Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. There is a long tradition of cross-party co-operation on national security. The Opposition will support the Government motion. We are satisfied that the groups included meet the test of terrorism under section 3 of the 2000 Act.

This is the last time we will discuss a proscription order during this Parliament. I believe it is the eighth time I have responded for the Opposition on a proscription order, and the sixth time in the past two years. The increasing rate of proscription orders reflects the increasing terror threat in recent years and the emergence of terror groups across the world.

During this Parliament, we have proscribed groups such as Boko Haram from Nigeria, and Imarat Kavkaz from the Caucasus. Less than two years ago, we were proscribing the Islamic State in the Levant, which is now the world’s largest, best-funded and most powerful terrorist organisation ever. The two groups we are discussing are, in some ways, a break with the trend of the past five years. They are established and well-publicised groups relating to long-standing terror groups including al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

The Opposition, as always, have not had access to the same information about the groups as the Minister. However, given that the two groups are already well established and high profile, and are linked to a series of shocking and violent terrorist acts, we are happy to support the Government motion.

As the Minister laid out in his statement, JUA is an Islamic extremist group that is seeking to establish a so-called Islamic caliphate in Pakistan, and to commit a global jihad across the Indian subcontinent and beyond. As he explained, the group is linked to several high-profile attacks from last year, and has spoken out to support UK-based hate preacher Anjem Choudary.

The Haqqani network appears to be an even larger group, hailing from Afghanistan and aiming to establish sharia law and take control of territory. As the Minister said, the group is aligned with both the Taliban and al-Qaeda, as well as with other known terror groups such as Islamic Jihad Union. Taken together, the groups provide a substantial force with a reach across central Asia. The Opposition are particularly concerned about the apparent involvement of the Haqqani network in attacks on the British embassy, and so absolutely support its proscription.

I agree with the Minister that proscription is a vital tool against terrorism, and that it enables us to tackle and disrupt terror groups co-operating around the world, but as we come to the end of a Parliament during which there has been an exceptional number of proscription orders, we need to consider whether the proscription powers we currently use are having the results we require. The effect of a proscription order is to make it illegal to join, support or even wear a uniform associated with a terrorist group, but it seems that proscription orders are not having the effect of reducing a group’s presence on social media. I am sure the Minister is acutely aware of the findings of the Intelligence and Security Committee that social media sites were a “safe haven” for terrorist groups.

The last proscription order we passed in the House related to a group that had Arabic and English official Twitter accounts, and an official YouTube channel. They seem to be unaffected by the proscription order. Various Twitter accounts associate themselves with the Haqqani network and an associated group that has posted numerous YouTube videos.

Does the Minister agree that we need to reconsider the situation whereby legislation says it is illegal to wear a uniform, but there is no problem hosting extremist videos or distributing hate messages to millions of people? Why was there nothing in Monday’s counter-terrorism strategy announcement to deal with social media?

I want to press the Minister on the issue of prosecutions of members, supporters and facilitators of proscribed organisations. The ISC report on Lee Rigby’s murder, which was published last year, highlighted the low number of prosecutions and the difficulties the police face in obtaining the necessary evidence. Have the Government had a chance to respond to that particular aspect of the report?

Counter-terrorism

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. It is important to understand the measures in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill and the implementation of the Prevent agenda in the context, I think, of some of the muddle the Government have created for themselves over the past five years. In 2010, they inherited 93 Prevent priority areas and in one year they cut them to 23. They then restored funding to seven areas, including Greenwich, to bring us back up to 30 priority areas. From next year, the Government will be increasing the number of priority areas to 50 and in their impact assessment on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, the Government revealed that they expect this to rise to 90 areas over the next few years. In two years, then, we may be back where we started five years ago, but we have lost seven years thanks to the muddle coming from the Government.

That was not the only poor decision that the Government made, either. They reduced funding for Prevent from £17 million to £5.1 million a year, but not all of that £5.1 million was spent. In one year, just £1.6 million was spent and overall, since the Government re-launched the Prevent agenda, just 40% of the money allocated to local authorities was spent.

Prevent is meant to be a national and comprehensive strategy, yet last year just four areas delivered Prevent projects. We have seen particular failings from some Government Departments. The 2011 Prevent review identified the need to support schools in counter-radicalisation. The Department for Education committed to an 11-point plan, none of which seems to have been delivered.

The Home Secretary is threatening schools and universities with contempt of court proceedings if they do not implement the Prevent agenda, while I think the Government have serious questions to answer about their failures to deliver on their own commitments. Some of us believe that the Government need to get their own house in order before challenging other institutions and public bodies.

What is also a matter of real concern is that, overall, the Government appear to have little hard evidence about what Prevent work is going on or how effectively it has been delivered. We know that the Home Office’s chief economist refused to sign off the impact assessment to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill on that basis.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady made this point about the impact assessment the other day. Will she acknowledge that the matter to which she refers is in the regulations before us this afternoon and that there is also the Scottish duty? She has completely mischaracterised this point.

[Diana Johnson]

I know that when we discussed the primary legislation around the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, it was reported that the chief economist at the Home Office did say what I suggested, so the Minister has not refuted the statement I made. We now know from the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill that there has been recognition that the Prevent agenda matters and needs to be supported.

Yesterday, of course, the Home Secretary went even further, talking about introducing a counter-extremism strategy, although I understand that such a strategy has not been published and there is not much detail about it. Today, however, the Home Secretary has made several claims. She first promised to work with communities in a way that different parts of different communities around the country have been requesting for some time. She promised that she would be very clear about distinguishing between Islam and Islamic extremism. All that is very welcome and, I have to say to the Minister, about time too.

The guidance in front of us does not, however, go as far as it should in meeting the pledges the Home Secretary made yesterday, but I do want to say some positive things about it. As the Minister knows, the original guidance was put out to consultation over the Christmas recess period, and I think improvements have been made to it. The document is less prescriptive throughout, so it can plausibly be said to be introducing the risk-based approach that the Government said they wanted from the outset. I welcome, too, the introduction of a clear set of commitments on what the Home Office will do to support the implementation of the Prevent agenda. This has been clearly lacking, I think, since the Prevent agenda was re-launched in 2011.

Let me briefly mention Scotland. It is good to see the inclusion of the Scottish organisations. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the consultation with the Scottish Government and the inclusion of the various Scottish organisations, but I should like to ask him a question. There is separate guidance for the Scottish organisations, but I understand that it was not issued for full consultation. The Minister said earlier that there was a targeted process for the consultation. Will he explain what he meant by that?

[Sir William Cash]

Would the hon. Lady be good enough to tell us to what extent, if any, she has taken the opportunity to discover the views of the Scottish nationalists on this question? Has she had any indication of their views? They are not even here, but I am sure that she can provide us with a fairly good guess as to what they might think. We did hear Alex Salmond suggest the other day that they would be putting their foot down on matters that they thought were important to Scotland, in their own terms.

