I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 to 5.

This new clause is related to provisions already in the Bill in clauses 6, 7 and 8. All the clauses are intended to facilitate the work of police collaborative units to ensure that where two or more police forces reach collaboration agreements in respect of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the fact that investigative teams may comprise officers from different forces will not cause any operational problems. Amendments 2 to 5 are minor and technical amendments that authorise conduct likely to take place in Scotland under section 46 of the Act. I hope that the House will concur with the Lords in these amendments.

Clauses 6, 7 and 9 make certain procedural amendments to the Police Act 1997 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in order to streamline the authorisation process for matters such as surveillance and, in particular, covert human intelligence sources or CHISs. Where collaboration is necessary, amendments to the RIPA authorisation are required. The Government anticipate greater collaboration between police forces, two or more, in which they enter into agreements to deliver better policing and—one hopes—some efficiencies. We are strong supporters of such arrangements and we therefore support Lords amendment 1.

Subject to certain conditions being satisfied, authorisation by one collaborating force for such surveillance activities or use of CHISs could be extended to members of another collaborating force, removing the need for duplicate authorisations to be issued by both collaborating forces. We supported this in Committee and we are pleased to do so again today.

I agree with the points that have just been made. These are very straightforward technical arrangements to facilitate co-operation between two forces working across force boundaries so that they can have a controller from one force area and a handler from another force area, if that is relevant to an operation in progress. We support these amendments.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 13

Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc: England and Wales

I beg to move, that this House agrees with Lords amendment 6.

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 7 to 24, 46 to 51 and 60 to 63.

Amendments 6 to 15 respond to the concerns raised during the debates in this House about the potential scope of clause 13. Broadly, the amendments mean that it will be an offence to pay for sex with someone who has been subject to exploitative conduct of a kind likely to induce or encourage them to provide the sexual services. A person engages in exploitative conduct if he practices any form of deception or uses force, threats—whether or not relating to violence—or any other form of coercion. This recognises that not all forms of coercion involve the use of physical abuse. Amendment 46 responds to concerns raised in this House and in the other place about the need for safeguards in the provisions creating the new rehabilitative orders for those convicted of loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. The amendment places an upper limit of 72 hours on the period for which someone can be held in police detention after being arrested in pursuance of a warrant following breach of such an order.

Amendments 47 and 48 require a court to be satisfied that before issuing a closure notice the police took reasonable steps to identify any person with an interest in the premises and that they were given a copy of the notice, before a closure order is made.

Amendments 16 to 20, 22 to 23, 60 and 63 change the name of the new category of sex establishment introduced by clause 27 from “sex encounter venue” to “sexual entertainment venue” in response to concerns that the term “sex encounter venue” could inadvertently stigmatise those who work in lap-dancing clubs.

Amendments 21, 24, 61 and 62 are minor and technical amendments that ensure that once premises have been granted a sex establishment licence in order to operate as sexual entertainment venues, they will be deemed to be a sexual entertainment venue for the duration of their licence, irrespective of how frequently relevant entertainment is provided.

Amendments 49 to 51 place a duty on local authorities that have not adopted the lap-dancing provisions within one year of commencement to consult local people to ensure they are given the opportunity to express their views as to whether the provisions should be adopted or not.

I hope that the House will agree the amendments.

Amendments 6 to 15 are important, and we had a fruitful debate on that subject in Committee. They seek to achieve a better definition of coercion. It will be an offence if an individual engages in exploitative conduct, the definition of which is if someone uses

“force, threats (whether or not relating to violence) or any other form of coercion, or…practises any form of deception”.

That is an improvement on what was in the Bill when it was previously before the House. We accept the Government’s main thrust, which is that it is important that we recognise that psychological pressure can be used to coerce someone into prostitution, and that it can have a considerable effect on people who are vulnerable. This is a better form of words than before.

An example of a case affected by the new wording would involve a threat by a pimp or other coercer used to entice someone into prostitution. The person might threaten to report the prostitute or sex worker to the immigration authorities if they were here illegally, or a prostitute or sex worker might be being controlled through a third party by controlled access to a supply of drugs to feed a habit, which would obviously affect an individual in a weak position compared with the person making the threats and seeking to exploit them.

We went around the block many times in Committee on that matter, and we believe that the new wording is an improvement. We will keep the situation under review, as I am sure Ministers will, to ensure that the redefined wording has the intended effect.

I wish to speak briefly about the amendments. I welcome what the Government have done. There was concern on Second Reading about the original proposals. As the Minister knows, the Home Affairs Committee looked into human trafficking. One problem, however, is that it is very difficult to find victims prepared to admit that they have been trafficked. My worry on Second Reading, therefore, was about enforcement and putting people in a position that involved them in a strict liability offence.

On considering the matter, I, and the Select Committee, felt that that went beyond the issue of exploitation and into the area of prostitution. Some people choose to be prostitutes as a matter of lifestyle. It is regrettable, but many people are in that position. I, and other Committee members, went to Soho with the Metropolitan police.

Good show!

Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend was not available; otherwise I am sure that we would have taken him with us.

We engaged some ladies in a conversation about how they got there and what they were doing. They, too, were concerned that this was in some way a reflection on them. While accepting all the points that I know that my right hon. Friend—he is my dear friend, and was my successor as Minister for Europe—will make, the fact remains that we have real concerns about enforcement. The amendments help, but in dealing with enforcement, the Government need to work closely with the Metropolitan police, so that we do not take on an issue wider than was intended in the legislation.

As the Minister said, Lords amendments 6 to 10 improve the definition of how we establish that a sex worker has been coerced into that line of work. They use the words “exploitative conduct”, which allow for a wider definition that includes things such as deception and threats—for example, the withdrawal of accommodation—rather than the earlier definition, which relied much more on threats of physical violence and others of a similar nature. The definition to be used, therefore, is an improvement, and one that we welcome.

As the Minister knows, we still have concerns about some of the intention behind it and the use of strict liability. Only one country in the world uses the strict liability definition for prosecuting clients of sex workers—Finland—but in the first two and a half years, no prosecutions were brought under that law. From January to June this year—the latest six months of the three years for which the scheme has been running in Finland—there have been two successful prosecutions. Such measures do not have a very good track record, therefore, and magistrates and judges in this country have expressed considerable doubt about achieving prosecutions using that concept. We welcome the improved definition, but we still have considerable reservations about the intention to prosecute on strict liability and its effectiveness.

Lords Amendments 16 to 20, 22, 23, 60 and 63, to which the Minister referred, change the legal definition of a lap-dancing club from “sex encounter venue” to “sexual entertainment venue”. That is a step forward. Many young women working in such venues expressed concern that the original definition was prejudicial to what they regarded as a straightforward entertainment process. It was said in the other place that the legal definition and description being applied to lap-dancing clubs was much harsher than that applied to the same process in a film. However, those arguments might have been overdone: for example, watching a scene in the American series “The Sopranos” with lap dancers in the background would be rather different—in style, intensity and content—from being in lap-dancing premises before a naked, or semi-naked, lap dancer, especially as someone can pay for a dance in a private room in which only one person, plus the lap dancer, might be present. That difference marks out the latter from the same process in a film. None the less, “sexual entertainment venue” is an improvement, although perhaps it does not go far enough. As Liberal Democrats said in the other place, we would have preferred a definition such as “adult entertainment venue” rather than “sexual entertainment venue”, but the latter is a welcome improvement none the less.

