European Public Prosecutor’s Office
James Brokenshire Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move,
That this House considers that the Draft Regulation on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) (European Union Document No. 12558/13 and Addenda 1 and 2) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter One of the Fifteenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xv); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.
It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in your place for this debate and to serve under your chairmanship this evening.
In July the European Commission published a proposal for the establishment of a European public prosecutor’s office—an EPPO. It is the Commission’s answer to a problem known as
“fraud against the Union’s financial interests”.
The EPPO proposal was published alongside a parallel legislative measure to reform the existing EU agency, Eurojust. These two proposals, the EPPO and Eurojust, will together be the subject of a separate debate in a week’s time as part of the so-called Lidington arrangements. I look forward to it, following my letters to the Chairs of the relevant Committees yesterday with the Government’s recommendation that the UK should not opt in to the new Eurojust proposal at the outset of negotiations, but should actively consider its position following a thorough review of the final agreed text.
The purpose of the debate is specifically for the House to decide whether the Commission’s EPPO proposal breaches the principle of subsidiarity, and that is what we should focus on tonight. I recognise that I am in an unusual position tonight in moving a motion on a course of action to be taken by the House, not the Government. I am aware, too, that the issue of who should move a motion in a subsidiarity debate such as this is a matter that the Procedure Committee has examined and on which the Government have responded. Although there may be differences of view over the procedure, I hope we can agree on the substance of the debate.
It is the shared view of both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Government that the EPPO proposal does indeed breach the principle of subsidiarity. If the whole House agrees, it can, under the EU treaties, send a democratic and political signal to the presidents of the European Commission, Council and Parliament in the form of a reasoned opinion to that effect. Moreover, in this case, if one quarter of the votes allocated to national Parliaments are cast, the so-called yellow card would be triggered meaning that the Commission would be obliged to review its proposal.
To update the House on how matters stand, both chambers of the Dutch Parliament, the Hungarian National Assembly and the Czech Senate have already taken this step, and others are actively considering it. This is a real opportunity for all national Parliaments to exercise, as democratic representatives, their views on what the Commission has proposed.
Before I say more about the reasoned opinion process, let me summarise the Government’s view on the EPPO proposal. The House will be aware of our long-standing position in the coalition agreement not to participate in the establishment of any EPPO, and the details of the proposal serve only to reinforce that position. While of course fraud must be tackled at all levels, including when it involves funds that form part of the EU budget, we do not agree that the establishment of a European public prosecutor’s office is the right approach.
The Commission’s proposal would establish a new supranational EU body with responsibility for criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the Union, as well as so-called ancillary offences within participating member states. The EPPO would exercise the function of a prosecutor within the courts of the participating member states for these offences and instruct their national authorities over the conduct of investigations.
This proposal is unnecessary, unsubstantiated and unwelcome. In the Government’s view, the best way to tackle EU fraud is through prevention. The UK has a zero-tolerance approach to fraud, with robust management controls and payment systems in place that seek to prevent incidences of EU fraud. Additionally we should continue efforts already happening to strengthen the current system.
For example, reforms to the European Anti-Fraud Office—OLAF—are currently being introduced to improve information exchange between OLAF and national authorities, and to improve OLAF’s own internal quality control. Indeed, a new regulation governing the work of OLAF entered into force only on 1 October 2013. These changes need time to be implemented fully before any further action is contemplated. Against that background, one of the many criticisms we have of the EPPO proposal is that the subsidiarity principle has not been met.
Without getting into too much technicality and legalese, the principle of subsidiarity means that decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizens whom they affect, and that the European Union should act only when outcomes can be better achieved at European Union level. It is important to note that subsidiarity is different from the principle of proportionality, under which any action taken by the European Union should not exceed what is necessary to achieve the stated objectives.
Under the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaties, the Commission must demonstrate that the objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved at member state level—the first limb of the test—and then, that the objectives of the proposal can be better achieved at EU-level by reason of their scale and effects, which is the second limb and so-called EU added-value test. There is a requirement for the Commission to include a detailed statement in all legislative proposals on compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and some assessment of its financial impact. This detailed statement should be
“substantiated by qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative indicators”.
In the Government’s view, the Commission has not presented a convincing case, and we do not believe that the principle of subsidiarity has been met. The Commission has not allowed time for current reforms to take effect, nor has it adequately considered options to strengthen the current system. For example, it has not considered enhanced incentives or other options for reform at regional or national level in any detail or in a rigorous manner, and it has not demonstrated what value an EPPO would add. We should recall that the relevant legal base in the treaties—article 86 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—says that an EPPO “may” be established. The treaties do not say it “shall” be created. The Commission has not, in our view, provided robust evidence to justify the creation of a supranational body with extensive and harmonised powers.
As I have said, under the treaties national Parliaments have the opportunity to put forward a reasoned opinion when they do not consider that a proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
As the Minister has just made a point about harmonised powers, may I remind him that one of the consequences of giving the EPPO the power to direct investigations would be to create a power for prosecutors that does not currently exist in England and Wales, although it does in Scotland? That perhaps illustrates the level of change that would be required to satisfy the idea of having a public prosecutor at European level.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, for highlighting the seriousness and significance of the European Commission’s proposal and why, in our view, it is not appropriate for the United Kingdom to opt in to the measure. As I have indicated, we made that abundantly clear in the coalition agreement in advance of the proposals being published. I am sure that we will examine in detail the impact of the Commission’s published measure in our debate next week on the in-principle decision as to whether the UK should opt in. That is the right avenue for exploring the detailed issues, whereas today is about subsidiarity. However, I take his points seriously.
Although there have been a number of reasoned opinions since the opportunity to provide them came into effect, there has only been one occasion on which the yellow card threshold has been reached. That was on a Commission proposal about the posting of workers and the right to take collective action, also known as Monti II. In that case, the Commission withdrew the proposal fully, even though it maintained that the principle of subsidiarity had been met. It conceded on the grounds that it was clear that there was no political will among member states and national Parliaments to take the proposal forward.
The Monti II case highlights the fact that the continuing use of the reasoned opinion procedure and resulting yellow cards represents a powerful political signal and an important way for national Parliaments to intervene directly in the EU’s functioning. Even when the yellow card threshold has not been met, the views of national Parliaments have been influential on a wide range of issues, as member states have used reasoned opinions to support their negotiating positions. They have often secured amendments on the salient issues on the back of them.
