draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (amendment) order 2016
(8 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2016.
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship this evening, Ms Buck. The draft order makes changes to the respective regulatory frameworks for mortgage and peer-to-peer lending. I will talk about the provisions on the regulatory framework for mortgages first.
In March 2015, Parliament approved the Mortgage Credit Directive Order 2015, which ensures that the UK implements the EU mortgage credit directive on time and with a limited impact on the UK mortgage market. The order is due to come into effect on 21 March this year. Since that order was made, the Government have been monitoring the progress of the mortgage industry towards implementation. In that ongoing monitoring, it came to light that in some areas the order did not achieve what was intended, or could be improved on. The Government acted quickly and laid a statutory instrument, which was made in November 2015. It made a small number of amendments to the scope of regulation, to ensure that the regulatory framework continued to operate as intended.
Today’s draft order makes further changes designed to ensure that the legislation delivers on previously agreed policy. It clarifies the regulatory status of a number of categories of loan entered into before April 2014. Specifically, it clarifies that the regulatory status of the loans depends on their regulatory status under the consumer credit regime before the transfer of regulatory oversight to the Financial Conduct Authority.
Since the transfer of the consumer credit regime from the Office of Fair Trading to the FCA in 2014, much of the industry has assumed that the legislation applied the principle of “once regulated, always regulated” to loans entered into before April 2014. That is a different test from the one generally applied under the FCA regulatory regime, where regulation is applied to ongoing activities with the regulatory status of those activities changing over time. Following engagement with the industry and the FCA, we have been made aware of the ambiguity about which test now applies to loans entered into before April 2014. There is also ambiguity about the loans that are to be moved across to the mortgages regime when the mortgage credit directive comes into force on 21 March. The draft order removes that ambiguity.
Providing clarity as to the regulatory status of the loans will also ensure that the holders of the loans are able to assess accurately what regulatory permissions they require. Furthermore, it will ensure the continuation of consumer protections, preventing consumers from inadvertently losing regulatory protections that they had at the point they took out a loan.
In 2014, the Government removed English and Scottish housing associations’ new second-charge mortgage lending from the scope of conduct regulation. The draft order also exempts second-charge mortgage loans made from April 2014 by Northern Irish and Welsh housing associations.
The peer-to-peer lending-related amendments in the draft order extend the scope of the regulated activities relating to the operation of peer-to-peer lending platforms and providing advice on lending through such platforms. In changes to the provision of advice on peer-to-peer loans, the Government are committed to supporting savers and to increasing the choice available to ISA savers. To support that aim, the Government announced at Budget 2014 that loans made through peer-to-peer platforms will become ISA-qualifying investments. From 6 April repayments of interest and capital made to lenders on new peer-to-peer loans will qualify for tax advantages where such loans are held in a new type of ISA, the innovative finance ISA. The Government anticipate that that could significantly increase the provision of advice to investors on peer-to-peer lending.
The draft order aligns the treatment of advice on peer-to-peer loans with advice on other ISA-qualifying investments by making the provision of advice to lenders on entering into a peer-to-peer loan a regulated activity. The consultation on the changes identified broad, industry-wide support for that change, which will ensure that the FCA is able to make rules to ensure that firms providing advice to investors on peer-to-peer loans act properly and in the best interests of their customers. That will mitigate the risk of unregulated firms setting up and acting improperly in providing advice to consumers.
The draft order also extends the scope of the peer-to-peer regulation to ensure that all the relevant activities are included within this framework. In particular, it brings the activity of facilitating the transfer of rights under a peer-to-peer loan between lenders on a secondary market within scope of article 36H regulated activity. That will mean that a peer-to-peer loan brought on the secondary market is subject to the same regulatory framework as new loans originated by peer-to-peer platforms.
The draft order also clarifies the definition of an article 36H agreement, or peer-to-peer loan. The change clarifies that if the peer-to-peer platform is the lender or borrower on its own platform, the agreement is not a peer-to-peer loan. That ensures that peer-to-peer lending remains exactly that—peer to peer. These amendments are an example of the Government’s proportionate and flexible regime in action, providing the space for peer-to-peer platforms to grow and providing competition to the major banks, while maintaining the right level of protection for consumers.
Finally, the draft order makes a minor amendment to the Small and Medium Sized Business (Finance Platforms) Regulations 2015, which set out the circumstances in which designated banks must refer unsuccessful SMEs that have applied for finance to online platforms, to assist in finding other sources of finance. The amendment clarifies that when a small business is already using a broker to seek finance on its behalf, unsuccessful applications by that broker do not need to be referred to finance platforms.
Taken together, the changes in the draft order are another important step to ensuring that the UK’s financial system is competitive, resilient and works for the good of the country. I hope that hon. Members will therefore support the order.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Ms Buck, and it is always a pleasure to serve opposite the Minister. As she says, the draft order amends provisions in the Financial Services and Markets Act. The House of Commons Library tells me this is the 34th order amending that Act. The draft order is about the regulation of a number of activities, including peer-to-peer lending and mortgage lending.
On peer-to-peer lending, we are aware that the innovative finance ISA will launch next month, following the Treasury consultation at the end of 2014 and the policy announcement in last summer’s Budget. Peer-to-peer lending is already a fast-growing sector of our financial services industry and the Government anticipate that the launch of the new ISA could significantly increase the number of individuals making use of the sector.
There is ongoing debate about the merits and potential pitfalls of peer-to-peer lending, about the significant returns that can be made on loans in an age of low interest rates and about the risks to lenders. The proposal to make the provision of advice to lenders on entering into a peer-to-peer loan a regulated activity appears to be entirely sensible, although, as ever, we have a number of questions.
First, I note that the Yorkshire Building Society has estimated that over 400,000 savers are expected to invest in this field, but there are questions about the readiness of the financial advice sector to advise on the new products. The Treasury consultation found that the majority of existing ISA managers said that they were not currently considering offering peer-to-peer loans within ISAs. The “Alternative Finance” report produced by Intelligent Partnership found that of 130 advisers, just 9% expect the peer-to-peer sector to form part of their advice process in the next 12 months.
The Association of Professional Financial Advisers’ response to the Treasury consultation states:
“We believe that this is a very nascent industry and that until it has an established track record, it should not be considered a mainstream investment for retail clients. We therefore welcome the fact that firms, holding themselves out as independent financial advisers, will not be required to consider investment in P2P agreements when making personal recommendations to clients.”
The FCA has since said in its consultation document on changes to its handbook that
“we are not proposing that firms holding themselves out as independent should be obliged to consider P2P agreements when recommending retail investment products to a retail client.”
It says that the sector is
“at an early stage of development”.
With that in mind, will the Minister set out why advice about the peer-to-peer ISA is being treated in such a way? Will there be a future review about a change of approach? When might one be carried out?
In addition to our questions about advisers’ requirements and their awareness of the products, we have general questions about the timing of the launch and ongoing developments in regulating the peer-to-peer sector. Adair Turner, the former Governor of the Bank of England, who raised concerns in interview on the “Today” programme, is the most prominent individual to do so in recent weeks. There has also been significant coverage of the collapse of the unregulated Swedish peer-to-peer firm TrustBuddy. I am aware that peer-to-peer lending firms have issued robust responses in their defence. In particular, Christine Farnish of the Peer-to-Peer Finance Association did so in the media and when I met her recently.
Sue Lewis from the Financial Services Consumer Panel was among a number of people who responded to the Treasury’s consultation. She said that investors must be aware of the risk:
“It is important that anyone considering saving in a peer-to-peer ISA understands the risks associated with it, and they should be covered by appropriate levels of protection.”
She flagged up the FCA’s intention to consider whether the remit of the financial services compensation scheme should be expanded to include peer-to-peer lending in 2016. The Treasury’s summary of the responses to the consultation said that a minority of respondents made the case for its inclusion. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s opinion of covering peer-to-peer investments with the financial services compensation scheme? When will the FCA carry out that review? Would it have been sensible to have concluded such a process before the launch of the innovative finance ISA?
This is the second order on the implementation of the mortgage credit directive, which will come into force this month. The first was debated in Committee in March 2015, before the general election. The explanatory memorandum to that order says that the UK is already in advance of many European countries in adopting the directive. The European Mortgage Federation stated that the UK’s mortgage market review already goes beyond the core provisions of the directive. The Council of Mortgage Lenders stated that UK lenders are ahead of most of their European counterparts in implementing the directive. UK firms have been given the opportunity to adopt the revised rules up to six months early. Many have chosen that option, and are therefore already complying with the directive’s requirements.
On the second-charge lending market becoming regulated by the FCA and subject to its mortgage rules, in 2014 the Financial Services Consumer Panel said that it is “odd” that that is not already the case, given that
“the second charge market has consistently suffered from a higher rate of repossessions than first charge mortgages.”
The panel said it was concerned that there is a regulatory gap between the consultation date and the directive’s implementation date this month, and that the FCA will not collect performance or sales data on second-charge mortgages. Will the Minister comment on the effect of that gap? Has the Department since responded to those concerns?
Furthermore, the directive distinguishes between business buy-to-lets and consumer buy-to-lets, which are classified as such if the borrower or an immediate relative of theirs has ever lived in the property or intends to live in it in the future. How does the Minister expect that to be implemented? How many mortgages does she expect will be affected in that way, and is there any possibility of misidentification or misallocation of the distinctions between consumer and business buy-to-let? What are the risks of that occurring?
Finally, on small-firm lending, the order will exempt from referral to finance platforms applications made by a broker instead of directly by a business. What impact might that have on small and medium-sized enterprises’ access to finance, given the ongoing concerns, of which we are all aware, about bank lending to small businesses, which we know are vital for innovation in our economy? I have no doubt that we could discuss the development of alternative finance, the mortgage markets and small-business lending at further length, but I will draw my comments to a close.