Amendments 47 and 48 introduce a third condition for courts to be satisfied on before accepting a police proposal to close a brothel. Again, there were considerable discussions in Committee in January and February, later on Third Reading and in the other place about the danger of over-emphasising police powers to close brothels, because many sex workers—many of us on the Committee met with many sex workers who visited the House of Commons to lobby and talk to us—were concerned that the over-zealous use of powers to close brothels would present a much greater danger to the safety of sex workers, because it is much safer and more secure to work in a small brothel, involving two or three people working off the streets, than to work on the streets. The amendments are a welcome step forward; they recognise some of the concerns raised over the past year during the Bill’s passage through the Commons and the other place.

Finally, under amendments 49 to 51, local authorities that do not adopt the new provisions on regulating lap-dancing clubs must consult local people. That, too, is a welcome step forward, but will the Minister suggest how that consultation will take place? In Chesterfield, for example, we have nine community forums covering the town. Would a consultation through a community forum be enough to meet the requirements in the amendments? Having chaired one of those forums years ago, before I became a Member of Parliament, I know well that only a small number of people tend to turn up—the same dedicated group—apart from when there is a controversial issue, whether planning or, in this case, lap dancing. On such occasions, a larger group tends to turn up that is perhaps unrepresentative of the community at large. Exactly what level of consultation would have to take place to meet the requirements in amendments 49 to 51?

I shall discuss amendments 16 to 20, 22, 23, 60 and 63, which deal with lap dancing. Generally, the legislation on this area is welcomed as an important change to lap-dancing licensing. We all know that it is the result of an 18-month campaign led by organisations such as Object and the Fawcett Society, parliamentarians on both sides of the House, equality organisations and residents associations, all of whom were concerned about the unchecked expansion of lap dancing and its impact on women and local communities in general. My interest in the matter was awakened by an application for a lap-dancing club in Stourbridge for a club with 50 private booths to which my constituents could not object despite living two doors away.

The legislation is important because it recognises that lap-dancing clubs are part not of the ordinary leisure industry, but of the sex industry. It is important to recognise that. As such, such establishments have serious implications and risks, not only for the women who perform in them, but for women in wider society, because they promote a sexist culture in which women are treated as sex objects and, I believe, a culture that fuels violence against women.

I am shocked that my hon. Friend says that there is a lap-dancing club in her constituency proposing to build 50 private booths. We just heard from the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes)—the Lib Dems are now the party of lap-dancing supporters—but 50 private booths? What on earth does she think will happen in them? A discussion of Lib Dem policy?

The question has been the subject of quite a lot of debate in Stourbridge. A stamp-collecting club meets quite close to the lap-dancing club. We wondered whether it might be using the booths for swapping stamps.

The feeling among local residents that I have described led them to think, “This is not the sort of establishment that I want to live by,” but they found that they could not object. That is how I started on this road. What is good about the reforms is that they will allow local authorities that wish to do so to apply greater controls on clubs and give local people greater powers to prevent lap-dancing clubs from opening. That is the good bit. However, I am still disappointed—and will remain so until I can be convinced otherwise—that the Government have chosen not to apply the legislation universally across England and Wales, nor to apply it to all lap-dancing events, regardless of the frequency with which they occur in particular venues.

A quick look at the debate on Report demonstrates the great strength of feeling on the issue in all parts of the House. I am concerned that the industry will take advantage of the legislation—I have seen that happen in my constituency and in Durham and Brighton. If there is a loophole, the men who control that area of the sex industry will exploit it. As a result of what is proposed, local authorities will not be obliged to adopt the legislation and can continue, if they wish, to licence lap-dancing clubs like cafés, relying only on the will of the council. Even if there is local opposition, like there was and still is in Stourbridge, local people will not necessarily be guaranteed a greater say in the licensing process unless Dudley, my local authority, takes up the legislation. Local authorities that do not adopt the powers will be vulnerable to challenge by the lap-dancing industry. It is an industry with a great deal of finance, and I believe that some local authorities will cave in to pressure from this strong and serious lobby.

Local authorities will also be prevented from applying greater controls to lap-dancing events if they occur 11 times or less in a particular venue each year. That puts the safety of performers at such venues at serious risk and also duplicates and undermines an existing discretionary power in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. I referred to an owner of a venue in Committee who welcomed the new legislation, because he felt that he could get all the bars and pubs in Stourbridge to apply for up to 11 events a year and thereby effectively have a mobile lap-dancing club around the area. If Dudley council is not robust and does not pick up the legislation, that could still happen in my constituency.

Does the hon. Lady agree with my earlier comment that we need to hear from the Minister exactly how the Government envisage the consultation by those local authorities that do not adopt the legislation taking place? If that consultation consists of an advert in the local paper that nobody responds to, it will be toothless. However, if it is to be a proper consultation, those constituents who are concerned, such as those whom the hon. Lady has discussed, should have ample opportunity to put pressure on their local authority. However, the devil will be in the detail, and it will depend what the legislation requires.

I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, the Lib Dems in Stourbridge have supported my position on the issue and have worked with me all the way along, so I do not necessarily have the same issue with Lib Dem concerns as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). It is key that the Government’s response now should be robust and allow local authorities to consult properly and effectively. The consultation will be a fallacy and a waste of time if it is just an advert in the local paper. We must ensure that those who are affected—the people who live in the streets where such venues are proposed; those who live next door; those who go to nearby colleges; those who have to walk past on the way to stations such as Stourbridge Junction or Stourbridge Town—are consulted. Young women who stay behind to do extra work or extra-curricular activities will have to walk past such venues. Indeed, they have already complained to me at my youth surgeries about catcalls and harassment. We must ensure that we consult everybody at every level; otherwise we will let them down.

I am glad that the Government have responded to the concerns that Members from all parts of the House have voiced by committing to place a statutory duty on local authorities to consult on the adoption of the new powers and introduce an order-making power to allow the Secretary of State to tighten the exemption, if it is found to be exploited. I am happy with that. However, I would have been happier had the provisions been applied across the board, but hey, I am a nice lady and I want to get the legislation through. I am happy with 80 per cent. of what I want, rather than fighting for 100 per cent. and losing. The two measures that the Government have set out address concerns expressed from all parts of the House, but I wish that they had been a bit bolder. The Government need to ensure that the measures are as robust as possible and that they are implemented to their fullest extent.

I felt a lot happier when I read Lord Brett’s strong reaction in the debate on the issue in the other place:

“I commit to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to address concerns regarding the lack of a statutory duty on local authorities to consult with local people”.

He continued:

“While the Government firmly believe that the exemption for infrequent events is a proportionate measure and should remain…I can reassure noble Lords that should it become clear that it is being exploited in a way that is obviously against the wishes of local people, they will have the power to tighten the exemption or remove it altogether.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 449-50.]

It is important that we underline that point.

I support the change of name from “sex encounter venue”, although I was worried at first. I can go along with the change to “sexual entertainment venue”, if the Minister truly believes that that will afford the women who work in them a degree of protection and some status or dignity. Many of the current or previous performers whom I spoke to said that they felt that the term “sexual encounter” almost presumed that all the women in such venues would be available for sexual encounters with whoever visited. I therefore understand their objection and agree with the change of name.

Before I conclude, I want to ask the Minister to confirm that clubs that have previously been granted permission to open, including another club in Stourbridge—Stourbridge appears to be becoming the lap-dancing Mecca of the midlands—will be subject to the legislation in the same way as new clubs. Permission in that case was granted more than a year ago. The club has done nothing about it, but it is now in the process of starting up. The owners believe that they will not be subject to the legislation. I want to make it clear that I believe that they will be, and I would like the Minister to confirm that for me.