[Diana Johnson]

During the Bill’s passage, as the hon. Gentleman will know, members of the Scottish National party made a great deal of fuss about the involvement of the Scottish Government in consultation about the public institutions in Scotland that would be affected by the Prevent agenda. I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the level of consultation that had taken place with the Scottish Government. I may be presuming too much, but perhaps the absence of members of the Scottish National party this afternoon means that they are fully content with what is being proposed. Obviously we must wait and see, but there is no one here to put an alternative case.

Let me now deal with some of the areas in which the revisions of the guidance have not addressed some of the shortcomings that I considered to be present in the first draft of the document. I believe that they have been raised both here and in the other place, and also in the responses to the consultation. The Minister said that there had been more than 1,700 responses, which is a very large number.

The first of those areas is the definition of extremism, which remains unchanged in the guidance. It is still defined as, basically, “an opposition to British values”. The failure to define extremism is central to other problems that the Prevent agenda encounters, as was recognised in the 2011 Prevent review. Front-line professionals do not properly understand what extremism is. There is considerable evidence of that poor understanding. A survey conducted for the Department for Education in 2011 revealed that 70% of schools felt that they needed more training and information in order to build resilience to radicalisation. That was picked up repeatedly in the consultation responses, and it is also a clear issue in relation to the Prevent agenda. We know that only 20% of the people who have been referred to the Channel programme have been accepted. The overwhelming majority are incorrectly referred, because front-line professionals have misunderstood the nature of the issues involved.

It was a failure of the Government not to fulfil the commitments made in the 2011 Prevent review to improve front-line understanding of extremism, and it is disappointing that they are repeating their mistake by failing to include in the guidance either a detailed explanation of what constitutes extremism, or an explanation of how a risk assessment for extremism should be conducted. In Committee, I gave the analogy of child abuse: we will combat the issue only when we fully recognise it for what it is.

The failure to define extremism properly also means that the guidance fails to live up to the promise that the Home Secretary made yesterday to distinguish clearly between Islam and Islamic extremism. The definition of Islamic extremism is limited: an Islamic extremist is described as someone who is angry with the west and resents western intervention in wars in Muslim countries. The guidance talks of a “them and us” rhetoric. That ignores the fact that the majority of the victims of Islamic extremists are Muslims, and the fact that those who are most likely to encounter it in the United Kingdom are Muslims. There is still nothing in the guidance about intra-Islam sectarianism, such as involving Wahhabis, Salafists and those with other views that have been specifically connected to ISIL, in particular Salafism. There is no discussion of that important matter in the document. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 was supposedly a response to that rising threat from ISIL-related terrorism. Does the Minister think more can be done in recognising that intra-Islamic sectarianism is not properly addressed in the guidance?

Those British people who have been leaving the UK to join ISIL are not generally joining a war against the west. They are joining a war against other Muslims, mainly Shi’as. This document should recognise the changing nature of this threat, and the need to recognise the degree of sectarian division related to groups such as ISIL within the UK.

In addition to this thematic problem within the guidance, I want to highlight some of the practical issues. The consultation highlighted confusion over what exactly was expected of non-Prevent-priority local authorities. Given that the Government seemed to be confused about exactly what a Prevent-priority area is, I am not terribly surprised that this is not addressed properly in the revised guidance. There is existing confusion about the role of central Government and the division of responsibilities within central Government. For example, how exactly is the burden of oversight shared between the body specifically charged with inspection of implementation—for example, Ofsted for schools—the Government Department with responsibility for that public body, for example the Department for Education, and the Home Office? What about the role of Departments, such as the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Communities and Local Government, in sharing good practice?

Several different bodies raised concerns about this in the consultation. It will be helpful if the Government publish a clear strategy as to how they will help promote best practice in relation to Prevent. Some of the obligations on certain bodies are unclear. Neither the guidance, nor the Minister in the other place yesterday, have been clear as to exactly what is expected of a nursery or childminder in terms of their responsibilities under Prevent. So I ask the Minister again today to set out exactly what this guidance means in practice for a childminder.

An issue raised in the consultation, which I also raised during the passage of the 2015 Act, was why the only NHS bodies to be included in the guidance are hospital trusts and foundation trusts. Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 many more services are now going out to the private sector. Are those private companies going to be covered by the obligations under Prevent? Why are clinical commissioning groups and other commissioning bodies not included? General practitioners at the front line may come across people who are vulnerable and who may perhaps have mental health issues; should GPs also be under some of the Prevent duties set out in the guidance, and if not, why not? On the health and wellbeing boards that the Government established, I assume that because they are part of a local authority, they also have a Prevent duty.

On the provisions for universities, I am glad the guidance is less prescriptive than before. The new guidance has dropped the requirement that all academic presentations have to be submitted and vetted two weeks in advance, which was both absurd and unworkable. However, it is bizarre that the third paragraph of the guidance relating to universities states that further guidance will be issued to cover extremist speakers on campuses. As the Minister will be aware, that was one the most contentious issues. Yesterday the Minister in the other place did not seem to be able to explain why this was or how the issuing of updated guidance would work. I heard what the Minister said about the new guidance being a matter for the next Government, but I wonder whether he can answer the following questions. First, does he think the requirement for all speeches and presentations to be submitted two weeks in advance will be included in the new guidance?

Secondly, can the Minister explain how the external speakers guidance will be implemented? Will it require a separate statutory instrument and, therefore, approval by Parliament? Will the rest of the document have different implementation guidance from the external speakers guidance? Will there be a separate consultation?

[James Brokenshire]

I can answer the hon. Lady directly. Our contemplation is that there would need to be updated guidance and that a separate statutory instrument would therefore need to be approved by the House after the general election.

[Diana Johnson]

That is very helpful, and I thank the Minister for his straightforward response.

Yesterday, the Home Secretary announced that compliance with the Prevent agenda would be a requirement for universities in order that they may sponsor international student visas. Will the Minister explain whether this is Government policy that will actually happen, or whether it is a Conservative party pledge for the election? I am drawing this distinction because I understand that the coalition Government are not speaking with one voice on counter-terrorism issues these days, and I want to be clear about whether that is Government policy or not.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Lady has alluded to questions that might arise between the Conservative party and the Liberal party on terrorism. Would her party be in favour of putting terrorism on a par with or ahead of human rights? We have heard suggestions recently that human rights should trump terrorism.

[Diana Johnson]

That question opens up a whole new debate. We are dealing here with two specific statutory instruments. I know that there has been some tension in the coalition, particularly in the Treasury, with the Chancellor delivering his Budget and a separate Budget being delivered by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I wanted to be clear about whether this particular proposal was Government policy or just Conservative policy. I was seeking guidance on that.

The focus on external speakers could create the risk that we ignore internal extremists. Where in the guidance is the specific reference to that threat? What would happen if a university’s Sunni society was agitating against the university’s Islamic or Shi’a societies? Have the Government considered the implications of such a situation for a university’s best practice?

While we are talking about universities, I also want to ask about the IT requirements. The guidance seems to imply that all universities should introduce the filtering of internet access through the university. Can the Minister explain the degree of filtering that would be involved? Is he confident that software exists that can do the job accurately? In the past, the platforms most commonly associated with extremism have been Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Would students be prevented from accessing YouTube? Does the Minister expect this provision to apply in accommodation provided by the university, such as halls of residence or other housing provided to accommodate students? Can he confirm that the provision will not extend to a requirement for universities to collect data on internet sites accessed by their students?