Harriett Baldwin
I note that the shadow Minister started with the second section, on peer-to-peer ISAs. I was not clear from his remarks whether he welcomes the development of peer-to-peer lending in this country and the introduction of the innovative finance ISA, but it is worth stressing how important the Government believe this area of lending is to consumers and small and medium-sized businesses. It offers them a potential alternative source of funding locally. I am sure he shares my aspiration for a competitive and diverse range of funding to be available to growing companies in this country.
If I may, I will plug my own local peer-to-peer lending platform in Worcestershire. It is called ThinCats.com —the antithesis of the fat cats in the banking industry that so aggravate the hon. Gentleman occasionally. He is right that this is a nascent market. We are expecting that, as of the date in April when it becomes possible to invest in an innovative finance ISA, there will be seven firms available in which consumers can invest their ISA allowance, and that is on top of the range of different peer-to-peer lending platforms already growing in this country.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the perimeter of regulation in terms of peer-to-peer lending, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and whether we ought to consider guaranteeing the first £75,000 invested in peer-to-peer platforms, just as the FSCS guarantees the first £75,000 put in a bank. We think it is important that the peer-to-peer lending industry falls within the perimeter of regulation. That is much better for consumers and for the long-term success of the industry, but the extent of the regulation is fairly light, in the sense that if people invest in such platforms, they can lose the amount that they invest. Obviously, most platforms will compete on diversification of investments, the allocation that they hold back to withstand losses and so on, and on making that transparent to consumers, but it is definitely an alternative source of funding in an innovative area where the market is developing a range of solutions.
I gently correct the hon. Gentleman: Adair Turner is not the former Governor of the Bank of England; he was the chairman of the Financial Services Authority. He was right to highlight to consumers that this is a different kind of investment from investments in a bank, which are guaranteed up to £75,000—that is why the returns are higher—but to pour scorn on it and deter informed investors from investing in such platforms would be wrong. Obviously, we have worked closely with Christine Farnish, whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the peer-to-peer industry on supporting the aspiration for the industry to be regulated and for consumers to be given clear information when they make such investments.
The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about the mortgage credit directive, along with a question about when second-charge mortgages will come into regulation, asking, “If not, why not?” As he will understand, it has been pretty clear for some time that the European mortgage credit directive will include second-charge mortgages, so it makes sense to wait for that regulation to come into force to include second-charge mortgages, which is why there has been a timing difference in bringing the regulation of second-charge mortgages into line with that for first-charge mortgages. We did not want to disrupt firms and customers excessively by predating regulations that are clearly on their way.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the treatment of advice and whether it will be subject to a future review—that was with reference to peer-to-peer regulations. Of course, we will continue to keep that under review in the light of developments. He asked about the risk of misidentification of consumers or businesses in the buy-to-let regulations, and it will be for lenders and brokers to identify the type of lending. That means that lenders and brokers will need a system in place to collect the relevant information from the borrower but, with the main implementing order having been in place for a year, they will have had time to do so, which is the benefit of our publishing the regulations last March and being able to work with the industry during the transition period to ensure that, by the time we get to implementation day on 21 March, all the questions that the hon. Gentleman rightly asked today have been answered.
I trust that answers all the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy
(8 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I will briefly outline the procedure. First, a member of the European Scrutiny Committee may make a five-minute statement about the Committee’s decision to refer the documents for debate. The Minister will then make a statement of no more than 10 minutes, during which interventions are not allowed. Questions to the Minister will follow. The total time for the statement and for the subsequent questions and answers is up to an hour. Once questions have ended, the Minister moves the motion on the Order Paper, and debate takes place on the motion. We must conclude our proceedings by 7 pm.
Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement?
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I am better late than never, Mr Stringer. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
It might be helpful to the Committee if I take a few minutes to explain the background to the documents and the reasons why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended them for debate. The Commission has long attached considerable importance to the more efficient use of resources within the European Union, and in July 2014 produced a communication on a zero-waste programme. That has now been superseded by a further communication setting out an action plan for the circular economy.
The action plan focuses on steps that can be taken at the EU level, including the design of products, consumer choice, waste management and the reuse of raw material. It also considers in more detail certain priority areas. The plan is accompanied by a number of proposed directives, set out in the other documents before us today, which would amend existing EU legislation on waste disposal, as well as on landfill, packaging and packaging waste, end-of-life vehicles, waste batteries and waste electrical equipment. Those include more stringent recycling targets and restrictions on the quantities of waste sent to landfill.
The Government note that many of the measures identified are already being taken forward by the EU and the member states and they stress the importance of any new legislation complementing, rather than duplicating, measures taken by individual member states. The Government have welcomed the broad direction of the action plan, which they see as adopting a more joined-up approach than that in the 2014 communication, but say that the likely costs, although difficult to assess, could be considerable and have an impact on a wide range of interests, including individual households. In addition, the Government have expressed a couple of subsidiarity concerns regarding provisions of the waste framework proposal relating to extended producer responsibility or “pay as you throw”, although the European Scrutiny Committee found that such concerns had not been set out fully.
The European Scrutiny Committee noted that the proposals are wide ranging and raise a number of important issues relating to their practicality and affordability, as well as to subsidiarity. It considered that today’s Committee would be a timely opportunity for the House to address that. It therefore recommended the documents for debate in European Committee A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon for his opening statement.
We are proud to be part of the discussion on the circular economy package. The circular economy is something that matters greatly to the United Kingdom Government and it is good to see the European Union taking it forward. The package is important because we are trying to deal with a world in which our resources are being depleted all the time and the global population is rising steeply. We need to think about a circular economy—an idea that has been around since the early 1970s—in terms of how we manage those resources. We need to think about sustainability and whether we want to have a low-carbon economy. We may want to think particularly about price volatility. Do we want a circular or zero-waste economy, to use the hon. Gentleman’s words, perhaps because we are worried about scarcity of commodities and future prices and want to hedge against them?
For all those reasons, we must consider three basic categories: production, consumption and waste. Beginning with production, we have to think about eco-design—ensuring that products are better designed to be durable, so that they do not need to be thrown away so quickly, repairable in a way that most of our mobile telephones are not, and easily dismantled. If, for example, we are trying to extract precious metals from a BlackBerry, an iPhone or a flat-screen television, is it easy to get into them?
The second category is consumption. What can we do as the European Union and as individual Governments to improve consumer behaviour? It is partly about education and partly about ensuring that people actually care about recycling and the environment, but it is also about having single standards—ensuring that a guarantee on a television, for example, is worth the paper on which it is written and that claims made for the environmental origin of products are valid. If it is claimed that a table is made from sustainable timber, it should actually be made from sustainable timber, and people should be able to explain what on earth “sustainable timber” means.
The third category is what we actually do with our waste in the end. That relates to recycling, incineration, landfill and how we implement policies to make those things easier. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on some of the controversial aspects in the package. One is the question of “pay as you throw”. In Flanders in Belgium and in Germany, for example, people pay for the privilege of throwing away their waste. They can do so in a couple of ways: the waste can be weighed, or people can simply buy a bin bag for a couple of euros. That disincentivises people from putting too much into landfill. One question that we are debating today is whether the European Commission should ordain that member states implement a “pay as you throw” system, or whether it can be left to member states to determine whether it is acceptable to their council rate payers and voters and, if it is, how to achieve the targets.
The final situations with which the regulations deal are quite specific. They relate to amendments to slightly grisly European Union directives such as the landfill and the packaging directives, to how we deal with plastics and biomass and to how we recycle wood. They particularly relate to precious and rare metals and how we might extract them from the system, and to the important matter of how we deal with issues such as incinerator bottom ash, compost and how we recycle such secondary stuff. That is a series of good, challenging issues, and it is great that the Commission has put in a lot of work and thought.
I pay tribute to the Commission, to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and the McKinsey Centre for Business and Environment, which did a lot of the work that underlies the measures. It is a good model for us in the British Government to consider, but as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there is a reasonable series of discussions about how much of this action needs to be ordained and micromanaged from a European level and how much of it could be left to national Governments to resolve for themselves.
The Chair
We now have until 5.33, an hour after the start of the Minister’s statement, for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that they should be brief. It is open to a Member, subject to the Chair’s discretion, to ask related supplementary questions.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to have listened to the hon. Member for Aberavon and the Minister introduce the debate. I have two simple questions. The first involves the recycling industry in the UK. Many local authorities, such as mine in Hampshire and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South, are looking for more certainty about the future of recycling. Bearing in mind the problems local authorities have with getting contracts to recycle Tetra and other materials, what work are the Government doing to provide more certainty for the recycling industry, so that more products can be recycled?
Rory Stewart
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. The first key element is that to create a real recycling economy, we need certainty, vision and clear targets. If Hampshire County Council or, for example, South Gloucestershire Council wants to make the requisite investments in recycling facilities or trucks, it would be really helpful if we moved from the more than 300 different systems we currently have throughout the country towards a more harmonised system. If a critical mass of councils were collecting Tetra and separating their waste into its component parts, it would be much easier for the environmental industry to make bigger long-term investments.
Secondly, we need to ensure that Hampshire County Council works more closely with some of its neighbours. There are some fantastic examples in South Gloucestershire, South Oxfordshire and Surrey. I would like to see the development of clusters—perhaps a London cluster, perhaps one around Hampshire—that can think about what best practice is and how to get the economies of scale. That does not necessarily mean one company collecting all the waste across many counties, but it almost certainly does mean developing simple systems in which, in a highly mobile population with people moving from one local authority area to another, people at least know what to do, rather than having to re-learn the rules of the bespoke system in every area.