Achieving the threshold requires a great deal of co-ordination between national Parliaments. I am sure the European Scrutiny Committee and other interested parties in Parliament, in both this House and the other place, are making best use of their contacts with other national Parliaments in that regard. I look forward to hearing the debate and urge the House to support this important motion.
James Brokenshire
With the leave of the House, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. This has been a useful debate, and from what we have heard it is clear that the House supports the motion before us, and identifies that there is an issue of subsidiarity with the Commission’s proposal for a European public prosecutor’s office. As I said at the outset, this is a matter for Parliament and not the Government. Therefore, in the light of the mood of the House this evening, I hope that the European Scrutiny Committee will take this issue and work with other interested parties in Parliament, the House and the other place, and make best use of their contacts with other national Parliaments in that regard, given the interest and focus that I know are being directed to this proposal by Parliaments around the EU.
The coalition agreement makes it clear that the UK Government will not participate in any European public prosecutor’s office. As we have heard from hon. Members, that is because a centralised European prosecutor with harmonised powers to initiate investigations and order investigative measures is incompatible with the division of responsibilities in the UK between law enforcement and prosecutors, and the role of the independent judiciary. In many ways, that reflects a number of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—the Chair of the Justice Committee—the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). May I say that the last of those is filling in for my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) admirably this evening in ensuring that the will and views of the European Scrutiny Committee are properly represented in the debate? I look forward to him standing in on future occasions.
I want to underline and respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). I welcome the fact that she agrees with the Government’s analysis of subsidiarity as it applies to the European public prosecutor’s office measure. However, it will not surprise her that I take issue strongly with her suggestion that the Government do not take transnational and serious organised crime, and working with law enforcement agencies across the EU, very seriously in ensuring that public are properly protected against organised criminality that crosses borders. I will not detain the House because this is a matter for another day, but it is interesting that the Labour Government negotiated the right to exercise the 2014 block opt-out—she described the 2014 decision as an untested approach. From her comments, I can only assume that the previous Government had no intention of exercising that right and therefore of seeking to provide those protections—it was a sham.
The hon. Lady highlighted protections in respect of the European prosecutor’s office—unanimity and the right to opt in—but it is important that the public have a say and a right to form a view in respect of such an important issue. That is why I welcome the fact that the Government have legislated to make any decision by a future Government to commit the UK to participating in the creation of the European public prosecutor’s office a matter that would require an Act of Parliament and—yes—a referendum under the European Union Act 2011.
This has been a helpful debate and I welcome the views that have been expressed. We will monitor with close interest whether the threshold is triggered to issue the formal yellow card to the Commission. We will return to matters more broadly in relation to the European public prosecutor’s office and the relationship with Eurojust when we debate the formal opt-in decision motion, when we can examine those matters in further detail.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House considers that the Draft Regulation on the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) (European Union Document No. 12558/13 and Addenda 1 and 2) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter One of the Fifteenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xv); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.
Inter-departmental Ministerial Group on Human Trafficking
James Brokenshire Excerpts(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The second annual report of the inter-departmental group on human trafficking is today being laid before Parliament.
The report is an assessment of the trends in human trafficking in the UK. It also sets out the work under way to reduce the threat posed by organised criminal gangs and steps taken to identify and protect victims.
The new Serious and Organised Crime Strategy sets out how the Government are targeting organised crime including human trafficking and the Home Secretary has indicated her intention to bring forward a modern slavery Bill to strengthen our response to this terrible crime.
Copies of the report are available in the Vote Office.
Justice and Home Affairs Council
James Brokenshire Excerpts(11 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council and the Eastern Partnership ministerial meeting was held on 7 and 8 October in Luxembourg. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following items were discussed.
The justice day began with a discussion of the “one-stop shop” in relation to the data protection regulation. The proposal is intended to bring consistency and efficiency to the oversight and enforcement of data protection rules by supervisory authorities, where the data controller concerned has a presence in more than one member state.
Almost all member states supported the idea of a one-stop shop in principle. However, that support was conditional on the way those objectives were achieved, and it was clear that more work was needed.
The presidency concluded that work should now focus on its first proposed model for decisions to be taken by the “main establishment” supervisory authority albeit with restricted powers but an intervention was made and the presidency agreed that the co-decision model should also form part of further work by experts.
The Council then agreed a general approach on the criminal law directive on counterfeiting the euro and other currencies. The UK has not opted in to this proposal.
Vice-President Reding presented her recent proposals for the creation of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) to prosecute offences of fraud against the Union’s budget and for reform of Eurojust, the EU’s judicial co-operation agency. There was support, in principle, from a large proportion of member states—not including the UK—for the EPPO but less agreement on issues of substance, including: scope; structure; competence; powers; jurisdiction and governance. The coalition agreement confirms that the UK will not take part in the establishment of the EPPO. On Eurojust, the UK regretted that the Commission had not awaited the outcome of the ongoing peer evaluation of the current framework and the UK sought an explanation as to why no impact assessment had accompanied this proposal. The presidency committed to press ahead with both negotiations in parallel.
Over lunch there was a read-out of the EU/US discussions on data protection which had been taking place in light of the Snowden leaks.
Under any other business, the presidency asked member states to help in lobbying the European Parliament to overcome the current stalemate on delegated and implementing acts on the justice funding instruments.
At the start of the interior day of the Council the presidency announced that Ministers had agreed, over lunch, to award the EU Police College (CEPOL) to Hungary on a temporary basis, as one of seven bids that followed the UK’s decision to sell CEPOL’s current site at Bramshill. The presidency noted that the 2005 Council decision specifically naming Bramshill as the seat of CEPOL would still have to be amended and a member state initiative is expected. The Government will deposit this in Parliament in the usual way and expects it to trigger an opt-in decision under protocol 21 to the treaties.
Following a discussion at the June JHA Council, and pending a more comprehensive report to be given at the December JHA Council, the Commission (Reding) gave a presentation on free movement rights and the abuse of these rights. Noting that 19 member states had responded to its call for evidence, the Commission stated that free movement of EU citizens was one of the fundamental achievements of the EU. However, the Commission noted that free movement rights were weakened by abuse and the Commission would support member states in using existing EU tools to fight such abuse. These tools included sanctions, such as expulsion and re-entry bans in certain circumstances and with the appropriate safeguards. National authorities could also check whether an EU citizen had become an unreasonable burden, and if so could refuse residence and withhold benefits. The Commission noted evidence of a minority of EU mobile citizens with low employment prospects who placed a strain on disadvantaged areas and on local services.