We know that the Oxford and Cambridge unions, both of which are private institutions that have a history of giving a platform to high-profile racists and extremists, are excluded from the terms of the guidance. Why did the Government choose not to specify in either the Bill or the Prevent guidance that those organisations should be covered by the duty?

There are measures in the guidance that we very much welcome. We recognise that it has been significantly improved since the draft guidance was published over Christmas. Most importantly, we recognise that it is an extremely important document. Counter-extremism is a vital part of our counter-terrorism strategy. But there are some flaws, which I have identified, that show that the Government are playing catch-up at the end of this Parliament for neglecting counter-extremism for their first four years. Because of that, we are not where we should be today.

I wish briefly to discuss the second statutory instrument before us, which sets out the procedural rules of judicial hearings in relation to temporary exclusion orders. Thanks to the Opposition, the 2015 Act contains judicial oversight for TEOs. I welcome the provisions in the Act and in these regulations today, which will enable judicial proceedings to hear sensitive and confidential information. It has always been the Opposition’s position that strong powers, such as TEOs, require strong checks on this power, and these regulations will enable those strong checks. Of course, the need to protect sources and sensitive information will impinge on the operation of the courts, but, as we have seen with control orders and subsequently TPIMs, that does not mean the courts cannot provide an effective check on Executive power. We think these regulations will be able to do that. We would add a slight caveat: the regulations are complex, as are the proceedings they are covering. We hope the Government will commit to keeping them under review and will be prepared to come back to this House with amendments if issues do arise during court proceedings that require the passing of further legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The Prevent oversight board, which has an integral role in ensuring that the guidance before the House is properly recognised, has the ability to share good practice, and indeed the issues on adherence to it. That will provide a good mechanism for drawing Government together. It also needs to have good contact with the devolved Administrations. As the hon. Gentleman might know, I have already had discussions with the Welsh Government, and I certainly wish to see that continue in relation to the operation of the guidance. I also highlight the £40 million allocated for Prevent work in 2014-15 and the fact that the Prime Minister announced on 25 November that the additional £130 million that has been made available for increased counter-terrorism work will include additional funding for Prevent.

Schools and nurseries have a duty to care for their pupils and staff. The new duty will be seen in a similar way to their existing safeguarding responsibilities. The early years foundation stage framework makes it clear that providers must be alert to any safeguarding and child protection issues in a child’s life, either at home or elsewhere, so the work on the guidance supports and strengthens that. With regard to training, we have used Prevent to train literally tens of thousands of people to raise awareness of the need to adhere to an understanding of the issue, the threats and the risks within safeguarding, and that approach will certainly be extended further.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked whether we have covered all appropriate health bodies. The foundation trusts and NHS trusts identified are the most likely to have the most direct contact with people on the front line, with regard to their staff and the hospital settings. She referred to the issue of CCGs. We will certainly keep that under review in terms of extending the duty to other bodies, and I will have an open mind in adding it at that stage. However, a CCG is effectively a commissioning body rather than a body that delivers front-line services, and I hope that she understands that distinction.

[Diana Johnson]

GPs are very much in the front line and may well come across people who are very vulnerable, perhaps with mental health issues, for whom provision needs to be put in place under the Prevent duties that the other health bodies would have.

[James Brokenshire]

GPs are generally sole practitioners, or perhaps partnerships, rather than health bodies. We will continue to keep under review the sharing of the need to raise awareness of Prevent, which has already been rolled out to tens of thousands of front-line health professionals.

The hon. Lady highlighted sectarianism and the different natures of the threat that we face. Prevent and our Contest counter-terrorism strategy cover all forms of terrorism, as we have made clear on a number of occasions. I hope she understands that the guidance extends to all forms of terrorism, of whatever nature.

I welcome the broad support—despite some of the comments that have been made—for the two orders, and I hope that the House will approve them both. That will make a difference in the fight against terrorism. It will also underline this Government’s commitment to ensuring national security and the safety of the public. We have that at the heart of our work and will continue to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Amendment and Guidance) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 12 March, be approved.

Senior Courts of England and Wales

Resolved,

That the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 406), dated 26 February 2015, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 February, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am pleased to have been involved with two civil society organisations that have been working with families—particularly, in one case, with women. FAST—Families Against Stress and Trauma—is giving support to families whose young people may have travelled and helping them to prevent young people from travelling. Inspire’s “Making A Stand” programme is about Muslim women up and down this country saying that radicalisation is not taking place in their name, and working together as Muslim women to ensure that their young people are not radicalised.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary said this morning, and has just reiterated, that she wants a new partnership on Prevent between communities, individuals, civil society and Government. When she came into government, she inherited 93 Prevent areas, which she cut to 23 and then put up to 30. She now says she wants 50, and they might go up to 90, so we are going back to where we started five years ago. Why the rollercoaster in such an important area for this country?

[Mrs May]

No, we are not going back to where we started. First, the hon. Lady has made a fundamental mistake in her question in saying that my speech this morning related to Prevent. It did not; it related to the new counter-extremism strategy that the Government are introducing. Secondly, when we came into government we found that the Labour Government were funding extremist organisations, and members of the Labour party were standing on platforms embracing extremist hate preachers. Government Members take a very different view.

Modern Slavery Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

These are the amendments that the Government introduced in the other place to improve the Bill. They focus particularly on strengthening the provisions on support and protection for victims. They were broadly welcomed across the parties in the other place and they also deal with many issues raised in debates in this House. I shall not go through them in detail now but will, with the leave of the House, respond to specific points at the end of the debate. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will feel able to welcome them.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister. I was a little taken aback by the brevity of her opening remarks, considering the number of amendments that have been proposed. I may not be as brief as she was, because there are several points I want to put on the record.

It is important to stress again that the Labour party has always supported the introduction of this important Bill. We recognise that human trafficking is a heinous crime and that its complex nature demands specialist legislation, but it has been a little difficult at times fully to understand the Government’s approach. When the original Bill was first published, many charities, organisations and lawyers shared the view that the Government had failed to provide the level of support for victims that we all wanted to see. There were also some large gaps: for example, at the outset it contained nothing on supply chains.

Progress has been made in Committee in this House and in the other place. I pay tribute to my noble Friends the right hon. Baroness Royall, Lord Rosser and Baroness Kennedy for their work in ensuring that we received this much improved Bill today. I also pay tribute to the work done in the Committee that considered the draft Bill. Tribute has already been paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for the work that he and all the members of that Committee did on a cross-party basis to make a set of recommendations that we have been able to consider, question and argue for as the Bill passed through the House.

I want to comment on some of the progress that has been made through the Government amendments in the other place. The position of anti-slavery commissioner has been transformed; it originally seemed to me that they would be nothing more than a Home Office civil servant with a remit exclusively covering prosecutions and with no independent overview of their work programme. Even though that change has not gone as far as we hoped—we hoped for something more akin to the Children’s Commissioner—we are pleased that the commissioner will have control over their finances, will be able to appoint their own staff and promote good practice across the world and that public bodies will have a duty to co-operate with them. Most of all, I am pleased that the commissioner’s remit will include the support available to victims and survivors of trafficking and exploitation.