Mrs Miller
My second question is on energy recovery. In Hampshire, only 7% of waste is disposed of in landfill because there is extensive use of energy recovery. The by-product of energy recovery is incinerator bottom ash, which is currently not counted towards recycling targets in England, whereas it is in Wales and other parts of the EU. The proposals before us do not recommend a change to whether bottom ash is counted, although they do recommend a change for metal-related bottom ash. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that we have an opportunity to include bottom ash in our recycling targets, so that we are more likely to get the increased recycling rates that we need and, indeed, that I know the Minister wants?
Rory Stewart
There are two issues: a past one and a future one. Incinerator bottom ash was not included in recycling targets in the past because it is not, in the narrow sense of the word, recycling. Glass, for example, is taken and turned back into glass; with incinerator bottom ash, a product is destroyed and something else—generally a cinder block—is generated, and that is normally seen as recovery rather than recycling. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, Wales, in a domestic context—it is not allowed to do this in an EU context— does count incinerator bottom ash as recycling, as does Germany.
There would be a good circular economy argument for why we might want to include incinerator bottom ash in recycling targets. If it is being reused, that is certainly a product going back into use. So to take up my right hon. Friend’s challenge, the Government undertake to look closely at the idea. Over the past few weeks we have asked officials to begin to examine it more closely, along with the potential for extracting precious metals from incinerator bottom ash. There is potential for fantastic trade between Britain and Holland, which might result in many hundreds of tonnes of precious metal being extracted. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, that could make a significant contribution to our recycling targets.
Finally, I pay tribute to Hampshire council, because 7% of waste going to landfill is a fantastic figure to have achieved. The EU has set a target of getting under 10% by 2030, so Hampshire’s achieving 7% is worthy of admiration throughout the country.
The Chair
No more Members wish to ask a question, so we will proceed to the main debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 14972/15 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: Closing the loop—An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy, No. 14973/15 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Proposal for a Directive amending Directives 2000/53/EC on end-of-life vehicles, 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, and 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment, No. 14974/15 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste, No. 14975/15 and Addenda 1 to 3, a Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, and No. 14976/15 and Addenda 1 to 3, a Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste; and supports the Government’s continuing efforts to amend these proposals in order to secure measures increasing resource efficiency and reducing waste whilst avoiding costs to business, householders and Local Authorities which are disproportionate to environmental and economic benefits.—(Rory Stewart.)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am pleased at the opportunity to speak about the documents before us today.
The documents appear to move in the right general direction and offer no real controversy for any decision in Committee, but that is not to undermine or undervalue their importance. As has been said, the European Commission has long been looking at the efficient use of resources and the central means of achieving the aims of the Europe 2020 strategy. A number of steps have been taken in recent years.
As outlined by the Minister, the Commission’s thinking is that a transition to a more circular economy, where the value of products, materials and resources is maintained as long as possible and the generation of waste is minimised, is an essential element of EU efforts to develop a sustainable, low-carbon and resource-efficient economy throughout Europe. I do not think that any of us would disagree with that ambition of the EU. Indeed, the fact that the Commission withdrew the previous circular economy package in December 2014 to present a more ambitious strategy in late 2015 would appear to confirm that goal.
The new circular economy package that we are considering, adopted by the Commission in December 2015, looks like a candid effort to stimulate Europe’s transition towards the circular economy. Consisting of an action plan, timetables for completion, and various legislative proposals and revisions in a number of areas to achieve those goals, the package examines steps that may be taken at each stage of the value chain, looking specifically at both product design and efficiency of the production process, as well as such factors as the impact of consumer choice, waste management and the reuse of secondary raw materials.
The Minister has already talked about such considerations, but they are often not at the forefront of the minds of consumers or producers. With a new package in place, however, I very much hope that they soon will be and that many more organisations and individuals will recognise what we see to be the duty of us all. Given the increase in waste per UK person from 402 kg in 2013 to 413 kg in 2014, we face more waste going to landfill rather than recycling.
EU analysis suggests that further progress on resource efficiency is possible and identifies major environmental, economic and social benefits to greater efficiency. To that end, the Commission has identified net savings of as much as €600 billion for businesses in the EU, or 8% of annual turnover. That is quite a lot of money. Furthermore, the new package could reduce total annual greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 4%, which would be a major contribution to climate change measures.
Putting in place stronger measures to close the loop and create a circular economy by transforming waste into a resource is an essential part of necessary increases in resource efficiency if the European Union is to achieve its ambitious goals. Moves in that direction are certainly to be welcomed. However, that is not to say that the revised package is perfect. For example, in 2013 total waste generation in the EU was estimated at 2.5 billion tonnes, of which 1.6 billion tonnes were not reused or recycled. That amounts to a loss to the European economy, and a significant missed opportunity to improve resource efficiency.
I have already made clear my belief that making the transition to a more circular economy offers a key opportunity to generate new and sustainable competitive advantages for a stronger Europe. I am sure that the Minister and other Government Members will concur. We know, however, that only 43% of municipal waste generated in the Union is being recycled, leaving 57% to be dumped in landfill or incinerated. I wonder whether reducing the target for reuse and recycling of municipal waste—down from the previous goal of 70% to 65% by 2030 now—sends the right message.
Moves to limit the landfilling of municipal waste to 10% by 2030 identify a clear and tangible target, but 18 member states in 2013 sent more than half their waste to landfill. Some actually exceeded 90% landfill rates, highlighting perfectly the need to strike the intricate balance between ambition and achievability. The EU has set a 50% recycling target for household waste by 2020. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is positive, but does he believe it to be ambitious enough? Even so, we need to be clear about our own ambitions, not just because we feel the need to satisfy EU targets, but because we believe in the benefit of that circular economy and value the impact on our environment and economy. To understand that, I have a few questions for the Minister.
How will the Government ensure that the plan is implemented in the UK? While some authorities—particularly those in Conservative areas—are getting some respite from the Government’s cuts agenda, many are not, so their resources to drive their part of the plan are extremely limited. Business has also been hard hit in many areas—none more so than the north, where the floods of the past few months were at their worst.
How will the Government ensure that all local authorities have the resources to play their part in the circular economy? Some make a small profit from recycling—Stockton, my authority, is one of them—but many do not. The Minister has said how he favours a more consistent approach across authorities, so will he talk a little more about how he believes that can be achieved, so that we can have more streamlined systems?
What provisions will be put in place to ensure new responsibilities placed on business do not become a burden rather than help them to benefit? What will the Minister do at a European level—he will be Minister for Europe, next—to ensure that our neighbours, some of whom have a comparatively poor record in such areas, play their part in delivering the action plan? What plans does he have to report progress against the plan to Parliament?
All that said, no doubt the process is not straightforward, so much future tweaking will be needed around the edges of any future regulations and directives, as we learn collectively what works and what does not. That learning and the building of institutional knowledge across all member states will put us in a strong positon to make positive steps towards building a Union-wide green economy that is both sustainable and efficient. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers and to learning how he plans to ensure not only that the measures are properly adhered to and enforced, but that the all-important ambition for such a transition remains very much alive throughout the EU, with every state playing its part.
Rory Stewart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech. Of the numerous issues he raised, I think there were three central ones. The first is resources for local authorities to ensure that they can achieve their objectives, which is an important point. The second is businesses and in particular how we ensure that we get things right for them. The third is what we can do to ensure that we engage with other countries through the European Union’s framework.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to raise the resources challenge. As he pointed out, councils such as Stockton have managed to extract a profit from recycling. In ideal circumstances, things can be done. Huge savings can be made from reducing the amount councils send to landfill because they will not have to pay landfill tax and, if they get separation right, it is possible to generate income from the different components being recycled. However, that is not always easy, particularly in remote rural areas and sometimes in certain urban contexts: some people living in apartments are reluctant to separate waste because they simply do not have the room to do it.
The answer is to work more closely on harmonisation. Our initial work in London has led us to believe that if we could have a harmonised recycling system in London, local councils could save between £19 million and £20 million a year. In the case of London, increasing recycling rates would not just be good for the economy but save councils money.
Furthermore, if we are sufficiently imaginative and reach out to the industry by getting the economies of scale, we should be able to drop the charges imposed by companies, who should be able to use a standard fleet to collect waste. At the moment, any number of different trucks are driving around and there are any number of different bins. Some trucks are able to collect only commingled waste while others attempt to separate, but there are problems with crushing plastic as opposed to preserving glass. If we can sort that out through a more harmonised system, that should deliver savings and not impose costs on individual councils.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister has already talked about the challenges in different parts of the country. London is a close, tight-knit part of the world, which makes things easier, but there is a real issue in rural areas. What will happen to targets for rural as opposed to city local authorities? Will they be different?
Rory Stewart
Our objective is to deliver the EU target of 50% by 2020 and then to move on to the targets for 2030. To provide a real challenge to rural areas and to show that it can be done, Wales is showing an extraordinary improvement. The Welsh approach to recycling has very quickly driven recycling rates from the mid-40s per cent. up to the mid-50s per cent., and that is despite working in some of the most challenging geography in Britain. My gut instinct, therefore, is that if Wales can pull it off, we can do better in other rural areas in Britain.
The second issue raised by the hon. Gentleman was to do with businesses and how much they pay. We have to get the balance right there, too. In Germany, for example, the equivalent of Tesco pays to collect the packaging of its own products, which can cost a great deal of money. Some estimates of what businesses collecting their own packaging are spending total billions of euros a year. In Britain, instead, we have adopted a producer responsibility, or PR, system of tradeable credits in recycling in which the collecting is done by the local authority, but the businesses pay for the credits. At the moment, we believe that to be a more cost-efficient and economical system. We continue to focus on that model, although it might need to be tweaked to deal with some of the volatility of prices.