The Commission proposed five measures to ensure that free movement rules struck the right balance between rights and obligations: working with member states to produce a handbook on sham marriages; clarifying the notion of “habitual residence” through a practical guide; increasing the share of European social funds (ESF) available to tackle social inclusion from around 15% to 20%; organising workshops with the ESF managing authorities in the member states to exchange best practice; and inviting the mayors and local leaders of the regions under the most pressure to a conference on free movement issues in spring 2014.
The UK welcomed the Commission’s acknowledgement that fraud and abuse was a real issue, but said that there was still some way to go in ensuring that the legitimate concerns expressed by a number of member states were taken seriously. A sterile debate about statistics would undermine public confidence in the EU and its institutions. The sham marriage handbook needed further work and there was a need for consistent interpretation of the free movement directive, for example on expulsion and re-entry bans. Many member states supported the UK’s position, recognising that while free movement was a fundamental principle, fraud and abuse had to be counteracted. The Commission took note of the points raised and said they would be reflected in its final report.
Next the presidency and the Commission updated Ministers on the current EU response to the Syrian situation, described as the
“worst displacement crisis in the world.”
With more than 2 million refugees in total, Syria’s neighbourhood continued to bear the brunt of the crisis and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) called for greater resettlement efforts by the international community. To date, nine EU member states have pledged resettlement places, and the Commission encouraged others to follow suit.
The Commission said that the regional development and protection programme (RDPP) was making progress. A total of £6.8 million had also been mobilised from the European refugee fund (ERF), but it was critical to note that only £3.3 million remained in the pot for emergency actions. Future measures which might need to be considered were: greater co-operation between European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and the member states under pressure; activating the civil protection mechanism under the right conditions; and triggering the temporary protection directive (TPD) should the situation continue to deteriorate to the point where the threshold was met.
The EU’s High Representative, Cathy Ashton, described the situation on the ground. She welcomed the UN Security Council resolution and noted that the neighbouring countries were becoming increasingly unstable. A total of 25% of Lebanon’s population was now made up of Syrian refugees. The Geneva II process continued, but had a long way to go, as the projection for the next year was that the total refugee population would increase to 3.9 million. EASO noted that for half the EU member states, Syrians were now within the top three asylum intake. The UK highlighted that it had provided over £500 million to the relief effort in the region, as well as participating in the RDPP with a contribution of £425,000. For the UK, more protection and support in the region, rather than resettlement activity, was necessary for a sustainable longer term solution. The presidency called for close monitoring of the situation, and asked the Commission to pursue further solutions.
Next Italy outlined the tragedy which took place on 3 October in Lampedusa, proposing rapid establishment of a taskforce to oversee a range of measures in response. The Commission supported the measures proposed by Italy, and announced its proposal for a Mediterranean- wide search and rescue mission to intercept migrant boats from Cyprus to Spain, working in collaboration with Frontex. This should be accompanied by quick implementation of EUROSUR, the planned external border surveillance system for the Schengen area. In addition, Commissioner Malmström urged member states to consider both resettlement and relocation activities to demonstrate real solidarity for those member states at the external border. Commissioner Malmström announced that she would be visiting Lampedusa with President Barroso the following day. Baroness Ashton underlined the importance of working with Libya and joined others in noting the difficulty of further progress on joint migration work with the Libyan authorities. Frontex was more cautious regarding the ability to conduct enhanced search and rescue efforts, highlighting that no provision for such activity was available in the budget reserve for 2013.
Most Ministers took the floor to express their condolences. Support was given to the idea of a joint taskforce, as well as increased co-operation with third countries to dissuade migrants from making these dangerous journeys or to detect them earlier. It was agreed that the focus should be on effective engagement with the Libyan authorities. The UK agreed that the collective response must improve. There was a need to target the organised criminal groups which exploited the migrants, and to have a better and more coherent dialogue on migration, mobility and security with an increased emphasis on border management. Migration issues needed to be fully incorporated into the EU’s wider external engagement with countries of origin and transit. The Commission agreed to take forward the setting up of the taskforce, and would provide more information on the search and rescue operation shortly.
Ministers were briefed by Baroness Ashton on the importance of civilian contributions to common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions, particularly in the field of justice and home affairs (JHA). The success of the missions was underlined, as were the challenges of maintaining them. Particular attention was drawn to the sizeable contribution made by secondees from justice and home affairs ministries. Ministers were thanked for these contributions and were encouraged to do even more.
The Commission briefly updated on the outcome of the first relocation forum on 25 September. The objective of the forum was to offer discussion on the mechanics for relocation in order to assist those member states which would in the future consider relocating. The Commission underlined its voluntary nature, a point which EASO echoed, and noted it should not be confused with resettlement.
The Finnish delegation briefly noted the ministerial conference on Schengen states with external land borders, which took place on 13 September, involving the Interior Ministers of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Slovak Republic. The conference had led to a number of joint commitments on co-operation between various authorities in order to secure the internal area.
Greece noted progress made in recent months against its national action plan. The new asylum and appeals service had opened its doors on 7 June, and already registered a total of 2,547 applications. The first mobile screening units had been deployed to some of the islands, and the authorities were still on track to open the first reception centre in Lesbos at the end of 2013.
In the margins of the JHA Council, the presidency facilitated a plenary discussion with the Eastern Partnership countries on judicial reform, judicial co-operation, the rule of law, corruption, organised crime, cybercrime, and migration and mobility. Ministers adopted a joint declaration and the presidency hoped it would be the first of many such meetings.
Opt-in Decisions
James Brokenshire Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
In his written ministerial statement on 20 January 2011, Official Report, column 51WS, the Minister for Europe outlined the coalition Government’s commitment to further strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of JHA opt-in decisions. This included a commitment, where there is strong parliamentary interest, to set aside time for a debate in both Houses on their proposed approach.