In conclusion, the campaign to stop lap-dancing clubs being licensed in the same way as cafés has played an important role in drawing public and Government attention to a deeply disturbing trend in British society: that of women and girls being portrayed as dehumanised sex objects. Lap dancing is just one manifestation of that culture. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has recognised that a culture of treating women as sex objects fuels violence against women. The UK is a signatory to the UN convention and is in the process of forming a cross-Government strategy on violence against women, so this legislation is an important step towards bringing our policy together in this area. It is crucial, however, that the Government recognise that these reforms to the licensing of lap-dancing clubs represent a good step, but only a first step, towards achieving the much broader goal of ending the sexual objectification—that word is hard to say—of women and, ultimately, violence against women. I urge Ministers to ensure that issues such as lap dancing and the media representation of women are central to the cross-Government strategy to end violence against women once and for all.

Despite my reservations on strict liability, I also welcome these amendments. The phrase “engaged in exploitative conduct” in the amendment will give greater clarity to the interpretation of the law. I would have preferred it if the legislation could have included a definition of trafficking based on international definitions, but I think that we will revisit that some time in the future.

I welcome the amendments that deal with brothels, but I urge the police, local authorities and others to use clear judgment in the exercise of these powers, as they might well be putting women at risk in exercising them. We have heard how women working in brothels are, at least in some instances, more secure than those working on the streets. In fact, the figures show that women working on the streets are 10 times more vulnerable to attack than women working together in a unit.

I pay tribute to those who have enabled these amendments to be shaped, and who have encouraged a wide and open debate on these issues. I became involved in this issue more than 25 years ago, when I was a member of the Greater London council. At the time, I was involved in working with the English Collective of Prostitutes and dealing with issues around King’s Cross. I also hosted the first Safety First Coalition meetings after the Ipswich murders. Those meetings were held in this House. As a result of the Government listening to the debates involving those organisations, we have now arrived at some amelioration of this legislation.

I should like to place on record my tribute to the English Collective of Prostitutes, the Royal College of Nursing, the National Association of Probation Officers, the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, the GMB sex workers branch and the Zaccheus Christian trust, all of which were members of the Safety First Coalition, and all of which have briefed Members of Parliament extensively and worked hard to secure these amendments.

I am sure that we shall revisit and review this issue in the years to come, but one issue that is reflected in the amendments is the fact that some women enter into sex work by choice. Whatever people may think about that, some women do—others do not do it through choice, however. I hope that the debate can now move on, so that we can focus more clearly on why women enter sex work other than through choice. The issues include how we tackle poverty and drug dependency, as well as mental illness and the vestiges of the implications of child abuse. Let us now look more thoroughly at the development of Government policy in those areas so that we can tackle the issue of forced prostitution. As I have said, I welcome these amendments, and I am grateful to the Government for listening to the stage of the debate that was encouraged by the coalition.

I wish that I could join my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in congratulating the English Collective of Prostitutes, but that organisation has consistently opposed all campaigning efforts to slow down trafficking. Indeed, it was quite violently—I would almost say vulgarly—opposed to the propositions that have come back from the Lords, which are of huge significance.

rose—

I will give way in a moment. You will be glad to know that I am not going to make a long speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Every international body from the International Organisation for Migration to the International Labour Organisation and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights talks of hundreds of thousands of sex slaves being trafficked every year. The idea that Britain does not have its share, given the number of people in prison for trafficking sex slaves, is absurd.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not want to traduce the English Collective of Prostitutes or its engagement in the “Newsnight” debate. I watched that debate, and no one stated that there was no trafficking in this country. It was not only the English Collective of Prostitutes, but other bodies, academic institutions and surveys, that have challenged the original figures that were used in debates in this House, which seemed to have been inflated. The introduction of balance into my right hon. Friend’s speech would be extremely helpful.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I profoundly disagree with him. That organisation has done a huge disservice to the cause of trafficked women and coerced sex slaves.

I particularly welcome and endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge. I very much hope that my own council, Rotherham metropolitan borough council, will seek to use this legislation—without endless consultation—to listen to the residents of Rotherham who are sick and tired of the ever-increasing presence of these clubs and institutions in which women are turned into dehumanised sex objects for the pleasure of men, whether those men are leering at them, having a discussion about Lib Dem policy in a private booth or doing whatever else might happen in a private booth.

I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) went to Soho and could find only contented prostituted women who were happy to discuss their trade with him. Again, however, this simply defies every statistical and academic survey in every country. Those surveys find that a minimum of between 80 and 90 per cent. of prostituted women are desperate to get out of the business. They are in it because of drug dependency or coercion, or because they have been beaten up or raped. We must remove ourselves from this happy hooker, Belle de Jour nonsense. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that prostituted women are in the business simply because they have chosen the profession just as a doctor, a lawyer or a Member of Parliament might—although when we consider the way in which women Members of Parliament are about to be treated under the Kelly proposals, there will soon be fewer and fewer of them.

Of course, my right hon. Friend is well travelled around the world, so he will have made his own inquiries, but I have to tell him that when I and other members of the Select Committee went down to meet those prostitutes, they were very contented with what they were doing. Many of them were from eastern Europe, and they had come here because they wanted to earn money. Their only disappointment was that my right hon. Friend was not there with us.

We have here a fundamental difference. I am sorry—I am really trying to make a short speech, but I find myself disagreeing with right hon. and hon. Friends on my own side.

I can imagine almost any profession, business or trade in the world that I would be happy for any of my three daughters to go into, or that I would have been happy for my mother, my partners and other women friends to go into. However, I really cannot accept that accepting a number of penises in one’s orifices in order to gratify the pleasures of men is a profession that we should dignify as just another trade that a Select Committee of this House goes and gives an approving pat on the head to. I therefore welcome the radical nature of this legislation and I ask right hon. and hon. Members to read the Lords debate, particularly the speech of His Grace, the Archbishop of York and the speeches of Lady peers.

May I say how much I welcome the change of heart of Conservative Members? I have been campaigning on this issue for a number of years and Conservative colleagues have joined me in the campaign against trafficking, but until quite recently they have rejected the notion that we have to tackle the demand side. That is what this Bill does.

Let me pay tribute to the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), to the Leader of the House, to the Solicitor-General and to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), who is replying to this debate and indeed, to the entire Home Office ministerial team. When some of us started out on this road three or four years ago, it was inconceivable that we could have brought about this change in law.

Let us be clear now from this House—there has been no publicity of any sort; “Newsnight” has not had another discussion; The Guardian, which ran a front-page report saying that trafficking was virtually non-existent, has not reported on this—that the House of Lords was right. Men who go into a massage parlour, a brothel or one of these private booths in a lap-dancing establishment and find themselves having sex with a woman who has been trafficked or coerced or obliged to be there under some pressure from the male controllers or male pimps will now find that that is potentially a crime. That man can be arrested and can appear in front of a magistrates court where he will be named and shamed. Yes, it puts all the responsibility on men.

Only one other country, Sweden, has gone fully down this road, while Finland has gone partially down it. We are the third. I think that this is a huge advance for what I consider to be 21st-century politics, in which women will cease to be dehumanised sex objects for huge amounts of profit. If there is no demand, supply will dry up. If we make a start with Britain, let us take this campaign forward into other countries and make it a worldwide campaign.