There have been significant improvements in the formulation of the statutory defence for victims of slavery who commit crimes in the course of their enslavement. The original defence did not recognise the unique nature of child exploitation and the fact that a child cannot consent to their own enslavement. The Opposition therefore welcome the removal of the compulsion element of the statutory defence in relation to children, but we think that a problem remains not just in the conviction of perpetrators of slavery but in the prosecutions and charging decisions. We are disappointed that the Government have not suggested an amendment to require the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue specific guidance on charging in cases of human trafficking victims. Whichever party is in Government after 7 May will need to consider that again.

Another big area on which there has been movement is that of child advocates. Although the new system introduced by the Government is not the system of child guardians required by the EU directive on child trafficking, which was called for by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill and the charity coalition involved in the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, some improvements have been made. I pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who championed child advocates forcefully in the Bill Committee.

We now have an assurance that advocates will definitely be brought in and that they will be independent of other statutory bodies with responsibility for the child; that they will have access to the necessary and appropriate information; that they will be appointed as soon as is reasonably practicable where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a child may be a victim of human trafficking; and that they will have the power to appoint and instruct legal representatives where appropriate.

I also welcome the practical moves in relation to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the fact that we will have a Government report looking at the GLA’s work and a possible extension of its role within 12 months.

On another positive note, we are very pleased with the significant progress that has been made on the reporting requirements placed on large firms in relation to their supply chains. The Government could never claim to be genuinely committed to eradicating slavery in the UK if we did not address slavery in the supply chains of our large companies. It was absurd that the Government did not include supply chains in the original Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who has done so much to champion this issue over many years. I am pleased that his tireless efforts have paid dividends in changing the Bill.

The Opposition were clear from the outset that we wanted a reporting requirement that was comprehensive, that allowed direct comparability between companies and that included an enforcement mechanism. Although we welcomed the moves originally announced by the Minister on Report, we still wanted them to go further. She will remember that we were particularly critical of the Government for repeating some of the mistakes that have hampered the transparency of supply chains legislation in California. It has not always been clear which companies that legislation applies to, and it has been hard for non-governmental organisations to find out which companies ought to be complying and whether they actually are complying. Moreover, when two reports were looked at side by side, they were often not directly comparable.

That is why we made it clear that the reporting requirement has to contain clear instructions as to what a report has to have in it. A large firm may have 100,000 suppliers and it will be able to fill a report with good practice, but what we need firms to do is to create a fair evaluation that addresses the key issues, which means that we have to specify the key things to be addressed in the report.

We welcome the guidance as to what a report should contain and we hope it will encourage best practice, but we still think that that should be compulsory guidance rather than just a steer. We would also have liked it to contain a requirement for companies to report on what work they are doing to support victims who are found in their supply chains. I recognise, however, that the Bill has come a long way and I thank the Minister for the way in which she has dealt with the changes to it over the past few months.

Counter-Terrorism (Statutory Instruments)

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I should like to start by thanking the Minister for setting out clearly what is behind the three measures before us today. I particularly want to thank him for his remarks about the action being taken against those travelling to Iraq and Syria to become involved in terrorist activities. I am sure that the whole House will support the work that he and his Government are doing in that regard.

I shall deal first with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data: Code of Practice) Order 2015. This reissued guidance has five laudable aims, which the Opposition support. They are: to enhance the operational independence of the authorising officer from involvement in the specific investigation for which communications data are required; to strengthen the protections for information that has professional sensitivity—particularly journalistic material; to reflect the additional requirements on local authorities to request communications data through a magistrate; to improve the record-keeping requirements for public authorities; and to improve best practice in regard to international co-operation and emergency calls.

We support those aims in the guidance, but I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about how we have reached this point in the code of practice. First, the draft guidance was put out to consultation late last year. Why has the response to that consultation not been published for Parliament to consider alongside this statutory instrument? The Minister said that it had been published, but I have had real difficulty finding it. The Vote Office could not find it for me when I requested it, and it is not next to the other documents on the Home Office website, so could the Minister tell me where I can find it? As he said during the passage of the Serious Crime Bill, there were more than 300 responses to the consultation, and it would have been useful to be able to see them.

Secondly, will the Minister explain the key difference between this guidance and that published just before Christmas? Thirdly, will he explain the timings of these changes? Why was a consultation launched while reports from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, due out in a few weeks’ time, and further recommendations from the interception of communications commissioner were expected? I appreciate that the changes reflect some earlier recommendations from the commissioner, and there have been subsequent changes to reflect new recommendations, but why is the code of practice being treated almost like a work in progress? Why not have the recommendations first, then a full consultation and then a final code of conduct, with special interim measures, which I know we would probably all support, to protect journalistic sources? Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain how this process has worked.

Will the Minister also explain how the code of conduct has been written to ensure that it accurately reflects recent legislative changes? First, I was thinking about the recent orders extending the grounds on which the Financial Conduct Authority can access data. Is all that covered in this code? Secondly, the Serious Crime Act 2015 implements some of the recommendations from the interception of communications commissioner. Although it is welcome that the guidance goes some way to reflecting those changes, with a page added to give specific protection to journalistic sources, the Act introduced only partial and interim measures, so I want to know from the Minister whether the guidance will need to be reissued again when the final legislative measures are introduced.

On the second order before us, I want to ask about the definition of “communication” and “message”, an area where the code of practice does not address many of the issues raised during the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, both in this House and in the other place, about how “communication” is defined. Paragraph 2.13 of the code of practice is very specific in relation to fixed-line telephony calls. That is fine as far as it goes, and it is probably all that was needed 20 or 30 years ago, but this code of practice is for 2015 and beyond. I am sure the Minister will accept that the way we communicate now is very different from when we just had fixed telephone lines.

Fixed-line telephone calls now are a small element of communications. When we look at internet-based communications, from e-mail to app-based messaging and social media, we see that the code of conduct is too vague in what it is trying to do. Paragraph 2.11 refers readers of the code of practice back to section 2(1) of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 and to the schedule to that Act. I am not sure why a code of practice supposedly designed, to quote from the code, to be

“readily available to employees of a CSP”

to use should refer them back to an obscure part of an Act that was criticised by some right hon. and hon. Members for not being as clear as it could be.

Paragraph 2.16 is the only one I could find in the code of practice that seeks to explain what DRIPA means for internet-based communications. The paragraph is headed “Internet email” and states:

“Internet email under DRIPA is considered to be any text, voice, sound or image message sent over a public electronic communications network which can be stored in the network or in the recipient’s terminal equipment until it is collected by the recipient and includes messages sent using a short message service.”

Is that simply a definition of internet-based e-mail providers such as Hotmail or Gmail, or is it meant to include social media? If it is meant to include social media, why does it not say that, so it is clear in the code of practice?