The Government have decided to offer debates in Government time on the following proposals, which it is anticipated will be published in 2013:
Home Office dossiers
Proposed regulation on Europol
On 27 March 2013 the European Commission published a draft regulation to repeal the existing Council decisions governing the European Police Office (Europol) and the European Police College (CEPOL). This will establish Europol as the “European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training”. This measure has already been the subject of an opt-in debate in the House of Lords on 1 July 2013 and in the House of Commons on 15 July 2013. The Government have decided that the UK will not opt in to the regulation at the initial stages but that they should opt in post-adoption, provided that Europol is not given the power to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations or share data that conflicts with national security. The UK will remain fully engaged in the negotiations at all levels.
Proposed regulation reforming Eurojust
This draft regulation, which was published on 17 July, aims at developing and reinforcing Eurojust’s functioning and determining arrangements for involving the European Parliament and national Parliaments in the evaluation of Eurojust’s activities.
Proposal for a European Public Prosecutors’ Office (EPPO)
On 17 July, in parallel with the Eurojust proposal, the Commission also published a proposal to establish a European Public Prosecutors’ Office (EPPO). It is envisaged that the EPPO will initially be responsible for crimes against the financial interest of the EU. The Government have made clear in the coalition agreement that the UK will not participate in any proposal for a European Public Prosecutor.
Proposal on fighting money laundering
Money laundering is already a criminal offence in all EU member states and is listed in the treaty as one of the areas where the EU may create minimum standards for offences and penalties. The Commission has concluded that the absence of a common approach in member states to this issue hinders cross-border investigations and police co-operation, and is therefore suggesting the need to harmonise the offence of money laundering at EU level.
Ministry of Justice dossiers
Proposal for a directive on special safeguards in criminal procedures for suspected or accused persons who are vulnerable
The measure will aim to ensure that special attention is shown in criminal procedures throughout the EU to suspected or accused persons who are vulnerable, such as children and vulnerable adults (initiative 45). This will form measure E of the criminal procedural rights road map. It is expected that this proposal will be published in November 2013.
Initiative regarding legal aid in criminal proceedings
This will be the fourth step on the criminal procedural rights road map. The road map tasked the Commission with bringing forward a measure on access to a lawyer and legal aid at the same time. The Commission has decoupled the two, publishing the proposed directive on access to a lawyer in June 2011, with the measure on legal aid expected sometime in 2013.
Department for Transport dossier
Proposal for a directive on the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the commercial road transport field
This measure is expected to establish common minimal rules with regard to the definition of offences and sanctions, including criminal offences, in the field of commercial road transport. Such a harmonisation aims to reduce distortions of competition and the unequal treatments when committing infringements. Formal proposals are currently expected in the autumn of 2013 as part of an internal road market package.
Measures may be added to or removed from this list depending on the level of parliamentary interest that is generated by the published proposal. The list is provisional depending on the Commission’s timetable which may change. It is also not always possible to predict, ahead of analysis of the final proposal, whether the opt-in will apply. Parliament will be kept informed of any changes, which will be discussed with the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and the House of Lords European Union Committee.
The content of this statement primarily relates to arrangements for debates in the House of Commons. It is anticipated that the House of Lords will continue to call debates under existing procedures.
Regulatory Regime (Private Security Industry)
James Brokenshire Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I am today publishing a summary of responses to the Home Office consultation on the Government’s preferred option for reforming how the private security industry is regulated—a transition to a business regulation regime.
The current arrangements for the regulation of the private security industry in the United Kingdom are set out in the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Responsibility for delivering regulation lies with the Security Industry Authority (SIA), a non-departmental public body accountable to the Home Secretary. Following the public bodies review in 2010, the Government concluded that the SIA’s functions should be reformed. The consultation provided a detailed proposal for a new regulatory regime for the private security industry.
Overall, there was strong support for the Government’s proposed reforms and the majority of respondents supported the introduction of business regulation, together with a new individual licensing process, as soon as possible.
The key reform outlined in the Home Office consultation was that a new regulatory regime would be introduced which will require businesses providing security industry services to be approved by the Security Industry Authority (SIA). In order to be approved, companies would be required to ensure that they meet certain minimum standards appropriate to the industry. In return, businesses will be given greater responsibility for checking their employees’ suitability for working in the industry.
A copy of the consultation response will be placed in the House Library and will also be available on the GOV.UK website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-future-regulatory-regime-for-the-private-security-industry.
Europol Regulation
James Brokenshire Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The Government have decided at this time not to opt in to the European Commission’s proposal for a Europol regulation which would establish the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Co-operation and Training. The Government will however seek to opt in to the regulation post adoption provided that Europol is not given the power to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations or share data that conflicts with national security.
The Commission has a number of objectives in this proposal: to update the law on the European Police Office (Europol) and the European Police College (CEPOL) following the Lisbon treaty and to create cost savings by merging both the agencies; as well as to strengthen Europol’s role in the exchange and analysis of information on cross-border crime through increased obligations.
The Government value UK membership of Europol as currently established. The ability to access law enforcement intelligence directly from all other EU member states means UK law enforcement can significantly increase its intelligence yield and is effectively supported in the fight against organised crime and terrorism.
However, having analysed the draft proposal from the Commission the Government have identified two very serious concerns with the proposal which would fundamentally change the relationship between Europol and member states.
First, there is an increased obligation to provide data. In the proposal member states are not exempt from providing data, even where it would conflict with national security, endanger ongoing investigations or an individual’s safety. This conflicts with the national interest.
Secondly, while Europol can already request a member state to initiate an investigation, this proposal goes much further and includes an obligation to provide a reason if no such operation is conducted. Any reasons provided would be subject to challenge before the European Court of Justice. This creates a risk that the European courts could dictate what national law enforcement agencies should prioritise. This interferes with operational independence which is at the heart of UK policing.
We will remain a full and active participant in negotiations on the regulation and are committed to seeking to opt in post adoption provided that the above two concerns are met in the final text.
Scientific Procedures on Living Animals
James Brokenshire Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My hon. Friend the Minister for Criminal Information, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has today made the following written ministerial statement:
The “Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals—Great Britain—2012” (HC 549), was laid before the House today. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
This annual statistical report meets the requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) to inform Parliament about the licensed use of animals for experimental or other scientific purposes. It also forms the basis for meeting periodic reporting requirements at EU level. The next report to the EU is required in November 2015, which will be our 2014 statistics.