The third question was about what we can do to reach out to other countries. That is a two-way street. Sometimes, it is a matter of us learning from other countries. As the hon. Member for Aberavon knows, Denmark leads us by a long way on this. On Friday, the Danish Environment Minister told me at the Environment Council that the Danes had got their landfilling down to 1.3%. I can hardly believe that to be true, but if it is, we have an enormous amount to learn from Denmark—that is an impressive figure. I was just congratulating Hampshire on 7%, but 1.3% is really going some. As the hon. Member for Stockton North pointed out, however, other member states—often those that have joined the European Union relatively recently—have landfill rates up at the 70% or 80% mark. Clearly, things can be done to share best practice with those states.
To conclude, the areas that we probably want to focus on include food waste—an issue on which the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the shadow Secretary of State, has led a great deal. It is becoming more and more urgent for the public. People care more about food waste, and the days, 10 years ago, when people complained about slop buckets are going: people feel a moral obligation to deal with food waste, and councils that offer separate food waste collection are popular. We need to get better at that.
As far as the second thing that we need to focus on is concerned, we can take some satisfaction in where we have got to: Britain has taken household recycling rates from 11% to 45% since 2000. Getting to the point where we are recycling almost half our waste is relatively impressive. It is striking how attitudes are changing through all generations; people seem to be more comfortable and at ease with recycling.
Finally, we need to be practical. On Thursday, I was talking to the Dutch Government about something called the North sea resource roundabout, which is a new, voluntary initiative of the sort that we should be pursuing more—it is not the EU regulating, but a voluntary approach.
We have fantastic agreements going with Holland on moving bottom ash from Britain to Holland, where there is a much more sophisticated recycling process to extract metals, and on moving compost from Holland. The Dutch have a lot of manure coming out of their animals, but do not have much use for it, so we are moving it to Northumberland, where we can process it into fertiliser. Finally, we are also working with Flanders on the issue of chemicals in plastics.
In every case, concrete issues of shipping routes, costs, definition of waste—how waste is defined affects whether we are allowed to transport it across international bodies—and the way in which waste is counted are involved. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke pointed out, how waste is counted affects whether people are incentivised to collect bottom ash.
If we can get such things right, we will see a revolutionary change moving towards what we want: a natural capital approach, making sure that things that are not counted, that the market does not recognise, are properly captured—the value in not only the primary products, but the secondary products coming out of the bottom of incineration. We will then protect our environment for the future and create an economy that is sustainable, low carbon, efficient and impervious to shocks from the global volatility of commodity prices. Such an economy will achieve what we want, which is a more prosperous and a more environmentally friendly future.
Question put and agreed to.
Combating Terrorism
(8 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, may I take a few moments to outline the procedure? First of all, a member of the European Scrutiny Committee may make a five-minute statement about the decision of that Committee to refer the document for debate: I believe that Kelvin Hopkins will do that. The Minister will then make a statement of no more than 10 minutes, and questions to the Minister will follow. The total time for the statement and questions is up to one hour. Once questions have ended, the Minister will move the motion on the paper and debate will take place on that motion. We must conclude our proceedings by 7 pm.
Does a Member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement?
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Bailey. The recent terrorist attacks in Paris have increased awareness of the threat presented by foreign terrorist fighters and radicalised individuals who have travelled to conflict zones and returned to the EU to carry out acts of terrorism. Widespread use of the internet and social media have made it easier to disseminate terrorist propaganda, radicalise and recruit new activists, and plan and co-ordinate operations.
The Commission considers that changes are needed to existing EU laws to keep pace with the evolving nature of the terrorist threat. It proposes a new directive that will bring EU rules on terrorism together in one legal text and update them to reflect recent developments in international law. The changes proposed will require member states to make it a criminal offence to travel abroad to receive training, or to organise or facilitate such travel, for terrorism purposes. The proposed rules also enhance the rights of victims of terrorism to receive free assistance and support in their member state of residence.
The proposed directive will apply only to the UK if the Government decide to exercise their right under the EU treaties to opt in. The deadline for that expires on 23 March, but, if the Government wish, they could have a second bite at the cherry and seek to opt in after negotiations have concluded and the directive has been adopted.
The European Scrutiny Committee welcomes the fact that the Government’s opt-in decision is to be debated before the UK’s opt-in deadline expires. Obvious though that may seem, it has not always been the Government’s practice to schedule timely debates. It is none the less disappointing that the Government have not heeded the Committee’s clear recommendation for a debate on the Floor of the House to allow the House as a whole to consider and weigh up the factors that resulted in the Government’s decision not to participate in the proposed directive. There can be few more important decisions, given the questions about the security of the EU’s external borders and the fact that member states in the Schengen free movement area are taking unilateral action to protect their borders. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain why the Government’s opt-in decision does not merit the exposure and scrutiny of a Floor debate.
The Minister’s explanatory memorandum on the proposed directive set out a comprehensive list of factors that the Government would weigh in reaching their opt-in decision, which include long-standing concerns about ceding competence to the EU in areas of policy that affect national security as well as the implications of accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. However, he also acknowledged that the UK’s opt-in decision could have both practical and symbolic effects. Might, for example, UK participation in the proposed directive make UK citizens safer or demonstrate that the EU is united in its response to recent terrorist atrocities? I trust that he will explain how the Government have weighed all those factors and concluded that the risks of participation outweigh the benefits.
A debate was recommended to find out whether, despite the Government’s decision not to opt in, the Minister considers that the proposed directive will ensure a more coherent and consistent approach to tackling terrorism and foreign terrorist fighters across the EU. What assurances can he give us that there will be no legal or operational gaps in the ability of the UK and other member states to investigate and prosecute terrorist offences, particularly when there is a cross-border dimension? Will he confirm that the Government’s decision not to participate in the directive will not impede UK law enforcement authorities in co-operating and exchanging criminal intelligence with their counterparts in other EU member states?
Finally, the European Scrutiny Committee pointed to questions such as: how active a role does the UK intend to play in the negotiations and what are its negotiating objectives? How soon does the Minister expect agreement to be reached within the Council? What is the European Parliament’s position, and do the Government intend to review their decision not to opt in once the negotiations have concluded and the final content of the directive is known?
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.
As the Government’s explanatory memorandum of 17 December last year sets out, this is a European Commission proposal for a directive that would replace the 2002 framework decision on combating terrorism. The UK opted out of the 2002 framework decision in December 2014 as part of our block opt-out under protocol 36. We did not opt back in as we did not wish to be bound by EU minimum standards legislation in relation to counter-terrorism. The new directive would be a minimum standards measure intended to strengthen the international response to the threat from terrorism, and in particular would achieve a more comprehensive and consistent approach between EU member states to the criminalisation of foreign fighters and other forms of support to terrorist groups.
The proposed directive builds on existing international agreements in this area and sets out a broad range of provisions that EU member states would be required to incorporate in their domestic legislation. That includes a requirement that member states are capable of prosecuting various specified terrorist acts, as well as incitement or provocation of those acts and attempts to commit them. Such acts include those that may form part of a terrorist attack or terrorist fighting, such as kidnapping and hostage taking, hijacking, attacks on individuals, releasing harmful substances, and offences relating to explosives and nuclear or chemical weapons. They also include acts preparatory to or in support of terrorism, such as recruitment, travel or training for the purposes of terrorism, dissemination of terrorist propaganda, and provision of material support for terrorist groups, including financial support.
The proposed directive broadly requires that member states take extra territorial jurisdiction in relation to those acts. While its focus is on establishing minimum standards for terrorism-related criminal offences, the proposed directive also includes measures relating to victims of terrorism, and safeguards for fundamental rights and freedoms. In this latter respect, the proposed directive makes it clear that member states should implement and enforce its provisions in a way that is proportionate and compatible with human rights.
The UK is seen internationally as a leader in the field of counter-terrorism and, reflecting this, our domestic legislation is already largely compliant with the measures in the proposed directive. We have a broad, effective and proportionate range of criminal offences covering all the terrorist acts specified in the proposed directive. We have robust and fair judicial processes, which can prosecute terrorists effectively and which provide strong protections for the rights of individuals. Our terrorism legislation is overseen by an independent reviewer who provides a robust challenge to ensure that it is both proportionate and effective, and we take extra territorial jurisdiction in relation to a range of offences where we consider it necessary, ensuring that those who engage in terrorist activities overseas are not beyond the reach of the law when they return to this country.
In relation to the UK offences of encouragement of terrorism under section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, and of dissemination of terrorist publications under section 2 of that Act, we have identified a need to extend our territorial jurisdiction to comply fully with the proposed directive. The Government rightly take a cautious approach to extending the territorial jurisdiction of our criminal law beyond what is necessary, and we are clear that any further extension should be on the basis of operational need. In this case, we have not identified such an operational need and, accordingly, have no plans to amend our domestic legislation in this way.
The UK supports the aims and measures of the directive and recognises the importance of international collaborative efforts to combat the threat from terrorism and from foreign fighters. The UK has participated fully in negotiations with our international partners on the content of the directive, while in parallel the Government have been considering whether to opt into the directive in accordance with protocol 21 to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. We have approached this decision with an open mind and have taken it on its own merits.
In reaching our decision, we have taken into account the factors outlined in the explanatory memorandum. The Government have concluded that opting in would not be likely to make UK citizens safer, given that our domestic legislation is already largely compliant with the directive’s measures, and we do not consider that there is an operational need for the minor changes that would be required fully to comply. Our legislation is already fully compliant with the existing key international standards in this area: UN Security Council resolution 2178; the Council of Europe’s “Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism”; and the 2005 convention itself.