The Archbishop of York sits in the other place not far from where William Wilberforce, representing the great city of Hull, once sat. It took him 30 years or more to persuade us to get rid of slavery involving principally black Africans at the time. We are now at the start of the process of outlawing the slavery that dehumanises women and of making trafficking and coercion, prostitution and violence against women to please men something that we can, bit by bit, eliminate. I congratulate Ministers, this House and the House of Lords on passing this radical, dramatic, reforming Bill, of which the entire Houses of Parliament should be very proud indeed.

With the leave of the House, I would like to respond briefly to colleagues’ comments. First, I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) that this is an important measure, but it has been a learning experience for us all. Even today, we have seen disagreement on some aspects—but, I hope, a broad acceptance of the Bill’s importance.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) focused on clause 13 and our efforts to ensure that we focus on those we set out to help. I believe that the Lords amendments help in that regard.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) asked about consultation. It is, of course, up to local authorities to carry out that consultation; it is not new to them, as they have existing duties to consult in all sorts of ways. We expect the exercise to be meaningful, but if the hon. Gentleman is content, I will look at any guidance that goes out to ensure that the exercise is meaningful.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho), who asked whether local authorities will need to consult if they do not adopt the legislation, yes they will. We do not expect them to be shy about doing that; they came forward and told us that they wanted these powers. If they do not adopt them, they will still have to consult on them. She also mentioned the Home Secretary’s review of temporary event notices—a commitment that we gave during deliberations in this House, which still stands. As to the owners of existing clubs in her constituency who are somehow under the belief that this legislation will not apply to them, let me just reaffirm that it will.

Lords amendment 6 agreed to.

Lords amendments 7 to 24 agreed to.

Clause 27

Increase in penalty for offence

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 25.

With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 26 to 29, 52 to 59 and 64 to 86.

The Government have made a number of amendments to the alcohol provisions in response to the concerns that were expressed in both this House and the other place. Amendment 25 removes clause 27 because the current maximum fine has never been imposed. We therefore accept that the clause is unnecessary. Amendments 26 and 27 amend clause 31 to allow the police to take a young person home or to a place of safety if they are issued with a direction to leave and the police suspect they are under 16. Safeguarding these vulnerable people is paramount and these amendments offer an important safeguard to protect children without making directions to leave any less effective.

Amendment 29 responds to the concerns of the Local Government Association by allowing members of the licensing authority to act as “interested parties”, meaning that they can object to a licence application or initiate a licensing review. Following on, amendments 55 and 59 remove the provisions to allow licensing authorities to impose general licensing conditions, which both local authorities and the licensed trade were very concerned about and are unnecessary in light of amendment 29. Amendments 28, 65, 67 and 69 to 86 are simply consequential to amendments 55 and 59.

Amendments 52 to 54, 56 to 58, 64, 66 and 68 all ensure that the mandatory conditions work as intended by allowing other bodies to exercise some discretion in their implementation, ensuring that the conditions in individual licences are updated if the mandatory conditions are updated, and take account of the Legislative Reform (Supervision of Alcohol Sales in Church and Village Halls &c.) Order 2009, which has come into force since the Bill was introduced. I invite the House to accept the amendments.

We are obviously pleased that the Government have listened to a number of points made in Committee and during the course of the Bill’s passage. I was very pleased to note that the Minister accepted that the need for clause 27 was questionable on the basis, as he said, that no one had actually received the current £500 fine up to now. As the British Retail Consortium put it in its briefing note on this clause:

“no person since 2004 has been given a fine of more than £250 meaning that the current fine of £500 has never been used. We do not understand the logic of altering at this time.”

It is perhaps not too surprising that the Government have now rethought their approach and having put the measure in have, on reflection, decided to take it out. However, in doing so the Minister needs to clarify whether the intent is in any way to move more down the summary justice route for this offence—the “policing by parking ticket” approach or conditional caution culture that has been talked about so much in recent weeks and months.

One of the rationales behind increasing the fine, as we understood it in the context of how the debate was articulated, was to send out a strong message about the seriousness of the offences, but the corollary of reversing this change should not, in our judgment, be seen as any suggestion that this offence should not be taken seriously. Will the Minister comment on whether this issue is at the forefront of his mind and whether his Department anticipates issuing any further guidance or indication as to the way in which these sorts of offences should be dealt with?

Lords amendments 26 and 27, which relate to clause 31, are an improvement on what we had before, but we still question whether the most appropriate way in which to deal with a child who represents a risk of disorder is simply requiring that child to leave. I welcome the fact that a constable using the power contained in section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 may remove a young person whom he or she suspects to be under 16 to a place of safety or a place where that person resides, but the key word is “may”.

It is most pleasing to see Government and Opposition working together to try to strengthen proposed legislation before it becomes law, rather than passing legislation before reflecting on it and wanting to change some of it, which is what we have done over the past 10 years in respect of the so-called 24-hour drinking culture.

I commend the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) for what he said about alcohol abuse. The Government have rightly ensured that penalties will be tougher and that there will be stronger provisions to deal with alcohol abuse, which remains a key issue for local communities. As he told us, 50 per cent. of crime in this country is in some way alcohol-related. Any hon. Member who represents a town or city will be aware of the disorder that occurs on Friday and Saturday nights as a result of alcohol abuse, for it is there for all to see.

Police budgets are relevant to the problem. The Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism, who is on the Front Bench today, will appear before the Home Affairs Committee to talk about police numbers on, I believe, 24 November. If we are to ensure that resources are properly directed so that the police can do their job, we must also ensure that we do not put in the way obstacles such as the availability of alcohol. So much police time is taken up by dealing with violence in city centres on Friday and Saturday evenings.

I welcome what the Government have done in the amendments. I think that the toughening of the penalties is extremely appropriate. I also welcome what the Opposition have done. I have only one caveat. The Select Committee has consistently pressed the Government on the issue of a floor price for alcohol, which we believe would deal with the problem of the availability of cheap alcohol in supermarkets. There is no point in tabling amendments, proposing legislation affecting licensed premises and urging local authorities to act in a particular way when supermarkets are allowed to sell alcohol as a loss leader. People are pre-loaded—tanked up—before they go out on Friday and Saturday nights, and everything that follows is due to their ability to buy cheap alcohol at supermarkets.

Of course we welcome what the Government are doing. It is right for them to be tough in this area of policy, and it is right that the Opposition should be with them on that. I must say to them, however, that there are ways in which we can move forward. We can reduce the cost of policing, and we can ensure that local communities can have a peaceful time at weekends.

I agree with all that has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Alcohol is a major problem in this country, particularly among our young people. Fifty per cent. of crime is linked to alcohol abuse. It also affects public health. We discussed that when we debated the Health Bill, and I have raised it in the House on several occasions.

I am keen for the legislation to be beefed up, but what worried me during our proceedings on the Health Bill was the statement by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) that the proxy purchase legislation was not enforceable. We were trying to introduce a similar law relating to the proxy purchase of cigarettes, and when I raised the issue in Committee, and again on Report, the Minister responded by saying that it was not enforceable. However, legislation on proxy purchase is on the statute book today.