The 2012 statistical report shows that there were 4.11 million scientific procedures, which represents an overall increase of 8% over 2011. This increase is largely attributable to an increase in the breeding of genetically altered mice. Excluding the breeding of these animals, the total number of procedures actually decreased by 2%. The number of animals likely to be used in any given year is dependent on many factors, including investment in research and development, strategic decisions by funding bodies, global economic trends and scientific innovation.
The Home Office, as regulatory authority under ASPA, ensures that its provisions are rigorously applied and only authorises work that is scientifically justified and minimises the numbers of animals used and the animal suffering that may be caused.
The statistical report and supplementary information can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statistics-of-scientific-procedures-on-living-animals-great-britain-2012.
I am pleased to inform the House that I have also today placed in the Library the annual report of the Home Office “Animals in Science Regulation Unit” (ASRU) for the year 2012. The annual report can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/research-and-testing-using-animals.
The report describes how we have delivered our responsibilities under ASPA to regulate the use of animals, work to support the delivery of the transposed directive and provides information about cases of non-compliance with ASPA and the outcomes of those cases.
All establishments that carry out procedures on animals are subject to scrutiny by Home Office inspectors who play a key role in the implementation of ASPA. Inspectors implement a risk-based approach to inspection. Based upon an overview of risk across all licensed establishments, the chief inspector annually proposes a programme of inspection, agreed with the Minister, which best utilises the resources available. The risk-based approach and programme for 2012 is described in the ASRU annual report.
The transposition of directive 2010/63/EU into UK legislation during 2012 was a major undertaking. From the 1 January 2013 we harmonised standards with other EU member states where required and, where appropriate, maintained our higher standards whilst avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy and cost burden.
The programme for Government provides a commitment to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research, an ambitious but achievable goal. We recognise that the use of animals in scientific research is a small but essential function in improving our understanding of medical and physiological conditions, the research and development of new medicines and the development of leading-edge medical technologies and is necessary to ensure the safety of our environment. Scientific advances in knowledge and new technologies present significant opportunities to replace animal use, reduce the use of animals, and, where animal use is unavoidable, to refine the procedures involved so as to minimise suffering (3Rs). It is key that we take these opportunities to ensure that replacement, refinement and reduction in the use of animals is integral to conducting animal research recognising that this not about baseline numbers. The statistics published today are evidence of a significant reduction in the use of animals for shellfish toxin testing. In 2009 the number of mice used in this test totalled 7,670 whereas in 2012 this has been reduced to 42. This is a prime example of successfully implementing a non-animal alternative.
In 2012, my predecessor announced the science-led programme being taken forward by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), which is primarily funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I am pleased to report a number of significant advances in this area. Over the past 12 months, the NC3Rs has secured new funding which has helped launch the first 3Rs evaluation framework; made the biggest single investment in 3Rs research to date with new grant awards of £5.1 million; supported new approaches to replace animal use with £750,000 for interdisciplinary awards between toxicologists and mathematicians; and awarded four fellowships for exceptional early-career scientists developing models and tools with reduced reliance on animal research and improved welfare. The wider programme encompasses collaborative work led by the Home Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, between Government Departments and agencies, the Home Office inspectorate, the research community in both academia and industry, and others with relevant animal welfare interests. Significant progress has been made in developing a cross-Government action plan and we intend to provide a statement in the autumn that details our agreed plan and describes progress to date on the coalition agreement.
As the Home Office Minister responsible for ASPA, I was extremely concerned to read the allegations of non-compliance at Imperial College London (ICL) published by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV). The use of living animals in scientific procedures which may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm is strictly regulated under ASPA and I am determined to ensure that animal research is carried out humanely and only when necessary. The provision of a licence to an individual not only entrusts them to uphold their legal obligations but also to behave in ways which ensure the highest standards of animal care and welfare at all times. I take any reports suggesting that individuals or establishments are falling short of the high standards required by the Act very seriously.
I have met with the ICL establishment licence holder and other relevant senior individuals to discuss the independent investigative report that ICL have commissioned and agreed to publish. They have provided strong assurances of a rigorous inquiry. I have also had a meeting with the BUAV to assure them of the seriousness with which we are considering their allegations.
Visits by inspectors to licensed establishments, many of which are unannounced, are an important aspect of determining compliance with ASPA. An additional important role of inspectors is to advise those working under ASPA and encourage best practice with respect to the 3Rs. Inspectors have a right of entry to licensed establishments at all reasonable times and ready access to all records and it is, therefore, right and proper that they should investigate allegations when they are made. Home Office inspectors have been investigating the allegations against ICL at pace and I intend to publish a report later this year.
It is an imperative that lessons learned and broader issues for the wider community are taken from this incident. I have therefore requested the Government’s independent expert advisory body, the Animals in Science Committee (ASC), to review both the inspectorate’s report and the ICL independent report, when both are available, and to provide me with advice. The ASC report will also be made public.
Central to our work on openness and transparency is the review we are undertaking of section 24 of ASPA. Section 24 of ASPA provides for the protection of confidential information provided in connection with our regulatory activities under ASPA. A breach of section 24 can result in criminal sanctions. The requirements of section 24 are now out of step with our policy on openness and transparency and with the approach taken in other legislation, such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The solution we develop must improve the overall transparency surrounding research using animals, to create an environment which fosters informed debate leading to greater public trust, and also must protect personal identities and intellectual property.
The first stage of the review; engaging the full diversity of stakeholders in developing options has now been completed. The next stage of the process is to present those options in a wider public consultation, the outcome of which will further inform the direction of our work. We envisage completing the review and selection of the preferred option by the end of this year to enable us to present any legislative changes to Parliament in the new year.
Proposed Europol Regulation
James Brokenshire Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8229/13 and Addenda 1 to 6, a draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA; and agrees with the Government that the UK should opt into the Regulation post-adoption, provided that Europol is not given the power to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations or share data that conflicts with national security.
The motion sets out the position that the Government intend to take on the new Europol regulation, which the Commission published at the end of March. The motion makes clear our view that we should not opt into the regulation now but only after it is adopted, provided that the two conditions set out in the motion are met. Those are that the regulation does not empower Europol to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations and that it does not require them to share data that conflict with national security. To join the regulation with those requirements in it would not be acceptable.
In making the recommendation, the Government had two choices. We could opt into the new Europol regulation by the initial deadline of 30 July—in other words, within three months of its publication. That would give us a vote in the negotiations, but would mean that we were bound by the final text even if it contained measures that we could not support. Alternatively, we could wait until the negotiations were finished and then make a decision, knowing exactly what we would be signing up to. That is the approach that the Government are recommending tonight.