In Committee, I asked a series of questions about social media, which the Minister did not answer, and I do not think they were answered in the other place either. Let me ask the Minister again: does the code of practice include messages sent on social media platforms such as Facebook? If it does, why is there no section in the guidance devoted to social media? As I have said, the title “Internet e-mail” is not clear in this respect. If social media are covered, does a message extend to tagging another person in a broader post? Specifically, if a person is tagged in a Facebook or Instagram post, does that count as a message for the purposes of this code? What about a person included in a tweet? Does that count as well?

Perhaps the Minister will also respond to questions on the generic forms of interaction on social media sites. I am talking about where there is no user-generated content, but there is an interaction—for example, I “love” a photo on Instagram, “like” a post on Facebook, “favourite” a tweet, or “swipe” on Tinder. Do those come within this code of practice?

When I raised those issues in Committee, the Minister said that the code covered all communications, by which he meant anything that conveyed a message—as if a message was a self-evident thing that did not need a clear definition. That rather clumsy presumption has been applied to this code of conduct. Will the Minister explain, with reference to the social media sites, how paragraph 2.16 is meant to be interpreted? I hope he can shed some light on this matter.

I also want to ask about the relationship that this code envisages between the Home Office and the communications service providers. For example, the code of practice gives the Secretary of State total discretion over the review of retention notices, but it says that factors leading to a review could include significant technological change. Can the Minister explain how an ongoing dialogue with the CSPs operates, and how it is being maintained to ensure that the Secretary of State will be aware of major technological changes?

Moving on, will the Minister explain why no impact assessment has been prepared for this legislation? Last week, we found that the impact assessment prepared for the Prevent elements of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, vague and imprecise as they were, had not been signed off by the Home Office’s chief economist because the Home Office did not have the evidence base to support the legislation. Essentially, what that confirmed was that, after four years, the Home Office did not have that evidence about what works in terms of Prevent and so could not use that to inform and back up any legislative decisions. Is that the reason we do not have an impact assessment for the statutory instruments before us today? These codes of practice cover the process for decisions regarding compensation payments provided to CSPs, so they could have far-reaching cost and spending implications. They also have the potential to change significantly the compliance burdens on businesses.

I am very surprised that we do not have an impact assessment drafted for these orders. Perhaps the Minister can give us some background information; if he is not able to do so today, perhaps he could find it and place it in the Library. I have four questions. First, how many retention notices are currently in force, and how many are company-specific? Secondly, the code of practice talks about two years as the standard period for a review of a data retention notice. In practice, how many notices are reviewed before the two-year period? Thirdly, how many retention notices have been ended before the two-year period? Fourthly, what is the total spend on compensation agreed with the communications service providers in each of the past five years?

The Government’s explanatory memorandum to the Authority to Carry Scheme (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015 states:

“Full guidance will be provided to industry on the operation of the Scheme. The Home Office and other agencies will continue to engage with industry on the detail of the Scheme to assist implementation.”

Will the Minister make it clear when he expects this guidance to be made available? The transport industry also made an observation in a number of responses to the consultation—I think that there were 28 in total. The memorandum states:

“The majority of carriers felt, however, that a proposed maximum fine of £50,000 was excessive and disproportionate, especially when compared to the possible fines imposed by other countries.”

Will the Minister explain why, despite the view taken by the transport industry, the Government decided to maintain the upper limit of £50,000 for a fine?

Finally, I also note that the 21-day rule was breached for introducing those regulations. I hope that the Minister will comment on why. I am sure that he will make a commitment that every attempt will be made in future to ensure that orders are introduced within the appropriate time.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point that I entirely endorse. Indeed, that is why the Home Office has been keen to support initiatives such as that advanced by Families Against Stress and Trauma, which has campaigned to highlight the need to come forward and report to the authorities or to others who may be able to take action to safeguard and prevent such actions.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised again the position of journalists in relation to communications data. He and I have rightly debated that on a number of occasions in this House. He, and others, may not feel that this is the final settled picture. As I have said, we recognise that this matter needs to be further regularised in primary legislation, and we hope that the House will be able to return to it swiftly after the general election. In his report, the commissioner said that there had been no abuse, in relation to his investigations and his inquiry, into the manner in which communications data requests are made of journalists. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we should ensure that there is continuing dialogue on this matter.

The draft clauses, and our desire to receive feedback on them, provide a further opportunity for those channels to be kept open. Although the House will head into purdah and Dissolution shortly, I hope communication will be maintained with officials to ensure that, when this House returns, the next Government can move forward quickly in the light not only of David Anderson’s report, but of the feedback we receive on the draft clauses. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

I will go through as many as possible of the points raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), whose broad support I welcome. As the explanatory notes make clear, a full regulatory impact assessment was made of the effect of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.

On the difference between the consultative code and the final version, the key changes include the introduction of the requirements for law enforcement to use the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to acquire communications data in order to determine journalistic sources. Other changes include greater clarity on the additional consideration for those in sensitive professions and increased guidance on the necessity and proportionality that must be met by all applications for communications data. I assure the hon. Lady that we reflected carefully on the submissions. The codes reflect all recent primary legislation, but, as she will appreciate, if significant changes are made to primary legislation in the future, new codes may be required.

We do not provide details of which companies are the subject of data retention notices nor the detail of those notices, as it could be of considerable benefit to terrorists and other criminals if they knew which companies were under the data retention obligations, and they could adjust their behaviour accordingly. That is why we have maintained a consistent stance.

The responses to the public consultation have been published on the Home Office website and we have written to the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees. I am sorry if the hon. Lady was not able to locate them and I am happy to write to her to point her directly to them, because I specifically made sure that they were published in advance of today’s debate. I am disappointed that she has not been able to locate them, which is what I wanted her to be able to do.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful that the Minister will write to me, but I made strenuous efforts to get hold of the responses, including getting the Vote Office to look for them and having a good search of the Home Office website myself. Perhaps it is time for the website to undergo a review to make sure it is as accessible as possible.

[James Brokenshire]

All I can say is that the consultation responses were published. I note the hon. Lady’s challenge and I will certainly point her in the right direction.

On 4 February the interception of communications commissioner reported on the issue of journalists’ material. We are introducing the codes as quickly as possible to give as full effect as we can to the commissioner’s recommendations. Frankly, we do not believe it would be appropriate to wait. The hon. Lady asked why we are doing it now and in this way. It is being done in this way to ensure that the codes and safeguards are put in place as quickly as possible. I judged that it was right to do the initial consultation and get feedback even though we knew that the commissioner was due to report, because if we had waited for the commissioner’s response and then done a full consultation on the full code, we would not be in the position we are in today. I think that was the right approach.

The hon. Lady also asked technical questions about social media. The provisions apply to relevant communications data generated or processed in the UK by communications service providers. The codes of practice give some examples of the data to be retained and the way in which the CSPs build their systems. The communications data generated differ among CSPs and the services they provide. It is important that the Government can work with providers to ensure that appropriate data are retained. The code provides that the Home Office may give further guidance to those implementing the requirements. In other words, there can be further drill-down to give further specificity. The Home Office works closely with providers to ensure that it is aware of future technological changes that may lead to a review of a data retention notice. I will reflect further on the points made by the hon. Lady and place any additional information in the Library.