Further, we considered whether we were willing to participate in an exercise of EU competence in relation to counter-terrorism. The UK has previously exercised its opt-out under protocol 36. We concluded that we are not prepared to do so, as we do not wish to be bound by an exercise of EU competence that could limit our future ability to act independently in this area. Following from that, we concluded that it would be unacceptable to grant the European Court of Justice jurisdiction over the matters contained in the proposed directive in relation to the UK.
Set against that, we considered the importance of a strong, collaborative EU-level response to the threat from terrorism, particularly following the recent attacks in Paris. Such a response is vital, and UK police and intelligence agencies have been working closely in support of their European partners following the tragic events in Paris. However, our view is that the UK can play that international role without needing to participate in minimum-standards EU legislation of this kind. Therefore, on balance, the Government decided not to opt into the proposed directive, either now or post-adoption.
The Chair
We now have approximately 52 minutes for questions to the Minister. May I remind Members that questions should be brief and not speeches? There is an opportunity to make speeches in the debate that will follow the question section. It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions.
Kelvin Hopkins
An important question that I raised in my introductory remarks is: why did the Government choose once again to refer this matter to Committee, rather than have a debate on the Floor of the House, as requested by the European Scrutiny Committee? This is a matter of great importance and deserves to be discussed in a much more public forum than a Committee.
James Brokenshire
There is always an issue with the scheduling of such debates. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted in his opening comments, the Government recognise the need for these issues to be debated in a timely fashion before the opt-in decision is taken. I hope this debate provides an opportunity for Members to question me and debate this important issue and the EU’s relationship with the UK with respect to counter-terrorism matters.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is weird to come to a debate and not know what the Government are going to say before I sit down. Normally, it is very different. May I press the Minister further? Why has it taken the Government so long to make a decision? Despite being involved in the negotiations that led to this directive and despite supporting its aims, they seem to have prevaricated endlessly. We are days away from the deadline on the decision, so I do not agree that this is a timely debate. Given the Government’s stance, which we have just discovered, we should have had proper notification and a proper debate.
Were the delay and the opposition, which the Minister just outlined, caused by the Minister for Security—I see that he is not in his place—who is opposed to the Home Secretary’s and the Government’s position on EU co-operation on security policy? What further evidence can the Government provide on the security implications of not opting in? Specifically, have the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism or the Joint Intelligence Committee been asked to consider this directive? Have they provided any advice? Will the Government publish a summary of the security implications of not opting in? Given that the Government have decided not to opt in, will the Minister agree to refer that decision to the Intelligence and Security Committee? Unlike Select Committees, referrals to that Committee must be made by the Government, not other parliamentary Committees.
The Minister for Security’s letter of 4 February outlined two changes to domestic legislation that would be required if we were to comply with the directive. First, we would need to amend section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006 to extend the provision in section 2 to enable the offence of the dissemination of terrorist publications to be prosecuted in the UK, even if the offence is committed outside the UK. Secondly, legal aid would need to be provided to victims of terrorism who make civil claims. What practical issues did the Minister encounter on those fairly simple changes, and is that why the Government are opposed in principle to making the changes? Surely the Government are not opposed to the legislation because we would need to extend legal aid to victims of terrorism. It would be dreadful if that were the case.
James Brokenshire
There are a few questions to respond to. On the hon. Lady’s general point about the nature of this debate, I refer her to the explanatory memorandum, which sets out the various factors for consideration, and to the letter that we sent the European Scrutiny Committee in response to its report, for which we are very grateful. It sets out our logic and thinking on the points that the report made about, for example, extraterritorial jurisdiction and legal aid.
The fundamental point, which I alluded to in my opening speech, is that this is a minimum standards-type directive. We decided that it is not appropriate to stay within the 2002 framework decision, which this directive replaces, because we already comply with it. We felt that we did not need to adopt it because, again, it was a minimum standards-type requirement. We are fully compliant with the 2002 framework decision. Therefore, in our judgment, this measure does not impact on matters of operational requirement. This is something that we have considered very carefully. On the hon. Lady’s point about referral to other Committees, this matter has been considered carefully by the European Scrutiny Committee, which published a report to which the Government replied in the form of the Security Minister’s letter.
On the timing, the Government are often criticised for setting out up front our view about whether to opt in or out of particular measures. It is argued that that limits scrutiny because we have already set our minds in a particular direction. Therefore, there is normally a period of several weeks to allow the European Scrutiny Committee to assess the evidence and produce a report, which it has done, before the Government make a publicly stated commitment about whether to opt in or out. We are often told that stating our position too far in advance undermines scrutiny, but the hon. Lady said that not doing so causes confusion. It does not; it is about respecting scrutiny and the appropriate process, which the European Scrutiny Committee has gone through.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I have a few remarks that I will make when we get to the debate stage, but in the light of hon. Members’ comments—particularly those of the hon. Member for Luton North—I would like to press the Government further on their decision not to refer this matter for a full debate in the House. The Minister said that the Government made a balanced decision. If it was a balanced decision, there must have been counter-arguments, but we have not heard what they are.
The Chair
Order. May I remind you to frame your comments in a question? You will be free to make broader points during the debate.
Roger Mullin
Okay. What counter-arguments were pressed and why were they discounted? Also, the Minister indicated that the UK was a leader in counter-terrorism. If that is the case, why did the Minister indicate in a debate in October that no information was being gathered on matters such as the use of children as suicide bombers?
James Brokenshire
I underline the fact that the UK is a leader in counter-terrorism. We gain various benefits from our relationship with our European partners as well as from our long-established relationship with other international partners. We are able to work together closely to confront the threat from terrorism that we all face. We deal with the overall level of threats and we disrupt various actions. Arrests and prosecutions continue in respect of those intent on doing us harm. I must reassert that.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the papers before the Committee in respect of the consideration that the Government have given to this measure. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum that was issued by my right hon. Friend the Security Minister on 17 December sets out very clearly the issues relating to this matter and the relevant considerations. Ultimately, the Government have determined, as they have with the framework decision, that this is a minimum standards directive, and we are satisfied that there are no operational gaps or issues of concern. We have weighed up the issue of national security, the ultimate member state competency, and that will always be a priority. That was one of the elements emphasised in the papers arising from the renegotiation, and that has been reaffirmed.
The papers before the Committee clearly set out the Government’s consideration of the matter. I hope I have clarified the minimum standards, our assessment with operational partners, and the need to create further requirements. We have considered the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction, which is one of the key questions, and we remain satisfied that the balance we have struck and the conclusions we have reached are that it is not appropriate to extend sections 1 and 2 of the 2006 Act in an extraterritorial way. We considered that issue in our debates on the Serious Crime Act 2015, which amended the 2006 Act to extend jurisdiction in relation to the offences of preparing for terrorism under section 5, and further extended the scope of jurisdiction in relation to training for terrorism under section 6. This was necessary to ensure UK compliance with UN Security Council resolution 2178. It helpfully filled a gap in our ability to prosecute suspected terrorists, particularly those who travel to Syria or other theatres of jihad.
Following consultation with partners, we did not identify an operational gap in relation to section 1 and 2 offences that would necessitate the taking and extending of extraterritorial jurisdiction for those offences. The section 5 offence of engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorism is broad and effective. In practice, it can generally be used to prosecute foreign terrorist fighters.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
First, may I congratulate the Government, which is unusual in matters of this kind, because it is such good news to hear that they are not opting into these arrangements? As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I totally endorse the remarks made by the hon. Member for Luton North about this debate needing to take place on the Floor of the House, whether it is an opt-in or opt-out decision.
The Chair
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is the question session. He can make general points during the debate that follows.
Sir William Cash
I ask the Minister if he will accept my congratulations on this matter and explain to me, as Chairman of that Committee, why he thinks this measure should not be considered on the Floor of the House. Lastly, how definitive is the Government’s opt-in decision? Do the Government intend to review their decision once the outcome of the negotiations is known?
James Brokenshire
I welcome my hon. Friend’s presence this afternoon. He underlines his own Committee’s scrutiny of and focus on these measures, which I appreciate and welcome. Indeed, I have given evidence to his Committee, and it rightly holds Government to account on these matters.
My hon. Friend asked whether we will somehow reopen consideration of this matter post the EU referendum. It is not the Government’s intention to do so. As I have indicated, we did not opt back into the 2002 framework decision that this directive will replace. Because this directive is minimum standards-related, and because of the issues I have highlighted—for example, member state competency, national security and the role that the directive might give to the Court of Justice of the European Union—it is our clear view as a Government that we should not opt into this measure, whether that is now or in future, post-adoption. I hope that that clarity is helpful to the Chair of the Select Committee and to other right hon. and hon. Members.
The Government take such scrutiny seriously. Where the European Scrutiny Committee recommends that there should be a debate on a particular paper or dossier, we should do so, but there is always a question of parliamentary time and the nature of debates available to us. Therefore, on the opt-in decision, we felt that we could grant and respond positively to the need for a debate. That debate is in this format rather than on the Floor of the House, but that should not in any way limit our consideration of these serious matters. This is an important measure, and in this Committee we are considering the relevant directive and the Government’s decision that we should not opt into the measure. I welcome the scrutiny that this Committee is able to provide.
Kelvin Hopkins
I take with a pinch of salt the Minister’s suggestion that time restrictions meant the measure could not be discussed on the Floor of the House. Time and again, business finishes short and we go home early, but that is not my question. My question is this: what conclusions did the Government draw on the implications for the UK of accepting the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and on the impact of participation in the proposed directive on the UK’s ability to act in its own right in negotiations on terrorism-related matters in international organisations such as the UN and the Council of Europe?