In saying that, I recognise, of course, the important help that Europol gives us in the fight against cross-border crime. I have seen that at first hand and I know it has played a crucial role in helping the police catch some very serious criminals. For instance, Operation Rescue brought together law enforcement authorities from 13 countries to tackle an online paedophile network. Europol cracked the security features on the network’s server, which allowed law enforcement to identify the offenders. As a result, 121 suspects were arrested in the UK and 230 children were protected from abuse.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I join the Minister in praising the work of Europol, which I visited four weeks ago. I saw the superb work that is being done. Is it not better that we should be part of the discussions, influencing them, rather than just accepting the new architecture after it has been arranged?
James Brokenshire
I hope to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will be there, influencing and seeking to negotiate the measure. We may not be opting in at the outset, but that should not in any way, shape or form be taken as the UK Government’s not wishing to seek to influence the measure and create the changes that we believe are necessary for us to consider a subsequent opt-in, post adoption.
The right hon. Gentleman will want to congratulate Rob Wainwright, whom he spoke to on his recent visit, on the important job that he is doing to make Europol an effective, well-managed and widely respected organisation in the fight against international crime.
We can point to other examples. Operation Golf, which has been cited several times previously in this House, was a joint UK-Romania investigation team targeting a specific Romanian organised crime network. Offences associated with the network included human trafficking, money laundering, benefit fraud, perverting the course of justice, theft, and handling stolen goods. Europol provided analytical support and facilitated real-time checks on its systems, and 126 individuals were arrested in the UK. Europol’s help in Operation Seagrape led directly to the identification of bank accounts used by a people-smuggling gang based near Dunkirk. French, Belgian and British agencies worked jointly to target a specific organised crime group, and 36 arrests were made. It is for those reasons that the Government believe that it is in the national interest to seek to rejoin the current arrangements for Europol agreed back in 2009 as part of the 2014 decision. That was made clear in our discussions in the previous debate.
However, that is not the matter before us now. Instead, we need to decide whether to opt into the new regulation, which sets down new rules and powers for Europol and, we believe, would change its relationship with member states in some quite troubling ways. Our first concern is with the proposals on data exchange. The Commission wants member states to share more data with Europol. That is a good idea in principle; after all, Europol can only be as effective as the information it holds. However, a strong legal obligation to supply it with data, as proposed in the draft regulation, is a different matter. It would undermine member states’ control over their own law enforcement intelligence, which we regard as absolutely fundamental.
Even more worrying is the fact that the draft regulation does not exempt member states from providing information even if it could damage national security, or endanger ongoing operations or an individual’s safety. These protections are explicit in the existing instrument governing Europol but absent from the new proposal. That is a significant change. The proposal also strengthens Europol’s power to request investigations. It can already do this to some extent, but the new proposal creates a presumption that member states will comply with a request. It also strengthens their duty to give reasons if they decide not to do so. That is particularly worrying because any reasons could be subject to challenge before the European Court of Justice.
The European Scrutiny Committee has asked whether article 276 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union would protect us from having a refusal challenged in the Court. We are not convinced that it would. Article 276 prevents the Court from reviewing
“the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the police or other law enforcement services”.
It is highly debatable whether a decision to refuse to open an investigation would constitute
“operations carried out by the police”
because, by definition, no operation would have been carried out. We therefore do not think that article 276 provides enough protection against the Court’s involvement. This creates a real risk of the European Court being able to second-guess our policing priorities. That would simply be unacceptable. Policing is a core function of a sovereign state and it must remain a member state responsibility.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The Minister raises two concerns that I share to some extent. Presumably other member states have also had these concerns. What conversations has he had with them about whether other countries will be joining us to try to get this changed?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Discussions have already taken place and member states have voiced concerns. Our certainty faces a challenge because, as I will come on to say, there is an element of risk with regard to what will happen, given that there is qualified majority voting and the European Parliament can make a co-decision. Given the significance of the issues, it is right that we wait to see what the final measure looks like before deciding whether to opt in. I think that that is the right approach, which is why we tabled the motion. However, as I told the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, that does not mean that we will not engage in active discussions with member states, the Commission and others in order to seek to influence this measure as it is negotiated.
I have discussed the proposal personally with senior law enforcement officials from across the UK. Like us, the law enforcement community supports Europol as it is now, but the senior officers I spoke to agreed that our issues with the new text are real and serious.
On the Opposition’s amendment, the Government agree entirely that it is right to consult chief constables and law enforcement partners as part of this process. We have consulted senior law enforcement officers from across the UK, including the Metropolitan police and policing partners from Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, I ask the House to reject the amendment, because ultimately this is a decision for Parliament and the amendment does not contemplate Parliament coming to a view on whether we should opt in post-adoption.
Some hon. Members may argue tonight that we should opt into this proposal and negotiate out the elements that cause us concern. The problem with that is that the proposal is subject to qualified majority voting and we cannot guarantee that we would get the changes we need. We could quite easily be outvoted in Council, and then we would be bound by the final text, even if it contained elements we could not accept.
The Government are not prepared to take risks on something as important as this, which goes to the very heart of our law enforcement. We therefore intend not to opt in at this stage, but to remain fully engaged in negotiations and work with other member states and the European Parliament to push for the changes we need.
We know that member states and the EU institutions value our experience in this area. We have already had indications that others recognise our concerns and are prepared to work with us to try to find a solution.
We do not expect the regulation to be agreed much before the end of 2015. When it is agreed, we will consult Parliament on it again, depositing the final text with an explanatory memorandum, and, as this House knows from the handling of the human trafficking directive, we will be able to hold another debate at that time.
I stress that the Government’s position has no immediate implications for our participation in Europol. As I have said, we believe it is in our national interest to seek to rejoin the existing Europol legal instrument as part of the 2014 decision process. By doing so we will retain our full membership of the organisation throughout the negotiations, so nothing will change for the foreseeable future.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
The Minister is setting out cogently the scrutiny being exercised by the Government and the pros and cons. If we cannot remove the supranational whistles and bells, what contingency planning or negotiations are in place so that, if we do not opt back in, we can still retain operational co-operation, which, whatever anyone’s views from an ideological standpoint, most people would regard as important?