Finally, the £50,000 maximum penalty for failing to comply with the requirement under the authority to carry scheme reflects the seriousness attached to a carrier bringing someone into the UK or taking someone out of the UK when refused the authority to do so. I certainly hear the point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East when he asked why we should have a penalty if compliance is already enforced. Now that we are extending the scheme to both inbound and outbound carrying, having looked at different aspects of it under the code and reflected on the issues raised, it is appropriate to have a penalty or sanction to encourage and promote the positive behaviour that right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and I want. We have brought in the penalty in that spirit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lynne Featherstone]

I am delighted to praise the work of the safe space initiative in Falmouth and others like it, which provide an extremely valuable service. These schemes are run by local volunteers and officers who help with first aid. There are also the street pastors, which we also have in Haringey. I am sure that Members across the House would praise their work. The Government have also introduced the late-night levy power for local communities to use if they choose to do so. It enables local authorities to collect a financial contribution from businesses that profit from selling alcohol, and the funds raised can be used for safe spaces.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

How many?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Seven.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is important to promote that interfaith working, and the relationships between different communities. The Department for Communities and Local Government has undertaken a number of activities with the aim of doing exactly that: encouraging respect for different faiths and between communities, and a greater understanding between communities. That is very important work.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary cut spending on community Prevent projects from £17.4 million to £1 million. She cut the number of areas delivering Prevent from 92 to 21, and in one year just four local authorities received funding for Prevent projects. At the same time, the Department for Communities and Local Government has funded just eight local integration projects, none of which is aimed at Islamic fundamentalism. Will the Home Secretary explain why local Prevent and integration projects have been so neglected under this Government?

[Mrs May]

I must tell the hon. Lady that her analysis is wrong. This Government did make a difference to the Prevent programme when they came to office. We observed that, all too often, people were seeing the Labour Government’s integration work under Prevent through the prism of the Government’s spying on them, and of counter-terrorism, so we changed the way in which Prevent operated. The Home Office has not cut its funding for Prevent, and I am pleased to say that Prevent programmes have reached more than 50,000 people in this country.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s letter to my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. On the basis of the Minister’s statement and that letter, the Opposition will support the Government’s motion.

We recognise, of course, that events in Syria, Iraq and northern Africa are fuelling a rapidly evolving network of inter-related terror groups who pose a real threat to the UK and our allies. It is absolutely right to use all legal measures to try to counter the spread of these groups and to ensure that they cannot establish themselves in the United Kingdom.

In this case, we have two groups with close links to other proscribed groups. Jund al Khalifa-Algeria is an Algerian-based Islamic militant group, linked to al-Qaeda and hoping to establish a caliphate in northern Africa. The group is affiliated to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Secondly, Jund al-Aqsa or Soldiers of al-Aqsa is a splinter group of the al-Nusra front, and it is just three months since we proscribed JKI—Army of the Islamic Caliphate, another splinter group of the al-Nusra front. In common with the al-Nusra front, the JAA is largely based in Syria, and as a group has attracted many jihadists from outside Syria. JAA started out as a campaign against the Syrian Government, but in recent attacks the group has seemed happy to target innocent civilians.

At this point in a proscription order, I normally have to conclude that we will take the assurances of the Home Secretary that she has sufficient evidence that the groups are conducting the activities described. This is obviously because the Opposition do not have access to the same intelligence as the Government. In this case, however, there is no need to see sensitive information to conclude that these are terrorist groups. Far from hiding their activities, they are actively boasting about them on social media, using YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to spread images of the most horrendous violence, alongside messages justifying it. These are not groups that want to hide; these are groups that are actively recruiting.

The JAA YouTube channel was opened on the 28 July 2014, apparently replacing a previous YouTube channel that had been closed down. The latest Twitter account opened in September in English, again replacing an account that had been closed down. The English Twitter account—we looked at it just yesterday—has 1,460 followers. Tweets declare fallen supporters to be martyrs, and there are links to YouTube videos and other Twitter pages run by JAA. One of these pages is the official JAA Twitter page in Arabic, which has some 17,500 followers.

The videos on the YouTube channel are even more disturbing. Let us take, for example, the video uploaded on to the official JAA channel on 21 September 2014. This video depicts JAA fighters engaging with Government forces—kicking, hanging, abusing the bodies of the dead and taking part in training exercises. It seems quite clear that this video is intended to glorify grotesque violence as a form of extremist propaganda. This video has been viewed 13,000 times, attracted 40 comments and has been “liked” on the YouTube rating system 96 times.

I have met Google in the past to discuss YouTube’s hosting of terrorist propaganda, and it is supposed to be taking down extremist content when it comes across it. The Home Office’s counter-terrorism internet referral unit is also supposed to be identifying this content and getting it taken down. Here, however, is a whole YouTube channel run by, as we know, a known terrorist organisation and including sermons advocating terrorism and videos of violent terrorist acts attracting thousands of views.

At one level, there is an irony that these extremist terrorist groups, rallying against western consumerism, are happy to use these enormous western companies to spread their message of hate, but there is also a very serious point. As the Minister said in an earlier speech to the House, the

“effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to…support…arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.”—[Official Report, 2 April 2014; Vol. 578, c. 948.]

A very brief look at what was available on social media enabled me to come across deeply offensive and worrying videos and tweets. I am very pleased that we are proscribing the organisations that produced them, but I think that the Minister should bear in mind that social media companies are making such videos and tweets available for everyone to see, and consider what more can be done about those companies.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 7, page 15, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

‘(5) Before giving guidance under this section, or revising guidance already given, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—

(a) the proposed guidance or proposed revisions; and

(b) a draft of an order providing for the guidance, or revisions to the guidance, to come into force.

(6) The Secretary of State must make the order, and issue the guidance or (as the case may be) make the revisions to the guidance, if the draft of the order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(7) Guidance, or revisions to guidance, come into force in accordance with an order under this section.

(8) Such an order—

(a) is to be a statutory instrument; and

(b) may contain transitional, transitory or saving provision.”

This would ensure that statutory guidance produced under Clause 24 was subject to an affirmative resolution of each House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 6, in clause 29, page 17, line 29, leave out subsection (7) and insert—

‘(7) To support panels exercising their functions under this section the Secretary of State must—

(a) provide guidance on the exercise of those functions;

(b) provide a list of approved providers for de-radicalisation programmes that may be referred to under subsection (4); and

(c) ensure that the providers listed under paragraph (b) are subject to monitoring.”

This would give a greater role to the Secretary of State in supporting the role of local support panels. The Secretary of State would have to provide guidance (rather than it being optional) and she would also have to provide a list of approved providers for de-radicalisation programmes and ensure they would be subject to monitoring.

[Diana Johnson]

Let me begin by expressing my horror at the terror attack that took place in Paris today. I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the family and friends of the victims of that attack, and, of course, we all stand in solidarity with the French people at this time.

