmed the security measures, and I can confirm that I have signed the necessary direction.

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

As the Minister responsible for national security, will the Home Secretary provide us with her understanding of the comments made yesterday by the Justice Secretary, who told the BBC that he has revised his proposals for closed material proceedings in civil cases so that judges always have the final say on when they are used?