James Brokenshire
I heard my hon. Friend speak in the preceding debate about the importance of continuing operational co-operation. Members from all parties recognise the transnational nature of crime and the subsequent operational need for law enforcement divisions from all European member states to be able to collaborate and co-operate in order to fight it. We certainly believe that, because of the way in which Europol can bring a number of member states together in one space, it is the most effective way to proceed, provided that the appropriate safeguards are met when the measure is finally concluded and negotiated, and that they reflect the concerns that my hon. Friend raised in the previous debate about extensions into supranational competency. The Home Secretary also made clear in the previous debate her views on a European police force.
Subject to those safeguards being introduced, we believe that a reformed Europol measure is the optimum way forward, but it is clearly open to us to negotiate individual operational relationships with other member states. However, in our judgment, the nature of Europol and the intelligence work that it conducts in support of member states’ law enforcement agencies mean that our emphasis will be on seeking to influence the measure and to be in a position to opt into it following its adoption, provided that the appropriate safeguards are achieved. Again, that will be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny, and to the potential for a further debate in this House, to assess and analyse the provisions and to ensure that the appropriate safeguards are provided.
We wish to remain part of Europol, and will do so provided we get the amendments that we need, but we cannot support it at any price. We will not put our sovereignty and security at risk by committing ourselves in advance to a proposal that, as drafted, poses significant risks to both. The Government’s approach shows that we are serious about international police co-operation and about protecting the autonomy of our law enforcement agencies. I urge the House to support the motion tonight.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). He should not apologise for making a brief speech: they are most welcome in the House after seven hours debating the European Union. It is not the length but the quality of what he has to say that matters.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that everyone who has spoken so far supports Europol—one wonders what we are debating—and is full of praise for Rob Wainwright, who is one of the very few British people to head a European organisation. Everyone who has spoken has been full of praise for an organisation that can look back at a history of co-operation between all European countries. I had the privilege of visiting Europol five weeks ago, and meeting Rob Wainwright and looking at the various methods by which countries co-operate. It was fascinating, and I would urge every Member of the House to go. The Select Committee on Home Affairs will probably go later this year, during our inquiry into international crime and terrorism.
Europol basically has an office for every European country, with its police officers present in those offices. If people wish to try to track down criminals who have left this country and gone to other countries, our office can be contacted. Those officers then cross the corridor—literally—and hand the information to a police officer in another country. Almost immediately the information is transmitted to that other country, so while the serious and organised criminals are out there trying to commit crimes, here we have an organisation that is working to cut through the red tape of the European Union and producing some superb results. As the Minister said, not only did Operation Golf—the operation that brought together our police force and the Romanian police—result in many strands of human trafficking being disrupted, but we caught real criminals. That was a great benefit to both countries.
I heard what the shadow Minister said about the Association of Chief Police Officers, and he is absolutely right: we should take into consideration what ACPO is saying. He is right to draw the House’s attention to the fact that ACPO has written to the Prime Minister and others about its concerns. However, at the end of the day, such decisions are matters for this House and those who sit in it. Although ACPO can be helpful in providing advice to this House and to Ministers, ultimately it is we who need to make the decision.
The debate comes down to this point. We need to opt in because Europol is a successful organisation—one that actually catches international criminals and disrupts criminal networks. In the area of Europol dedicated to monitoring the internet, I saw how, almost hourly, ACPO officials can view sites that are dedicated to supporting and encouraging terrorism. If we did not have organisations like Europol, our job in this country and the job of our police service would be much more difficult.
However, I think the Government are making a mistake in this motion. I supported the Government in the last vote because the Government accepted the amendment of the Chairs of the Select Committees and allowed us the opportunity to scrutinise the opt-out arrangements—and, we hope, the opt-in arrangements—when we have finished our scrutiny. The mistake that has been made is this: if we are not at the table influencing the way in which Europol 2, if we can call it that, will develop, I feel that we will not do justice to the police services in this country and we will not do justice to what we want to see happen in the fight against international crime.
We need that seat at the table if we are to influence the new architecture of the fight against international crime. That view has been put forward not just by ACPO but by others who seek to try to influence how this develops. Frankly, if we are not there and are not able to participate in those discussions, we will not be able to influence what the new architecture will look like.
James Brokenshire
I hope I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will be there and will remain fully engaged in the negotiations so that we are able to influence them. For the reasons he highlights, although we might not be opting in at the outset, I can assure him that the influence and the focus will be there and time will be spent to exert influence in a positive way. I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point; we are very cognisant of it.
Keith Vaz
I am not saying that Ministers, officials and UKRep will not be working very hard, but there is a big difference between opting in and being right at the top of and part of the process, and being able to engage in influence: they are two quite different things. The view of the officials I met at Europol was that they really needed to be there, and they could not understand why we were not going to be there, taking part in these deliberations and discussions.
Another one of the Minister’s arguments is “If we are there, it has to go to qualified majority voting”. He could ask the Minister for Europe about this, but I think he will find if he looks at the figures that we are almost always on the winning side when it comes to QMV. I do not know whether he has the figures, whether his officials could give him them or whether he could tell us about them if he makes a winding-up speech, but unless things have changed in the last 10 years, when a British Minister sits at a table where European issues are being discussed and it goes to a vote, we are almost always on the winning side.
I think we will be on the winning side on this particular issue because it is to do with policing and we are hugely respected for the work we do in the fight against international crime. I think the Minister’s argument is weak when he effectively says “We are afraid of the results at the European Council and we cannot take a risk because we might lose”. Of course we might lose, but I think we can make these arguments, especially because we have a British head of Europol, who has recently been confirmed for another term—four years, I think—in office.
I urge the Minister to think again. He says we are going to have some influence and be engaged, but it is really not the same if we are going to be on the sidelines and exert influence only after all the negotiations are over. I think people will accept the words of a British Minister who would be widely respected on the justice and home affairs agenda. He would be able to put his views forward in his articulate and intelligent way while sitting at a meeting. He will obviously draw on the efforts of ACPO, but I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that ACPO is not the be-all and end-all of policing.
You will remember, Mr Speaker, although I do not want to draw you into the debate, when the 42 days issue was being discussed we were all told, “ACPO and the police service all want the House to vote for 42 days. It is everything that everyone has always wanted so we all have to vote for it”—until, of course, it changed its mind and we did not follow that approach. We hugely respect ACPO and all the people in it, but at the end of the day we need to make this decision. I very much hope that the Minister will think again and allow us the opportunity to be there at the top table, influencing these discussions.