It is important for us not only to restrict young people’s ability to purchase alcohol in licensed premises, but to ensure that no one who is of age can do so either as a friend or for profit. If the Minister cannot respond fully today, I ask him to think about the issue. It strikes me as ludicrous that we have proxy purchase legislation on the statute book when a Minister from another Department has said that such legislation is not enforceable. We are rightly beefing up this legislation today, but we ought to beef up the provisions that would prevent young people from gaining access to alcohol because someone who looks 18, or has proved himself to be 18, has proxy-purchased it for them.

The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, observed that it was good to see constructive engagement between Government and Opposition. Over the past year I have probably seen more give and take, with the Government listening to suggestions and adopting them, than I have seen in the case of most other Bills with which I have been involved during my eight years in the House. Inevitably, many of our proposals in Committee last February were turned down, but, as is so often the case, were then accepted in the other place. There has been more acceptance of Opposition points made today during what has been a constructive debate, despite the interventions of the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who, unfortunately, is no longer present.

Lords amendment 25 will remove the provision that increases the maximum fine for drinking in a public place from £500 to £2,500. As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, and as I pointed out in Committee in February, that is fairly pointless. Given that the maximum £500 penalty has never been imposed, what is the point of increasing it by 500 per cent.? Making criminal policy by means of macho newspaper headlines is rather counter-productive. It was a welcome step forward that the Government accepted that and dropped the proposal.

Amendments 26 and 27 deal with under-16s found drinking in a public place. Initially, the legislation said that they could be dispersed. It is good that the Government accept the amendments, which say that in such circumstances a police constable should not just disperse children under 16, but should look to take them to their residence or some other place of safety.

I want to say something on behalf of those of us who have the honour and privilege of patrolling with the police, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. I have been with them when they have patrolled certain areas in my constituency where orders have been made, and we have picked up children of this age and taken them home. In some cases, the parents were appalled and very worried for their child and thanked the police, but I hate to have to say that on many occasions the police were berated by the parents for bringing their children home. That is the issue we have to address. This legislation will not address the big problem, which is parenthood, not policing.

The hon. Gentleman’s comments bring me on to the point that I was about to make. I recommend that the Minister and his colleagues also look to take more proactive action. Let me give the example of something I witnessed when on patrol in Chesterfield with Derbyshire police this summer. On one evening, I went out in the van that undertakes what the police there call the Be Safe programme. They adopted it as an experiment for the school summer holidays, but it was so successful that they have now extended it into the autumn and intend to make it more permanent.

We were called by some residents just before 9 o’clock at night. A group of young and obviously drunk teenagers was shouting and urinating in the street. Instead of just moving them on or taking them straight home, which is what the police would normally have done, because they were part of the Be Safe programme they took the teenagers to a Derbyshire county council youth services building, where youth workers and a police constable were in attendance. The youth workers then went through individually with each young teenager the reasons why they had been out drinking and why they deemed that to be an enjoyable way to spend an evening, and why they did not take advantage of all the alternative ways to spend their time.

Afterwards, instead of taking the teenagers home, which is the normal police practice, they called the parents in; they insisted the parents had to come and collect their child, or else they would, effectively, have ended up in the cells overnight. Given that this was a Friday night and many parents were themselves either drinking at home or had been out to the pub to mark the end of the working week, most of them had to book a taxi to take them to collect their children. All but one of them was very indignant, not at the police for disrupting their family life, but at their children—and far more so than if the police had simply taken them home. In fact, one boy said, “Why don’t you just take me home like you normally do?”

The process that the families had to go through was far more of an inconvenience than the usual practice. The police found it so effective that they have turned it from a six-week experiment for the school holidays to, it is to be hoped, a permanent feature—they are certainly running it through the entire autumn and I witnessed it again recently on Hallowe’en when I was out with the police again.

Such measures are a good step, requiring the police not just to pour alcohol down a drain and move people on, but to take, and be involved in, much more proactive measures. We need to change the attitude of society and the attitude of families about what their children are doing when they are out on the streets drinking under age.

Amendments 29, 52 to 59 and 64 to 86 address the mandatory licensing conditions for alcohol. I have two points to make on that. I made one of them in Committee in February. The Government have taken the power to impose no more than nine mandatory licence conditions on pubs. I asked at that time, why nine, rather than five, 13, 20 or whatever the appropriate figure might be? I asked how they had arrived at the figure of nine. I did not get an answer then, but I hope that now, the best part of a year later, the Minister may have been provided with an answer by his civil servants.

I welcome amendment 29 in particular, which addresses the problem of councillors who represent a ward but who do not live in it taking part in the process as interested bodies, rather than just those in a ward who live near a pub, or, perhaps, a lap-dancing club—those were the specific examples we addressed when we discussed this matter in Committee earlier in the year. I gave a specific example from a London borough concerning a lap-dancing club—they are, of course, licensed premises. Local residents had lots of concerns and fears about the effect that the club was having on the neighbourhood, but they were scared and intimidated and would not stand up in public to raise their concerns. Their councillor was happy to speak about that, but was barred by the law from doing so because they lived just outside the boundary. It is good to see that the Government have accepted the argument we have been making and are incorporating it into the Bill in amendment 29.

By removing clause 27, I hope we are not sending out the message that the offence in question is not a serious matter. People should not assume that because we are not seeking to escalate the fine, this is not serious. The police have a range of powers and we work with them not only on training, but on revising existing guidance. The powers are there to be used, and we want to ensure that they work.

Hon. Members referred to prevention. They asked, why cannot we do more to prevent young people from getting into this situation in the first place? I hope the impression has not been created that not a lot is happening. We need only look at the work done as part of the youth crime action plan and the diversionary activities that the Government, through local authorities and other bodies, pay for, particularly for Friday and Saturday nights. In the more serious cases, there are family intervention projects as well. If children are regularly brought home and parents are indifferent to that, there is good cause to hold them responsible for what their children are doing.

On the ages of the young people in question, we should not forget that the police asked for the powers that we are introducing. Because they sometimes have to deal with groups of people of mixed ages, they wanted to ensure that they had the powers to deal with all of them. Some situations can be particularly difficult for them, and they have to have discretion. The position we have arrived at is the correct one.

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) mentioned proxy purchase. We do not agree that such a measure would not be enforceable, but addressing the problem can sometimes be disproportionately resource-intensive. The Bill does, however, make it harder to sell alcohol to young people and for them to drink in public, which is welcome.

I welcome this broad range of measures, and I hope the House will support the amendments.

Lords amendment 25 agreed to.

Lords amendments 26 to 29 agreed to.

Clause 35

Contents of injunctions: supplemental

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 30.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 31 to 39.

Members will, I hope, welcome the fact that the amendments proposed by the Government on gang injunctions are a result of having listened to the concerns expressed in debates in another place and of new issues that were raised there.

Lords amendments 30 to 33, 35 and 37 have been proposed to limit the duration of the injunctions to a maximum period of two years. They will work in conjunction with amendments 31, 32 and 37, which will introduce a mandatory annual review where an injunction lasts for more than one year. Lords amendment 36 deals with the introduction of a time limit and mandatory review. It ensures that where an application is made to vary an injunction, the courts have power to add a new prohibition or requirement or to extend the duration of an existing prohibition or requirement, subject to the overall time limit of two years.

Lords amendment 34 is a technical amendment. Lords amendment 38 requires the Secretary of State to consult the Lord Chief Justice, and any other persons he considers appropriate to consult, prior to issuing or revising guidance on gang injunctions.