James Brokenshire
As I have indicated, we have considered this matter in the context of the UN Security Council resolution that I mentioned in my opening remarks. Under the previous legislation considered by the House, we decided to give extraterritorial jurisdiction to certain measures in the 2006 Act. This matter was certainly considered carefully at that time. Obviously, this is a new measure, but our judgment remains that there is no need to extend our territorial jurisdiction for the issues outlined.
On the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, we have obviously considered the measure against the backdrop of national security being a member state competency that we have upheld. Regarding the renegotiation, the legally binding decision supports the UK in reiterating its sovereignty in relation to matters of national security. Our new settlement includes a legal confirmation that the UK’s national security is the sole responsibility of the UK Government and helps us to ensure that we can exercise our sovereign responsibility for national security without interference from the EU, while retaining the freedom to collaborate closely with our EU counterparts where it is right to take collective action to tackle the threats we face. The decision makes it clear that EU institutions will fully respect member states’ national security responsibilities. The text is a signpost to institutions such as the Court to act in a particular way. As the Court confirmed in the Rottmann case, it is required to take the provisions into account when interpreting the treaties in future, which gives our decision force before the Court.
We have considered the matter carefully. As I indicated in my opening remarks, it was reflected on in terms of whether to opt in or out over and above the points that I have made about the directive being one of minimum standards. That affirms the fact that we can benefit from collaborating and having operational relationships with EU partners. Indeed, I can point to many issues in respect of Europol and other mechanisms that add real weight to our ability to protect UK citizens. Nevertheless, the judgment on this measure is that we should not be part of the directive itself, because we gain the operational benefit in any event, without being bound by the directive and all that that might bring in terms of ECJ jurisdiction.
Kelvin Hopkins
Personally, I support the view of the European Scrutiny Committee and support the Government’s decision on this matter. I will make a few more comments on that when we come to make a decision. Nevertheless, there are concerns about the rights of victims. Victim Support has made representations to the European Scrutiny Committee; I assume that it has made them to the Government as well. As the Government are minded not to opt into the proposed directive, is the Minister willing to commit to introducing comparable rights for victims of terrorism into UK domestic legislation?
James Brokenshire
We already have in place measures to provide compensation for victims of terrorism. For example, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 provides powers for compensation schemes for blameless victims who have sustained criminal injuries, including as a result of terrorism. Victims of violent crime, including terrorism, have been eligible to apply for criminal injuries compensation since the inception of such a scheme for Scotland, England and Wales in 1964. The victims of overseas terrorism compensation scheme came into force in 2012, following the introduction of powers for such a scheme in the Crime and Security Act 2010. Before the establishment of that scheme, there was no compensation scheme for victims of overseas terrorism, aside from an ex gratia scheme also introduced in the same year. I underline the support and compensation arrangements that have existed.
On the broader issues relating to victims, the UK previously transposed the EU victims directive into our domestic legislation. Because of that, taken together with other statutory provisions, we are compliant with most of the measures for victims in the proposed directive. However, article 22 of the proposed directive, which provides that all victims of terrorism should receive free legal advice in a broad range of circumstances, might not be fully compatible with the current legal aid scheme in England and Wales because legal aid is means-tested and not always free. Under the Government’s proposed residency test, civil legal aid will normally be available only to those currently lawfully resident in the UK who have previously lived in the UK for 12 continuous months. The scope of the legal aid scheme does not generally encompass all civil proceedings—for example, damages claims, which the directive appears to envisage should be included. It is therefore possible that the scope of the existing legal aid scheme would need to be expanded to comply.
Legal aid is obviously paid for by the taxpayer and means-testing is a long-standing feature of the civil legal aid scheme. The Government believe that in principle, for individuals with a strong connection to the UK to benefit from the civil legal aid scheme, that is the appropriate way to structure it. That is why we intend to introduce a residence test for most types of cases funded by civil legal aid, as a fair and appropriate way to demonstrate that connection. We judge that the legal aid arrangements are fair, just and appropriate and that we have mechanisms rightfully in place to enable victims to seek compensation. Those schemes are available.
We consider the matter carefully through all the debates and in the light of the horrendous circumstances that many hon. Members have had to face up to in the wake of terrorist incidents. Many of us will have met families who have been seriously affected by the loss of loved ones, or people directly affected by lifelong injuries. The Government consider the matter carefully and have arrangements that respect the victims’ rights and ensure that compensation can be available.
Several hon. Members rose—
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Wes Streeting, but I will take that, Mr Bailey; what a promotion!
The Minister says that, based on his analysis of the operational need, there is no necessity for the UK to opt in. On that basis, will he undertake to publish the analysis and, in particular, the elements of the proposals that go beyond the requirements of international and existing UK law, to satisfy hon. Members, in the absence of a debate on the Floor of the House, that the decision is correct?
James Brokenshire
We are having this debate here this afternoon, and I have already explained our consideration of the matters; and the letter from my right hon. Friend the Security Minister in response to the report of the Committee sets the matter out very carefully. Obviously, we continue to keep the matters under review, and I would point out to the hon. Gentleman the debates on the Serious Crime Act 2015, when issues of extra territoriality were considered; that was precisely to do with assessments by our operational partners of how value could be added and how there could be a benefit.
There has been a great deal of consideration and the House has reflected closely on issues of extraterritorial jurisdiction. There is an assessment that we make on whether alternative offences are available—particularly the offence of preparing for terrorism, under section 5 of the 2006 Act, which is quite wide-ranging in its scope. Significant numbers of charges and prosecutions have been brought under it, and we judge that it is an appropriate way to see that action is taken against those preparing acts of terrorism, and we work with our operational partners to see that that happens.
Kelvin Hopkins
I have one more question on legal aid. Some of us strongly deprecate the Government’s cuts in legal aid, and their impact on many people in different walks of life, with different cases. Is there a possibility—the Minister touched on this—that legal aid might be differentially applied or provided to individuals, depending on where they live in the United Kingdom, such as in Scotland as opposed to England and Wales? The Minister has talked about England and Wales, but not about Scotland or Northern Ireland.
James Brokenshire
To clarify and be absolutely clear, I said the UK. I meant the sense of having a connection to the UK and was explaining why we intend to look at a residence test for most types of cases funded by civil legal aid, in respect of a connection with the UK.
Lyn Brown
I am a bit flabbergasted about this. Can the Minister please explain how what he has set out does not impede EU co-operation? I do not believe that in all the words he has said thus far he has told me whether the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism or the Joint Intelligence Committee were asked to consider the directive, and, if they were, whether they provided advice. Will the Government publish a summary of the security implications of not opting in? I am increasingly getting the feeling that we are not opting into the directives because of the legal aid issue.
James Brokenshire
Our consideration of the matter is on the basis of not being subject to a minimum standards directive. The hon. Lady could make the same arguments on the 2002 framework directive, which we decided not to opt into because of the comprehensive range of counter-terrorism powers that we have in place. I reject her characterisation.
The Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism is part of the Home Office. We at the Home Office have reflected on the measure as part of the cross-governmental consideration of whether to opt into the matter. We have determined across the Government that opting in is not appropriate because of the counter-terrorism legislation that I have already outlined to the hon. Lady, the potential jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the implications of that, and the member state competency over national security, which is a fundamental issue on which the Government will not give way. We have underpinned and underlined that in the renegotiation. That is the consideration we have given. We set out the various issues clearly in the explanatory memorandum and in the response given by the Security Minister to the Committee’s report.
The Chair
If no more Members wish to ask questions, we will proceed to debate the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 14926/15, a Proposal for a Directive on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA; endorses the Government’s decision not to opt in under Protocol 21 on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the EU Treaties; and supports the Government’s approach of working with other Member States to support our international partners and strengthen the international response to the threat from terrorism, recognising that national security is a matter for individual nations through their sovereign Parliaments.—(James Brokenshire.)
Lyn Brown
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, and to be here for the debate this afternoon. I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for raising the profile of the issue and for ensuring that we have this debate. I agree that the issue is worthy of consideration on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, and after being pressed in this Committee, will reconsider and it will be possible to have that debate there.
From the outset, I think it is important that we are clear about what we are debating. We are debating whether the UK should opt into an EU directive on combating terrorism that has been proposed by the European Commission. The decision will be taken, as we have heard, by the British Government. Thanks to the European Scrutiny Committee, that decision will be scrutinised, informed and debated by Parliament.
The question that the British Government have to answer is whether it is in the UK’s best interests to opt into the collective set of measures to combat terrorism. They will be accountable to Parliament for their decision. What this is not is the European Union foisting regulations on the UK or this Parliament, and those who argue that every EU directive we opt into is an erosion of our sovereignty should remember the process.
Labour supports the directive and believes that the UK should opt in, as that will better ensure that there are no gaps in UK and EU security against terrorism and set a clear benchmark for all members. We recognise the point made in the European Scrutiny Committee’s report that there could be a
“risk that differences in the legal framework established at EU level and the UK’s domestic law could impede practical cooperation and make it more difficult to prosecute terrorist offences which have a cross-border dimension.”
Given the uncertainty of the Government’s case and the lack of an impact assessment, we believe that there is a clear national security case for opting in.