Part 5 of the Bill contains measures to counter extremism in communities and to deal directly with vulnerable individuals. As Ministers will recall, it was the last Labour Government who introduced both the Prevent agenda and the Channel programme, and we remain absolutely committed to supporting and, indeed, strengthening both policies. Obviously the Government reviewed Prevent when they came to office, and it is important for us to view the measures in the Bill in the context of the changes that they introduced. I think that those changes are a rather mixed bag, and I am not sure that they were particularly successful.

Both Prevent and Channel require a partnership between central Government and local agencies, and amendments 7 and 6 are intended to ensure that the Government support local bodies in the delivery of both programmes. While we agree that Prevent should involve local delivery, it seems to us that the recent problems stem from central Government. There has been a marked decline in Prevent’s funding, which has fallen from £17 million a year to just £1 million. Some of that clearly resulted from a conscious decision, but there also appears to have been mismanagement. Every year £5.1 million has been allocated for local delivery, but I understand that over the past four years more than 60% of it has gone unclaimed.

In Committee, I raised a number of concerns about the delivery of Prevent at national level, and about the monitoring and support supplied by central Government to local agencies. I am sure that the Minister for Security and Immigration, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—although I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) in the Chamber today—recalls that I spoke at length about my concern about the performance of the Department for Education. I do not want to go through all that again, but I think that the Government’s role should be formalised in the Bill so that we know what is expected of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that this provision should relate not only to public bodies? If an individual believes that someone is likely to become radicalised, it really should be incumbent on that individual to tell someone about it so that something can be done. It is not only bodies such as schools that should have responsibilities in this area; individuals should, too.

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that we all have a responsibility in this area. My concern, however, is about the specific responsibilities being placed on local authorities and other public bodies under the Channel programme. We must make sure that we get this right, which is why I am focusing on why the first stage of the programme is not being placed on a statutory basis but the second stage is so being placed. I wonder whether that is the best way of doing it. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, however.

Only when a person has been identified as at risk will the provisions in clause 28(3) kick in. That subsection allows a chief officer of police to make a referral to the local support panel that has been set up by the local authority. My first concern is with the level of expertise that those panels must have, and that is where amendment 21 comes in. As provided for in the Bill, local support panels will have to assess the individual’s risk of radicalisation and tailor a support panel to address the risks. The issues involved are complex and varied.

The current guidance cites 22 vulnerability indicators that could lead to a Channel referral. The panel must weigh up those factors and tailor a support package, which could have any number of elements. In some areas, however, the panel will be addressing issues that it has never faced before, such as sectarian hatred, which can be exacerbated by poorly provided support. That is why we feel that the Home Office needs to support local panels by providing an approved list of support providers who are able to give the specialist interventions needed to address the specific issues facing the individual.

This is a crucial stage of the Channel process and it should be recognised in the Bill. My understanding is that the Home Office is already doing this work to some extent, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment on Second Reading to continue to do it, but as we are putting the obligations of local authorities into the Bill, I think we should also be placing the responsibilities of central Government in the legislation. That could be particularly important for local authorities that are making referrals for the first time. I have repeatedly asked for the number of occasions on which each local authority has made a Channel assessment and referral, but unfortunately my requests for that information have been repeatedly refused. However, there must be many parts of the country that have never had to deal with issues such as these before.

This Government have repeatedly claimed to be stepping up efforts to stop Prevent funding going to organisations that are radicalising people, but that cannot be done unless the Home Office takes a lead in vetting those bodies. Under clause 32, the Home Secretary may indemnify Channel providers, so it is accepted that the Home Office has a role in that regard. It therefore seems reasonable for it also to have a role in assessing and vetting providers and ensuring that they are fit for purpose. These are really important issues. I know the Minister shares the commitment to making sure this Bill is as good as it can be and to getting Prevent and Channel right. I therefore hope she will realise that the support the Home Office is providing on Prevent and Channel needs to be reviewed again and improved, and that the guidance that has been issued as a consultation document can be improved in many areas. I hope she will feel able to accept the amendments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

Today’s events in Paris are yet another shocking reminder of the threat we all face, and our thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and colleagues of the victims. I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in condemning that barbaric attack, and I am sure the whole House stands united with the French people in our opposition to all forms of terrorism.

Part 5 of the Bill and schedules 3 and 4 deal with an important area of our counter-terrorism work: preventing people from being drawn into terrorism. That was subject to a long and insightful debate in Committee, and I recognise and welcome the deep interest many right hon. and hon. Members have in the area. The shadow Minister made a number of points about the Prevent programme in general, and I wish to address those before dealing with the specifics of the amendments.

The hon. Lady made a point about funding for Prevent, so let me make it clear that this Government are committed to the Prevent programme: £40 million has been allocated for Prevent spending in 2014-15, and the spending has been £36 million in 2011-12, £35 million in 2012-13 and £39 million in 2013-14. She knows as well as anybody that the spending is not just done by the Home Office and that that is spending across government, including by local authorities, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office. It is worth saying that the Prime Minister announced on 25 November that an additional £130 million was being made available for increased counter-terrorism work, which includes Prevent activity. With that funding, we will introduce a clear legal obligation on our universities, prisons, councils and schools to play their part in tackling extremism. The new funding being made available will also include additional resources for programmes to prevent radicalisation.

The hon. Lady asked about the Prevent projects. We have delivered more than 180 community-based Prevent projects since 2011, and we are currently supporting more than 70. Prevent local projects have reached more than 45,000 people since early 2012. All our current Prevent projects are focused on the current threat, including Syria and Iraq. In the 2013-14 financial year, Prevent local co-ordinators in our 30 Prevent priority areas worked with more than 250 mosques, 50 faith groups and 70 community groups. In addition, since the revised Prevent strategy was issued in June 2011, we have trained more than 120,000 front-line public sector workers to identify and support those at risk. We are currently rolling out new updated training, through the Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent—the WRAP training programme—now in its third iteration. We have seen a significant rise in the number of referrals to the Channel programme, which provides tailored support to people identified as being at risk of radicalisation; the Association of Chief Police Officers reported a 58% increase in the past year. Since April 2012, there have been more than 2,000 referrals to Channel, and hundreds of people have been offered support.

Let me now deal with the amendments. Amendment 7 is a repeat of an amendment first tabled in Committee, which was taken to a vote. It concerns the guidance that the Secretary of State may issue to specified authorities that are subject to the new duty to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. Under clause 24, the specified authorities subject to the duty must have due regard to such guidance in carrying out that duty. Amendment 7 would require that the guidance may be issued only subject to parliamentary approval. In Committee, hon. Members were clear that an amendment of this type was not required, at least not at that stage. Clause 24 already provides that the Secretary of State must consult before issuing guidance and, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration announced to the House by written ministerial statement on 18 December, that consultation has already begun.

The shadow Minister asked about the draft guidance on which we are consulting. It is draft guidance, and we will be holding regional consultation events to explore further examples of best practice with those who will be subject to the duty. The consultation exercise also includes an opportunity for people to comment via the gov.uk website, or by e-mail or post. It is aimed at all those who will be subject to the duty, as well as the public at large.