Finally, Lords amendment 39 responds to concerns that these innovative provisions could be used against groups that the Government do not intend them to be used against. The proposed new clause would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to review the operation of the gang-injunction provisions and to publish a report on that review. The new clause would require the report to be published within three years of the commencement of the provisions, and be laid before Parliament. I hope that the amendments are welcome to the Opposition. They raised these issues in good faith in another place, and we have been pleased to be able to introduce the amendments. I hope that the House will accept them.

The Conservatives made it clear in Committee and on Report that we would support measures to deal with the serious problem of gang-related violence, which affects so many communities and young people up and down our country. In the past fortnight, the charity Catch22 published a survey of young people’s experiences of crime and put this issue into context by suggesting that more than one in four of the young people that it had surveyed had been threatened with a weapon, such as a knife or a gun, and almost one in six had had a weapon used against them.

If that were an isolated survey, it might be more easy to cast doubt on it, or to criticise or discount it in some way, but it was published against a backdrop of other surveys. Action for Children reports that becoming a victim of crime, particularly violent crime, is a real fear for children and young people growing up in the UK today, and according to polling of young people conducted by MORI for the Youth Justice Board, in the past 12 months nearly a third of 11 to 16-year-olds in mainstream education in England and Wales carried a weapon, with more than half of all excluded pupils admitting to having carried a knife.

The desire is to ensure that young people approach adulthood full of enthusiasm for their future, with opportunities calling them from every direction. For too many young people in Britain today, such optimism is not there because of fears for their safety. Given that gang culture, gang activity and gang membership can make that situation much more serious, the provisions needed to be examined and considered appropriately.

Vulnerable young people—those with poor educational attainment, weak family structures, addiction, mental illness or unemployment—are being targeted for gang membership, because it gives them a perverse sense of security and of family. That is why it is important that measures are put in place to undermine the deliberate tactics that many gangs seek to use to weaken family ties and to draw individuals away from the traditional support structures. These gangs use acts of sickening violence, and imprisonment may even be a perverse part of a rite of passage in gang membership.

As hon. Members will know, the backdrop to these amendments is the case of Shafi and Ellis v. Birmingham city council, in which the Court of Appeal determined that injunctions under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 could not apply to the cases in which they were being sought. On the basis of what Birmingham city council said about the impact that the injunctions were having on dealing with gangs in its area and its fear that gang violence was increasing as a consequence of the loss of that specific measure, the proposals were introduced in the House.

The one slightly cautionary note that I should sound against that backdrop goes back to what the Court of Appeal said at the time of the judgment in that case. Paragraph 68 of the judgment of Sir Anthony Clarke, the then Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Rix states:

“However, we are confident that the courts have ample powers to deal with them”—

the “them” being the defendants. The judgment continues:

“The difficulty for the council here was that, as was submitted on behalf of the respondents, the case against these individuals was very thin on the facts. There is no reason why an ASBO should not be made against those against whom the evidence is sufficient, which must be true in many cases. Moreover, there may be exceptional cases where it would be appropriate to grant an injunction. This is not such a case.”

I highlight that only because the amendments put important mechanisms in place relating to the need for a review and for consultation and guidance. A range of measures might now be available to local authorities and the police in seeking to undermine gang-related violence and gang-related “nuisance”—I call it that for the purposes of the section 222 injunctions, but it has a much bigger impact on people’s daily lives. There needs to be greater clarity on the use of these powers in respect of serious crime prevention orders and the range of other sanctions available, to ensure that we do not end up with an ever-widening toolkit, with potentially overlapping remits, and that it is clear which intervention is likely to be the most effective in dealing with a particular circumstance. Therefore, it is essential that we scrutinise closely the import of all the increased powers that various authorities will have and the impact that they will make.

Obviously, we welcome certain changes that have been made as these provisions have been refined—we discussed this in Committee. It came up late in the consideration of the Bill—certainly in this House—and I am pleased to note that certain points that we flagged up were picked up in the other place and that there has been some movement on them. I am thinking, for example, about restrictions such that these orders will last for two years—thus bringing them into line with certain other provisions—as opposed to making them indefinite, and the provision ensuring that reviews take place. Again, that reflects some of the antisocial behaviour order practices and procedures and the process of seeking to streamline those.

It would be helpful if the Minister clarified one outstanding issue: the potential application of the orders to the under-18s. The clear message that came out in this House and in the other place was that it was not intended that they should apply; the Government might come back and look at more orders dealing with the under-18s. The point at issue is that if the orders were applied to someone who was under- 18—this is my understanding, and I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am in any way wrong—a breach of the injunction would continue to be dealt with by the High Court or a county court as a civil matter, despite the fact that the child could be under arrest and the penalty imposed for breaching the injunction could include imprisonment, rather than the youth court. That distinction needs to be reflected upon. I note the requirement for consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, and that point may well be reflected on in guidelines.

The provisions will be subject to formal review by the Secretary of State after three years. Will the Minister explain how he anticipates that being undertaken? Would it simply be done by the Secretary of State? Do Ministers anticipate the appointment of someone else to conduct that review on their behalf? There is a need for the continuing assessment of potential human rights issues and a need to deal with how that fits with the overall case law that applies in respect of similar orders, where the McCann standard of proof applies. We have raised that on many occasions in this House. These orders seek to differentiate themselves by applying the civil test—the balance of probabilities. How will all this fit together?

In conclusion, we welcome the changes that have been made to these provisions in the other place, but we will need to ensure that the powers are kept under scrutiny, that they will work as a matter of law and, most importantly, that they will have the desired effect of bringing relief to the communities that continue to suffer from gang-related violence and all the evils that many of these insidious gangs seek to perpetrate on the young people who live there—and, indeed, on the older people who live there too. Such behaviour has a serious impact on many people’s quality of life and that is why it must remain a clear focus for all Governments in the future.

Although we welcome amendments 30 to 39 as a partial step forward in the right direction, we need to remember the background. The courts rejected the experiment in Birmingham on the grounds that other measures, such as ASBOs, could be used instead, and that there was not enough evidence from police and councillors in Birmingham to justify the imposition of such injunctions.

Many people have said that, depending on how the injunctions are used, they could be like control orders, and we have seen the legal difficulties and controversy over control orders when applied to terrorist suspects. An injunction against a gang member to save them from themselves—to save them from harm—could require that they spend eight hours in one place, eight hours in another and eight hours in another. It could be a 24-hour control order, and as we know, the provision could last up to two years. This is a controversial and powerful measure. The courts rejected the Birmingham experiment, saying, “No, there is not the evidence and there are other measures that can be used.” None the less, the Government felt that they should go ahead, and have made some compromises, as we see in amendments 30 to 39, which are welcome.

Another concern and point of debate that remains is the fact that we are not looking to impose an injunction against gang members in order to stop them carrying out criminal activity, which after much debate is the partial definition of a gang that has been arrived at. We are looking at imposing injunctions on gang members to save them from gang-related activity that might be aimed at them. It is quite a controversial initiative. We have legislation to protect people from themselves when they are judged not to have the mental capacity to do so or the ability to look after their own affairs properly. We are saying in this case that although someone has mental capacity we will none the less impose injunctions on them to stop them going into situations where they might be subject to gang violence, with all the spill-over and bad effects that that has on the rest of the community around them. We are considering quite controversial measures, hence the intense debate on the matter over the course of this year.