James Brokenshire
With the leave of the House, Mr Speaker, may I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions in this short debate? Let me be clear that our recommendation in the motion is about participation in a future measure governing Europol; it has no impact on our current participation in Europol, which does benefit our law enforcement agencies. That point was made by everyone who has contributed to this debate: the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz); and my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). That highlights the issues at hand in respect of the benefits that accrue from our current relationship.
I underline the fact that nothing that the Government have proposed reduces our commitment to tackle cross-border crime. However, we cannot risk the operational independence of our law enforcement agencies, and we need to ensure appropriate safeguards within the text so that that does not happen. I say very clearly to right hon. and hon. Members that we will play an active role in negotiations to ensure that we achieve our negotiating aims, which will allow us to opt in post-adoption. In response to the challenge from the right hon. Member for Leicester East, we consider that it is possible to achieve key negotiating objectives, even when we have not opted into a proposal before the negotiations. We have already done that on a number of measures, and we are clear about the influence that can be applied, and that is precisely what we will do. As I said, we consulted a number of our operational colleagues across the UK when considering the proposal. They all agree about the value of Europol as it currently operates, but not at any cost.
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman was not here at the beginning of the debate, so he may not have heard what I said.
Jim Shannon
In Northern Ireland, we face a particular threat from dissident republicans. What assurance can the Minister give me as the MP for Strangford that we will not lose the ability, through Europol, to address the threat of terrorism at home and globally, because dissident republicans have contacts in other countries?
James Brokenshire
If the hon. Gentleman had been here to hear my opening speech, he would know that we have discussed our approach with the Police Service of Northern Ireland as well as other operational partners across the UK. While we are not seeking to opt in at this stage, we wish to negotiate and seek to influence so that we are in a position to opt in post-adoption, with the red lines.
The hon. Gentleman should accept that the information- sharing provisions in the EU document could put our national security at risk by virtue of the fact that we would not be able to control the information provided to Europol, which is precisely why we have sought to take this approach, with national security in mind. The law enforcement community shares our concerns about the risks that would be posed if we were directly tasked by Europol to undertake operations or to provide increased amounts of information to it without the necessary safeguards.
It is not the case that as a result of the approach that we have taken we have given up our seat at the table. We shall continue to play a full part in negotiations, attending the discussions and working with member states that share our concerns to seek to deliver a text that we can rejoin. Ultimately, this is a political decision for the Government, with appropriate scrutiny from Parliament. That is why we will consult and listen to the views of our law enforcement partners across the UK, but ultimately this a decision for Government and Parliament, which is why the motion is framed in this way.
Opting in at this stage poses too great a risk to our security and the autonomy of our law enforcement agencies, but once the text has been negotiated we intend to opt in if we secure the changes set out in the motion, and we will consult Parliament before doing so. Our position on the proposal is sensible and pragmatic, reflecting the need for effective co-operation and the importance of protecting our sovereignty and security. I urge the House to support the Government motion.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Brokenshire Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
13. Whether the Government plan to bring forward legislative proposals on communications data.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The Government remain committed to ensuring that the police and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to catch paedophiles, terrorists and those involved in organised crime. Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech in May stated that we would
“bring forward proposals to enable the protection of the public and the investigation of crime in cyberspace.”
We will do so in due course, and this may involve legislation.
John Robertson
I thank the Minister for his answer. However, it is well known in political circles that the Home Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister do not exactly see eye to eye on communications data. Could we therefore have a Bill where we can put forward proposals that we can debate? Could we ensure that we put a communications data Bill before Parliament in the way that we expect, and not have a fight between the two coalition parties?
James Brokenshire
There is understanding across government on the challenges and issues involved in protecting the police’s ability to fight crime and on the fact that a gap is emerging in this whole issue of communications data. It is important that we strike an effective balance between keeping the public safe and protecting civil liberties. That is why we are taking this issue seriously and considering it carefully—I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the previous Labour Government did not do that. We will make proposals in due course to get this right.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Most people on both sides of the House, at least in the major parties, recognise the need for communications data to be preserved so that terrorist needles can be found in a communications haystack. Will the Minister confirm that we should be reassured by the fact that the people who preserve the communications haystack for a limited period are not the Government but the suppliers from the communications industry themselves?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is clear that, in about 95% of serious organised crime cases, and in virtually every terrorism investigation, the use of communications data has been extremely important. The structure that has been established is that communications providers themselves retain the information, and safeguards are in place for the requests that are made. It is precisely that structure that we are examining carefully to see how it can be strengthened to reflect changes in technology.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
14. How much has been received under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 from those convicted of human trafficking in the last three years; how much has been paid out to victims of trafficking in compensation; and if she will make a statement.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
If a US citizen had been held in Britain without charge, it would quite rightly not be accepted or tolerated. Shaker Aamer is the last British citizen at Guantanamo Bay. He has been there for 11 years without charge and has faced more than four months on hunger strike. All of us supported the Home Secretary’s determination to deport Abu Qatada from the UK. Will she demonstrate that same determination and energy to make sure that we see the release of Shaker Aamer so that he can return to his family in Britain?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
The UK is committed to using its best endeavours to secure Mr Aamer’s release and return to the UK. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Prime Minister spoke to President Obama at the G8 in June and has followed that up with a subsequent letter. We have long held that indefinite detention without review or fair trial is unacceptable, and we welcome President Obama’s continuing commitment to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Victims of serious crime will be reassured that the Government are minded to opt back into the European arrest warrant. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much support across the EU for adopting the sort of proportionality tests that the Government are minded to introduce in amendments to legislation?
Powers of Entry
James Brokenshire Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My noble Friend the Minister for Criminal Information, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has today made the following written ministerial statement:
The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 requires Ministers across Government to undertake a review of powers of entry over a two-year period due to conclude in early 2014. The Act requires Ministers who are Members of the Cabinet with responsibility for powers of entry to examine their powers and to consider whether they are still necessary, proportionate and contain sufficient safeguards.
Ministers are required to report on outcomes of the review to Parliament by 1 May 2014.
During the passage of the Act, Ministers agreed to provide an update of progress of the review and I have today placed copies of the second six-month progress report in the Library of the House.