I want to comment on several of the specific issues raised by the proposed directive and highlighted by two excellent European Scrutiny Committee reports. Before that, however, I emphasise that the decision needs to be considered in the context of an increasingly international terror threat that requires an international response. We are having a specific debate about whether to opt into the directive in the context of the much wider conversation about whether we are fundamentally safer in the EU or outside it. No one can be in any doubt that the terror threat we face is severe and evolving. The Commission outlined that in its justification for the directive and that is acknowledged in the European Scrutiny Committee’s report. Terror groups such as Daesh are present in multiple states in Europe and the middle east and use their international networks to prepare terror attacks. That can be combated only through collective and consistent action across member states.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) would have been here today but he is speaking for the Opposition in a Westminster Hall debate. Before entering the House, he was the Director of Public Prosecutions, acting to ensure convictions against terrorists, and he has explained in detail how the apprehension and prosecution of terror suspects are aided by EU measures: not just the principle of co-operation but specific tools that are used 24/7 by our law enforcement agencies. His intervention followed similar ones from senior police and intelligence figures, including Sir Hugh Orde, the former chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers and former Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That view is also held by the Government’s national security advisers and the Home Secretary.
I am at a loss. British citizens will be safer if we ensure that all EU countries have tough and comprehensive anti-terror measures. Regardless of whether we are in the EU or not, we will remain vulnerable to attacks planned and partly orchestrated from abroad. We are safer if all EU countries have effective anti-terror provisions.
Another benefit of the directive is the protections afforded when British citizens are victims of terrorism in the EU. As we saw last year with the terrible attacks in Tunisia and Paris, British citizens are increasingly likely to be victims of terrorist attacks abroad. If an attack takes place in an EU country, articles 22 and 23 offer a basic framework of rights and protections to the victims of terrorism. Surely we should welcome that.
The Opposition believe that the enormous benefits of co-operation on terrorism and security measures mean we should opt into the directive today. I fully accept the argument that UK legislation is already compliant with all of the directive’s substantive requirements, but I do not see that as a reason not to put our name to the directive. Instead, we should be pleased that our legislation is being used as a benchmark for other states and aid the process.
The Government’s explanatory memorandum makes that argument well. In paragraph 35, it acknowledges that
“The UK actively participated in the negotiation of the final text of the Additional Protocol”,
which the directive builds on, and shares
“a keen interest in engaging positively and the importance of sharing best practice”.
Engaging and sharing best practice are best served by opting into the directive.
That does not mean that I do not agree with the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee that we should generally avoid the introduction of minimum standards in criminal law. Most crimes committed in the UK are the business of the UK Government, so it is for Parliament to decide what conduct should be considered criminal. However, it has long been realised that offences such as drug trafficking, terrorism and human trafficking have an international dimension and therefore they are covered by international law. The directive contains obligations already established by UN Security Council resolution 2178.
This is not the first time that an EU directive has demanded minimum standards on internationally acknowledged criminal action—the EU human trafficking directive makes similar demands because human trafficking is internationally recognised as a crime and it is best tackled through EU co-operation—so I genuinely struggle to understand the Government’s position on the directive, given its advantages to the EU’s and the UK’s security. The Opposition will push the motion to a vote and support a move to opt into the directive. The Government need to rethink their decision.
Roger Mullin
I would like to take a slightly unusual slant in the debate, if the Minister and others are content with that—or even if they are not. [Laughter.]
I speak today for the third party not as a spokesperson on legal issues, but as one who has had a general interest in the topic ever since the time I thought I was being kidnapped in Yemen. As well as having a personal interest, I should declare that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on explosive weapons. My interest is slightly different from the mere legal interest that many members of this Committee have, so I hope you will indulge me a little, Mr Bailey. I will fairly briefly run through two or three examples of international developments and invite the Minister to respond to persuade me that the Government’s approach is the best one.
My natural prejudice is toward encouraging international co-operation at every turn, because of the nature of the threats we face. I notice that, only a few hours ago, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said that Daesh is
“trying to build bigger attacks”
globally, including in the UK. Early last October, I had a Westminster Hall debate on the use of children as suicide bombers, during which I pointed out that the information from the United Nations was that there could be up to 1,000 children, in many countries, who are under training as potential suicide bombers. In recent weeks, there have been videos of terrorist groups in the middle east that include children who have been moved from the UK by their parents. In their response to my debate, the Government indicated that they did not compile information on the scale of the threat from that new development in suicide bombing.
Suicide bombing presents a particular form of threat. Suicide bombers are the terrorists’ guided weapons. Whereas advanced states such as the UK and the USA use technology to make pinpoint attacks, terrorist groups increasingly use human beings as their guided weapons systems. We will recall what happened in Nigeria last year. Those groups appear in some countries almost to favour the use of young females as guided weapons systems. If that is imported into the western world, as it may well be, that will raise a new type of threat. We could consider those young people trained as suicide bombers to be terrorist threats, but are they not at the same time victims of terrorists? Are we equipped to deal with that growing phenomenon?
The APPG on explosive weapons is conducting an inquiry into the use of improvised explosive devices. Again, we find that there is a lack of consistently held information internationally about the scale of the IED problem, which is spreading throughout the world as terrorists continuously develop their expertise. A week last Friday, I attended a meeting in Geneva hosted by the United Nations Mine Action Service, where I met the director of UNMAS and had an hour’s conversation with her. She explained how Daesh has now moved some of its productive capability to Libya, where it is developing large quantities of highly sophisticated IEDs, which will present a continuing threat potentially to Europe and the like. Indeed, the best information we have from the United Nations is that last year 68 countries were victims of activities involving IEDs. This was not just happening in France or Syria or the countries that readily trip off the tongue. The country that had the most deaths and injuries caused by IEDs last year was India, so this is a growing threat in every continent of the world. I would therefore like to know why the UK Government do not believe that stronger international co-operation is the way forward on this matter.
I am sure the Minister will agree that international terrorism is a fast-developing phenomenon. We know that terrorists’ technologies are advancing month by month. We know that they are beginning to deploy human beings in different ways. We know from statements today by our assistant commissioner that they are becoming more ambitious in the scale of their targets. In the circumstances of a growing threat, why on earth do we not act on the basis of our prejudices towards engaging internationally, rather than keep things more closely to our chest?
Sir William Cash
I want to make one or two comments. I have already congratulated the Government on the line they have taken on this, but I want to draw attention to one or two points. In the first place, it seems to me that the judgment is very much in line with the necessity for us to maintain our own security arrangements within the framework of our domestic law. By opting in, we would clearly be at variance with the position that we would prefer. UK courts would be compelled to interpret UK law in line with European Court of Justice judgments. In other words, by adopting this proposal, we would effectively be bringing ourselves within the framework of the European Court of Justice. As the Minister will know, the European Court might get the matters right, but unfortunately this would also lead to a degree of harmonisation of criminal law across the EU. Frankly, it is far better, in relation to our own legal processes in our domestic jurisdiction, to ensure that this Parliament and our courts set and interpret matters of criminal law. That is the first point I wanted to make.
The second is that we have already legislated, through the Serious Crime Act 2015, to extend territorial jurisdiction over two further offences in the Terrorism Act 2006 to enable the prosecution in the UK of UK-linked individuals who prepare or train for terrorism—that is dealt with in section 5—or who train for terrorism overseas, which is dealt with in section 6. We are therefore already catering for those circumstances. That covers some of the matters raised by the Opposition spokesman. So we are already dealing with these questions under our existing law.
Then there is the vexed question of drawing our jurisdiction into the charter of fundamental rights. This is a subject on which I have had a great deal to say over the last few years and in respect of which the European Scrutiny Committee held a full inquiry. We came to the conclusion that, although the Labour Government and the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said just before he left office that we have an opt-out from the charter, that simply is not true. Furthermore, we took evidence from Peter Goldsmith on the matter, and it is clear that the botched attempt by the previous Government to come up with a protocol did not work.
The problem with the charter is that it takes a vast range of matters within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. This particular matter would fall into it. I agree with what the Security Minister said in his explanatory memorandum:
“Security and respect for fundamental rights are consistent and complementary objectives under EU law. Fundamental rights are not absolute”—
he is referring to article 52 of the EU charter—
“and will therefore be balanced against the security objective.”
For all those reasons, it is essential that we maintain our own domestic jurisdiction in matters of security. That, unfortunately, would be transgressed if we opted into this particular directive.
I add that the United Kingdom legislation is already compliant with United Nations Security Council resolution 2178, as the Minister has said, and the Council of Europe additional protocol to the convention on the prevention of terrorism. As the explanatory memorandum says, those measures allow the UK to
“disrupt the ability of people to travel abroad to fight, reduce the risks they pose on their return and combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism.”
For all those reasons, I think the Government have made the right decision.
I would like to take to task the former Home Secretaries —namely, Jack Straw, Charles Clarke and Jacqui Smith—who have weighed in today, making complaints about the position, which I thoroughly endorse, of the Tory mayoral candidate, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), on seeking to leave the European Union. They attack him erroneously by saying:
“Electing a Mayor who wants to leave Europe would pose a serious risk to Londoners’ safety and security”.
I simply disagree with that. Ultimately, security has to be a matter for UK domestic jurisdiction.
I wish to complete my remarks by re-congratulating the Minister—somewhat unusually in these matters—on making the right decision not to opt into this directive.
Wes Streeting
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. This is my first European Committee, and it is a good illustration of how the relationship between this Parliament and the European Union works.
We know that the nature of the threat to this country’s national security has changed extraordinarily during the past century. The threats we face are now no longer simply those of nation states but of terrorists who have no regard for national borders, for democracy or for human rights domestically or internationally. The changing nature of that global threat requires greater global co-operation, in particular with our partners across the European Union.
Here we are, as Members of Parliament, talking about a draft directive that—irrespective of whether the UK chooses to opt in or opt out of it—enables the UK and the Government to say proudly that we have had a role in shaping the standards for tackling terrorism right across the European Union. That has to be in our national interest. It serves to show that in terms of how we exercise our sovereignty to protect our economic, social and national security in this century, if we pool our sovereignty and work together with our partners across the democracies of Europe, we have greater weight and influence to tackle the challenges facing this country and the wider globe.