The fact that amendments 30 to 39 impose a two-year time limit and say that after three years there should be a review by the Secretary of State are welcome steps to meeting some of the concerns, but we still have to ask how that review will be carried out. Parliament will not automatically get the chance to debate the review. Baroness Miller proposed a sunset clause so that the legislation would fall at some point—say at the end of three years—and said that if the Government of the day felt that the experiment had proved itself, they could reintroduce it. Parliament would then get its guaranteed chance to review the provision and how it had worked, to debate it and to discuss whether to continue or renew it in law. The amendments do not give us such an opportunity.

I am sure that the Minister will enlighten us on how the Secretary of State will carry out the review, but will it automatically be debated in Parliament and will notice have to be taken of that debate? We could have done more to reassure those who have doubts, but amendments 30 to 39 are a step in the right direction.

I shall try to answer some of the points that have been mentioned during the debate. I welcome the welcome that the two Opposition Front Benchers gave to the steps that the Government have taken.

We have said that there will be a review, that it will be held in three years, that it will be undertaken by the Secretary of State and that the outcome of that review will be published to Parliament. I cannot yet tell either the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) or the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) what the format of the review will be. It is likely that it will be about 18 months before we initiate the review, and that will properly be a decision for whoever happens to be the Home Secretary at that time. That might be my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) or another Labour Member—who knows what will happen in these changing times? I am confident that whoever it is will take the right decision and will bring back to Parliament a report on these issues so that they are considered in due course.

The hon. Member for Hornchurch mentioned the aspect of the injunctions that concerns those aged under 18. Under-18s can be taken to the High Court or the county court for breach of an injunction but the key point is that the only disposal available for those issues at this stage is a fine, not imprisonment. He will know that we are actively considering a range of issues to do with under-18 injunctions. We may return to the matter very shortly, but we have to consider everything carefully and hon. Members will have opportunities to debate the issues in due course.

This is a key provision. A number of tools in the civil and criminal law deal with gangs and the cancer that they can spread. The hon. Member for Hornchurch mentioned criminal activity and the damage that gangs do, but a range of options exist to tackle them. We need to look at them and use them in an appropriate way.

As the hon. Member for Chesterfield said, this injunction tool is designed to be a preventive measure, to be used to help and support individuals who might be sucked into the gang culture or who are already in it. Getting such people out of gang culture will benefit both them and, ultimately, wider society. It is not about taking action to crack down on gangs’ criminal activity, which is something that should, and will, be undertaken as a matter of course by police forces across the UK.

As the hon. Member for Hornchurch said, the proposal arose from the discussions in Birmingham on the Court of Appeal decision. We needed to reflect on that: I think that we have, and I hope that the House agrees that we have listened to the concerns expressed in the other place. I hope too that the amendments on the time limit for the injunctions and on the review will give some comfort to those who felt that the proposals in the Bill were a step too far.

I believe that these are valuable amendments and that they give the proper assurances that were sought. I commend them to the House.

Lords amendment 30 agreed to.

Lords amendments 31 to 39 agreed to.

Clause 96

Retention and destruction of samples etc: England and Wales

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 40.

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 41 and 42.

The amendments were supported by the Government in the other place and are the result of listening to the debates that have taken place in this House and in Committees of both Houses, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Over the summer, we considered those views carefully, and the responses received to the Home Office consultation document “Keeping the Right People on the DNA Database” that was issued in May. We accept the concerns raised by the Committees and other stakeholders about making the necessary changes to the law by means of an enabling power.

The issue of retaining DNA and fingerprints from those arrested but not convicted is an important topic that deserves the full attention of everyone involved in the legislative process. We judge that the approach taken in the Bill gave us a sensible opportunity to demonstrate that we were committed to implementing the S and Marper judgment, to consulting swiftly but thoroughly on the detail of the policy and to giving Parliament an opportunity to approve the policy through the affirmative resolution procedure.

Given the strength of feeling on this issue, and the importance of ensuring that we move forward with consensus, we accept the view that the issue would be dealt with more appropriately in primary legislation. We therefore decided to invite Parliament to remove clauses 96 to 98 from the Bill. As soon as parliamentary time allows, we will bring forward appropriate measures in primary legislation, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his written ministerial statement yesterday. That approach will allow full debate and scrutiny of the proposals in both Houses. I therefore ask the House to agree with the Lords in their amendments.

I admire the Minister’s elegant attempt to stay on the front foot on this issue, but let us be clear: this is a retreat. The Government had wanted to grow the DNA database as a primary policy principle, but they cannot do that now. They wanted to retain profiles on people arrested but never charged with or convicted of any offence, but they have now accepted that they can no longer do that, and hold such information for ever and a day. They also wanted to hide retention away in an order-making power that would have given huge discretion to Ministers, but they have been thwarted by the Lords amendments before us this afternoon.

Finally, they have had to move away from proposals they made only a few weeks ago to retain for 12 years DNA profiles on those arrested for certain offences. It is absolutely right, therefore, that the order-making power should be withdrawn from the Bill. Indeed, as we said clearly, it should never have been in the Bill. We can look, too, at how the provision was withdrawn—on almost the last day of the Bill’s consideration in the House.

There is little doubt about the importance of DNA as an evidential tool in prosecuting and bringing crimes to justice. DNA data can form an important part of the evidential case to prove guilt and ensure that serious criminals are brought to justice. The fight against crime, in particular certain serious crimes, depends on the use of modern scientific techniques, but a balance has to be struck between the interests of the community in preventing and detecting crime and the freedom of the individual. The Government have been on the wrong side of the line and their delay in responding to the S and Marper judgment raises a question about their commitment to deal with such a sensitive issue.

The Government are—belatedly—seeking to respond. To be fair to Ministers, the proposals announced by the Home Secretary are a slight improvement on their previous position, but his statement raises a number of issues. The changes do not go as far as we would like.

It is important to examine the statement to understand where the Government are moving now that they are withdrawing those clauses. The Home Secretary said that since the publication of the consultation document earlier this year the Home Office had sought to further the evidence base with additional research. Could the Minister explain what additional research has been undertaken? I am aware of the publication of the document on the Home Office website on DNA retention policy—the re-arrest hazard rate analysis—but as the Minister will be aware, it was discovered that the original scientific approach proposed in the consultation document had not been peer-reviewed, so it was premature to put it out in that form. Indeed, the document that has now been published accepts in part that line of argument. Can the Minister explain who prepared that work? What analysis was made? Was it peer-reviewed? What tests have been applied as to the robustness of the new document that was published alongside the Government’s latest proposals?

It is important to understand that, because yesterday the Home Secretary suggested that we could reduce the retention periods and that we might look at what might be described as arrest to arrest analysis, rather than the arrest to conviction approach in the original proposals. Can the Minister explain the basis for that change of view and the change in approach?

The new analysis notes that there are still some important caveats. The document says that there is still some uncertainty about the line that has now been set—the six years—so it would be interesting to hear from the Minister on that point. In changing their view yet again, the Government have acknowledged that even their revised proposals may not be compliant with the S and Marper judgment and the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary said that although

“the ECHR suggested that the seriousness of the alleged offence should be a factor in determining what length of retention was proportionate”—[Official Report, 11 November 2009; Vol. 499, c. 26WS.]—

he claims that the evidence indicates that such an approach should not be taken. Obviously, there is a risk that the new approach the Government have decided to adopt may not be compliant with the European convention on human rights, so it will be interesting to hear whether the Minister has obtained further legal advice in that regard.

We understand that the Government propose to introduce dilution and greater transparency in the existing discretion of chief police officers to destroy DNA records that they may hold. Can the Minister give any indication of the likely factors? Will there be a right of appeal in those circumstances?

We will consider the distinction that has been drawn in relation to terrorism and national security, but will the Minister explain whether there will be any judicial oversight on the initial assessment that will be undertaken in such cases? I understand from the statement that there is intended to be a two-year rolling review thereafter by a senior police officer, but will there be any oversight or appeal? What rank of officer will undertake that review? It is important to understand the approach that the Government are now seeking to take in moving away from their previous position. Equally, how quickly do the Government anticipate that the changes will be implemented? Obviously, it is now a year since the S and Marper judgment, so it would be interesting if the Minister gave some clarity on how quickly they anticipate the change happening. In the interim, does the Minister anticipate issuing any revised guidance to police forces? We understand that police forces have been told effectively to carry on with data collection as though the S and Marper judgment had not happened. Again, clarification on that would be helpful to inform the debate.

We believe that it is appropriate to introduce an approach to DNA retention similar to that introduced in Scotland, where the DNA profiles of those not convicted of an offence would be retained only in circumstances where charges relating to a crime of violence or a sexual offence had been brought. In those more restricted circumstances, DNA profiles could be retained for a maximum period of five years, subject to judicial oversight during the last two years—in other words, after three years. It is interesting that the Government have sought to take a different view. We disagree with the revised view that they have come up with, but we agree that the use, retention and destruction of DNA records and the oversight that sits behind it requires primary legislation to enable the full, detailed debate and examination in Parliament to take place that would have been prevented if the order-making power had been followed as the Government had originally intended.

This is a significant issue. The number of profiles stored on the DNA database by police forces in England and Wales has reached more than 10 per cent. of the population of England and Wales. Yet, despite that growth, DNA detections have not grown in the same exponential way. More refinement, more focus and more attention are therefore needed. That is why we look forward to holding the debate when we return in the next Session and to the Government finally setting out their views in detail, finally starting to address the underlying fundamental issues and changing the approach that previously existed that certainly appeared to treat us all as potential suspects.

Lords amendments 40, 41 and 42 are very welcome, because they remove the Government’s attempt to give themselves a blank cheque to act on such a controversial issue, whereby in light of the European ruling on DNA, they would say, “We’ll go away and come up with suggestions in private. We’ll write them into law. We’ll put them through a Statutory Instrument Committee. There’ll be no debate in Parliament. There’ll be no primary legislation,” and we would have to leave it to the Government to do things on the quiet. That was obviously, from day one, utterly unacceptable on such a major controversial issue as the retention of innocent people’s DNA in particular.

We have brought forward measures that were not only debated in Parliament, but subject to considerable debate outside Parliament. There has been a long consultation with the public on the measures, and over that time scale additional research has been undertaken, so we cannot be accused of seeking a blank cheque or pushing through measures. Nor can we be accused of proceeding with indecent haste on the issue, particularly when we have addressed the central concern raised in this House and another place, which is that there should have been primary legislation. All those factors have led us to our conclusion.

Let me deal with the point that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) raised about DNA detections. He is right that the number of DNA detections has fallen in recent years. Over the past five years it has fallen by 11 per cent. That is because recorded crime in England and Wales fell by 22 per cent. in that period. If there are fewer crime scenes and fewer cases in which DNA has to be taken, it is hardly surprising that the amount of DNA available to the police and being used for detection should decrease.

The hon. Gentleman gave the impression that we were somehow dragging our feet in responding to S and Marper. In Committee, although he disagreed profoundly with what we did, I thought that he agreed with the route that we had chosen. We were trying to respond to S and Marper; the reality is that Parliament disagreed with the route that we chose. I congratulate him, and to some extent the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, on their pre-emptive strike this afternoon on measures that will, I hope, be part of a future Bill that is to be debated very soon.

The points about the validity or otherwise of Home Office research, and the issues to do with terrorist suspects, do not fall within the confines of the amendments that we are discussing, so I will not address them on this occasion. The reality is that we are meeting the challenge of S and Marper: we began to meet it within hours of the judgment, because the two individuals concerned were taken off the database. However, we sought, and are seeking, to introduce further measures that address the wider issues that the judgment raised. We are working very carefully with the Association of Chief Police Officers on changes to the database, but until the legislation changes, the practice does not need to change. I hope that the hon. Member for Chesterfield appreciates that. Until Parliament decides that the situation has changed, therefore, the process will continue as it is. As the hon. Gentleman knows, however, we have taken under-10s off the database.

We are confident that we will continue to meet the S and Marper judgment. It is important that we meet it in a timely fashion, but it is also important, as the Committee of Ministers said, that we consider those matters very carefully indeed. We will have longer than we anticipated to do that. The Committee, through the judgment, gave us a very clear steer: although it upheld the point about individual rights for people who are on the database—S and Marper—it also accepted our right as a Government to decide where the balance lies on public protection. It is important that we get the balance right, and if it takes longer than we anticipated, so be it. However, by removing the measures from this Bill and, I hope, putting them into a future Bill, we will be able to do precisely that.

Lords amendment 40 agreed to.

Lords amendments 41and 42 agreed to.

After Clause 111

Removal of limitation on warrants under Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 43.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 44, 45, 87 and 88.

Lords amendments 43 and 45 are proposed changes to section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and the Government introduced them in another place. They were proposed as a result of late representations from the Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement Agency. The proposed changes are simply clarifying measures. They seek to make it absolutely clear that those working for law enforcement agencies with a national jurisdiction, such as the Scottish Crime and Drugs Enforcement Agency, are entitled to obtain search warrants to enter and search premises under section 23(3) of the 1971 Act, when the court is content that the statutory criteria have been satisfied.

Lords amendment 44 is also a small and minor amendment, which would correct a minor error in the commencement powers relating to clause 100. Lords amendment 87 would correct a minor typographical error in relation to section 185(5) of the Extradition Act 2003.

As this is almost the final moment of the Bill’s passage, I should like to thank the official Opposition Front Benchers and the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers for their co-operation and discussions over the past year or so, during the Bill’s journey through both Houses. I joined in to assist the Bill’s passage in June, and the Minister for Schools and Learners, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), played a significant part in it in his previous incarnation, for which I thank him. I also thank my noble Friends Lord West and Lord Brett, in another place, for their work on these provisions. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, I thank the Bill team and officials from the Home Office, who have spent a long time dealing with the legislation and deserve our respect and thanks.

I support Lords amendment 43, which clarifies the rules across the country. It is interesting to note that the provisions of the amendment already apply in Northern Ireland, as one of the subsequent amendments shows, and it therefore seems a sensible proposal to adopt.

I thank the Minister for his kind comments, and in return I thank him and his team, and also the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) for their constructive approach. As we have seen this afternoon, we have not always agreed on all issues—one would not expect us to—but we have all listened to what has taken place, and we look forward to continuing the debate and discussions on the key issues as we move forward into the next Session.

I pass on my thanks to my noble Friends for their sterling work, and to the Bill team, the officials and everyone involved in the process. It has provided an opportunity to debate constructively some very important issues that affect many of our constituents, and we look forward to continuing that debate in the time ahead.

The amendments are variously technical, minor and consequential, and we support them. I add my thanks to everybody who has taken part in this process over the past year. The only group that we have forgotten is the humble parliamentary researchers, including mine who did all the work earlier in the year, and my new one who has done all the work to prepare for the debate in the past week.

Lords amendment 43 agreed to.

Lords amendments 44 to 88 agreed to.