Here we are, as Members of Parliament, able to directly comment on and feed into the position of our Government, with the Government able to take a flexible approach: they can opt in or opt out of these important directives. There is clearly a difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition today, but this debate highlights that the UK has all the benefits of being a member of the European Union, with all the flexibilities we have acquired and negotiated over time.
Lyn Brown
One thing I did not bring out in my speech earlier was that, regardless of whether or not we opt into the directive, it will bring significant benefits to British citizens. I do not understand why we think that it is reasonable to receive and not reciprocate. Does the Minister seem like the kind of bloke who does not stand his round at the bar?
Wes Streeting
I am surprised at the Government’s response, given the role that they have played in shaping the directive. Indeed, the Security Minister acknowledges in his memorandum that a case can be made for action at EU level to ensure a consistent approach to combating terrorism. The Government have exercised their influence and expertise to ensure that that approach has been adopted by our European partners. As is becoming familiar on a range of issues, but particularly, and alarmingly, national security, I suspect that the politics within the Conservative party and its divisions over Europe are having a far too great a bearing on deliberations right across the House.
That brings me to the substance of my concern. People complain about a lack of influence, or Parliament’s lack of involvement in the making of laws and directives that affect our people, our courts and how we go about our business in this country, but every Member of Parliament could have had the opportunity to debate these important measures had the Government accepted the European Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation and held a debate on the Floor of the House. I cannot be convinced that we do not have time to discuss something as important as draft measures to combat terrorism. Members of the public would be surprised that we cannot find the time to debate such matters. We find the time to debate all sorts of issues in Parliament, including on the Floor of the House. I have sometimes felt, particularly in recent weeks, that the Chamber has not been as busy or as focused on the big issues as it should be.
It is not because I have anything against the Minister, or just because I love listening to the Security Minister, but I am disappointed and surprised that the latter is not present, because there are several questions that he needs to answer. In his explanatory memorandum, on the one hand he says that opting into the proposed directive might require “significant changes” to UK domestic law, notably in relation to provisions on the liability of legal persons and extraterritorial jurisdiction, but on the other hand he indicates that only “limited changes” to UK primary legislation would be needed. Which is it? Would opting into the directive require substantial changes to legislation? In which case, what are they and what would we be debating? If not, why the contradiction?
I have already asked the Minister to share the outcome of his analysis of the operational need for the elements of the directive that go beyond the requirements of international and UK law. I hope that he will go away and consider publishing that analysis, so that all Members can scrutinise it. He should also comment on the risk that differences between the legal framework established at EU level and the UK’s domestic law could impede practical co-operation, as we have set out. It would be deeply unfortunate if a party political headache turns into an obstruction to the UK opting into a directive that could bring practical benefits in tackling international terrorism and the specific threat to the United Kingdom.
The difference of opinion among Committee members underlines the importance of holding such debates on the Floor of the House. Plenty of Members, particularly Government Members, would like us withdraw from the EU altogether. I do not agree with that position, but I respect it. Whatever difficulties the Conservative party leadership is currently dealing with, they do not warrant us having such an important debate in Committee, rather than on the Floor of the House, where it should take place.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
We have in this country a good suite of offences and tools for tackling terrorism, as a result of unfortunate experiences over the years—for example, in Northern Ireland—so when the framework directive was being planned in 2002, we were a long way ahead of other countries. At that time, Tony Blair’s Government had to decide whether we should join this directive, which, as has been said, is a minimum standards measure. The Labour Government decided not to join, and they had a lot of support from other parties, because at that point we did not want to put an area of criminal law under EU jurisdiction. It is right that the UK does have a special status in the EU, and this is part of it.
I agreed with the hon. Member for West Ham when she mentioned the former DPP, whom I worked with when I was Solicitor General and he was superintending the Crown Prosecution Service. There are some good tools that we have opted into—I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone on this—such as the EU arrest warrant, which is very valuable. However, I think that we are right to continue the policy of the UK Government not to opt into the successor directive, because we still have a special status in the EU and we do not want our criminal law to be under EU jurisdiction. The reason we have such a good suite of offences and tools is that every time we have encountered a problem—for example, when prosecuting an offence, or when we find that we need slightly wider powers—we have changed the law. To be able to do that speedily and to have it under our control is, in my view, very important.
James Brokenshire
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed this afternoon. As we have heard, this comes at a time when the UK faces a serious and continued threat from Islamist extremist violence, which is probably more acute today that it has ever been. Daesh is targeting our way of life, spreading fear and terror, and it wants to exploit the internet, both to radicalise and recruit the vulnerable and to incite and direct extremists to carry out attacks outside Syria and other areas of conflict. Indeed, we face the continuing threat from al-Qaeda and groups linked to it, which seek to challenge and threaten our very way of life.
These are weighty and serious issues, and any Government consider them in that context. Having had the privilege of serving as Security Minister for four years, during which time we saw the growth of this activity, I feel the weight of those responsibilities in my current role on border security and as Immigration Minister, which is why I am disappointed by some of the contributions we have heard this afternoon and by the characterisation of the approach taken by the Government, who take issues of national security absolutely to heart. That is our first and foremost consideration when making decisions on these and other matters.
I want to be absolutely explicit that nothing in this decision impedes practical co-operation with our European partners. Indeed, when I look at what the Government have done to support Europol and strengthen its capabilities in combating internet radicalisation, and the steps we have taken in opting into the second generation Schengen information system to better share information on suspected terrorists, organised criminals and those subject to European arrest warrants, I see how that absolutely has been in the best interests of the UK. That work will continue, which is why close collaboration and co-operation with our European partners and others will absolutely remain a core part of this Government’s activities in seeking to confront and combat those who would seek to harm UK citizens or perpetrate acts of terrorism against them, or indeed any citizens, whether in this county, in Europe or elsewhere around the globe.
There have been some questions about what information can be supplied to this Committee. Let me be clear that we do not comment on operational priorities or the capabilities of our security and intelligence agencies, and for good reason: so that we do not assist those who would seek to conduct acts of terrorism against citizens of this country. Such information, if provided, is likely to be of interest to them, so we provide protection around matters of intelligence. Although various points have been raised about our assessments in relation to these matters, I am afraid that I am not able to go into those operational priorities in Committee. However, I can assure the Committee of the level and extent of analysis that is conducted by our security and intelligence agencies of those who would wish to conduct terrorist acts against UK citizens or against UK interests wherever they may be. I certainly recognise the need to keep those matters under close and careful scrutiny.
I need not remind the Committee of the threat that we and our international partners face from terrorism. We continue to keep our legislation under continuous review to ensure that it is as robust as possible to effectively tackle the threat. We therefore recognise that we have a role to play in sharing our expertise and in supporting our international partners both in the EU and elsewhere. At the operational level, UK law enforcement and intelligence agencies work very closely with international partners to protect the public here and overseas. That includes seeking the support of partners where appropriate in tackling threats to the UK, providing partners with support to tackle threats they face at home and co-operating to tackle threats to the wider international community, such as those posed by Daesh in Syria and Iraq. Day-to-day operational co-operation is vital to modern terrorism investigations and is a routine feature of such investigations, which have an international dimension.
At the structural level, the UK Government and agencies work with international counterparts to build their capacity to tackle terrorism themselves, while promoting the rule of law and respect for human rights. At the level of co-operation through supranational organisations such as the EU or UN, the UK plays a full and active role, and I hope it will continue to do so. We participated fully, along with the other Council of Europe member states, in negotiating the text of the Council of Europe additional protocol to the 2005 convention on the prevention of terrorism, which we exercised our national competence to sign in October 2015. Our legislation is also fully compliant with UN Security Council resolution 2178 on tackling foreign fighters.
I want to highlight why we have determined that this matter should be rejected. Rather than a rejection of the content of the proposed directive or of the principle of international co-operation, at the heart of the Government’s decision not to opt in is our fundamental approach to questions of subsidiarity, EU competence and national sovereignty. We do not agree that an EU minimum standards measure of this kind is necessary for sovereign Parliaments, which best understand what is necessary and appropriate in their own national contexts, to be able to protect their citizens.
Furthermore, we have consistently been clear that it would not be in the national interest to do anything that could bind us to an exercise of EU competence on this matter, that could limit our future ability to act independently in this area of national security, or that could grant the Court of Justice of the European Union jurisdiction over the matters contained in the proposed directive in relation to the UK. We judge that these outcomes would be likely to hinder rather than assist our ability to protect the British public.
Given this position, and given that the UK has developed legislation that is specific to the serious threat that we face and that meets or exceeds the proposed directive in almost all respects, we have concluded that it would not be in the national interest to opt into the proposed directive either now or post-adoption.
Sir William Cash
With respect to the difficulty in dealing with terrorists in the context of human rights and the charter of fundamental rights, I am sure that the Minister recognises that there are and have been enormous difficulties in relation to the deportation of terrorists, caused by the fact that the wide range of the charter, for example, can create difficulties in dealing with matters of public security within a domestic framework.
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend tempts me down a broader path in relation to the European convention on human rights and other related matters. As the Minister most closely involved in the direct negotiations on the treaty that led to the deportation of Abu Qatada, I understand very clearly the international legal aspects, but that is perhaps for another day. I emphasise the consideration that we have given to this directive. In our judgment, opting in does not add to our capabilities and does not in any way impede co-operation with our EU partners. We judge it is in the national interest and in the best interests of protecting the security of our citizens.
Question put.