This public consultation provides sufficient opportunity for interested parties, particularly those who will be subject to the Prevent duty, to scrutinise and influence the guidance. The guidance will benefit from extensive consultation and expert input, and I trust that the final guidance that is published will be all the better for having had this period of formal public consultation. The draft guidance, which we are currently consulting on, sets out, over 40 pages, the type of activity we expect specified activities to consider when complying with the duty.

The starting point for all specified authorities will be an assessment of the risk in their area, institution or body. Where a risk has been identified, they will need to develop an action plan to address it. Staff training and working together with other partners will be key themes.

Let me give some examples of what we expect a specified authority to consider when complying with the duty. Local authorities should ensure that publicly owned premises are not used to disseminate extremist views. Higher education institutions should have policies and procedures in place for the management of events on campus and for the use of all university premises that apply to all staff, students and visitors. Further education providers should have policies in place relating to the use of IT on their premises. Schools and their governors should make sure that they have training to give them the knowledge and confidence to identify children at risk of being drawn into terrorism, and know where and how to refer children and young people for further help.

The health sector should ensure that training is provided to front-line staff to ensure that where there are signs that someone has been or is being drawn into terrorism, the health care worker can interpret those signs correctly and is aware of and can locate support for them. Prisons should offer support to an individual who is vulnerable to radicalisation or move them away from an individual of concern, and those at risk of radicalising others should face the removal of privileges and segregation from others. The police should support individuals vulnerable to radicalisation, for example, through the Channel programme and support partner organisations to deliver Prevent work.

Those are just a few examples, and the shadow Minister asked about childminders. Carers in early years have a duty of care to the children in their care similar to existing safeguarding responsibilities. We are not expecting childminders or nursery workers to carry out unnecessary intrusion into family life, but we expect them to take action where they observe behaviour of concern. It is important that children are taught fundamental British values in an age-appropriate way. For children in early years, that is about learning right from wrong and challenging negative attitudes and stereotypes—for example, if a child makes anti-Semitic remarks.

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his comments. I understand that anonymity would be provided to people coming forward in that circumstance.

The shadow Minister asked about areas with low risk. The guidance sets out very clearly that we are looking for a risk-based approach, but areas need to understand the local risk. This is the starting point, and we are clear that the type and scale of the response will vary. She also asked about the number of Prevent priority areas. The Government have changed our method for prioritisation of local authority areas since 2011 and it is now based on assessment of the risk of exposure to radicalisation in specific areas rather than on simple demographics. The prioritisation also takes into account activity that we have seen by terrorist organisations and terrorist sympathisers. The process is regularly reviewed and activity is currently focused on 30 local authority priority areas where the risk of radicalisation is identified as being higher. Those priority areas received funding for a dedicated Prevent co-ordinator and are able to bid for funding for targeted local projects to work with communities and partners. There are also a further 14 supported areas where we support projects only.

[Diana Johnson]

I thank the Minister for going through the answers to my questions in such detail. The impact assessment says that 90 local authority areas are at high risk, the consultation document identifies 50 priority areas and the Minister is now talking about 30 areas and an additional 14 areas. These numbers all seem a bit confused to me. Will she say the exact number of Prevent priority areas the Government are concerned about?

[Karen Bradley]

If the hon. Lady will give me a few moments, I will come on to that point.

We do not believe that it is crucial for the guidance to be subject to additional parliamentary approval because we are conducting a wide-ranging consultation and, although the specified authorities must have regard to the guidance, they are not required to follow it in all cases. That is not an uncommon approach for statutory guidance of this nature and we set that out in detail in the delegated powers memorandum published with the Bill. However, I recognise the need for these issues to be properly considered, and that is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration made clear in Committee our intention to await the conclusions of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform before giving further consideration to whether we should make any changes of this sort. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that that is a sensible approach and will be content to await the report of that Committee. On that basis, I invite her to withdraw the amendment, so that we can return to the issue in the other place.

Let me now turn to amendment 6, which would amend clause 29 to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to support panels in carrying out their functions. The amendment would also require that the panel had sight of the list of approved providers for deradicalisation programmes and that the providers were subject to monitoring. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration and Security explained in Committee, Channel is a multi-agency programme that provides support to people identified as vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. It has been in operation in all areas of England and Wales since 2012. In Scotland, the relevant programme is known as Prevent Professional Concerns. It is the Government’s hope and intention that these provisions should also apply to Scotland and discussions with the Scottish Government are ongoing.

As the hon. Lady asked about the devolved Administrations, I want to confirm that we are speaking to the Scottish and Welsh Governments about how the duty should be implemented in those Administrations and consulting on how we should make the guidance appropriate to bodies in Scotland and Wales, particularly because the different legal system in Scotland might mean that we need to implement things differently there. As part of the process, we are consulting them on how the duty should be monitored and enforced.

[Diana Johnson]

It is very helpful to hear the Minister set that out, but once agreement has been reached with the devolved Administrations, will there be a further period of consultation on the guidance, so that local authorities and other bodies can comment on what has been agreed between the Governments?

[Karen Bradley]

I am not sure that that is how we envisage it happening, but we are consulting and working very closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we take into account their views and get this right for them.

The hon. Lady asked about the number of priority areas under Prevent, so let me clarify. There are currently 30 Prevent priority areas, and we anticipate that that will rise to up to 50 in the next financial year. The impact assessment allows for up to 90 priority areas, should the need arise.

The hon. Lady asked about referrals to Channel relating to the far right and whether the Channel programme targeted only Muslim radicalisation. Like Prevent as a whole, Channel covers all forms of terrorism and extremism related to terrorism. It does not target Muslims and anyone can refer a person of any age, ethnicity or faith background to Channel. A significant number of people who have started receiving support through Channel were referred for far-right concerns. ACPO has reported that around a quarter of Channel referrals relate to the far right.

The hon. Lady has expressed concern about the expertise that panels must have and has retabled the amendment that we considered in Committee. Clause 28 includes provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to support panels in carrying out their functions. I can assure the hon. Lady that existing guidance is being updated in consultation with relevant persons, including those who deliver on the ground such as panel chairs. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, will issue this guidance before the provisions are commenced.

Local panels assess the individual’s risk and, if appropriate, develop a support package. It is the job of the panel members to provide advice in respect of their areas of expertise, and to arrange, where agreed, support interventions from their services. Interventions that are delivered by such statutory partners are subject to existing monitoring arrangements.

In respect of theological or ideological support, the police representative will recommend to the panel the provider most suited to the case. The list of approved providers for such support is already made available to key members of the panel.

Safeguards and measures are in place to monitor the support providers—I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady—and they are all bound by a service level agreement with the Home Office that sets out the terms and conditions of their appointment, including conduct. In addition, the police, as part of their co-ordination role, regularly review progress made against any interventions commissioned. Any misconduct or quality concerns will be treated seriously by the Home Office, with the option of terminating an agreement with a provider.

On this basis, I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that amendment 6 is unnecessary. I invite her to withdraw amendment 7, so that we can return to the parliamentary scrutiny of the Prevent guidance in the other place.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for going through my questions in such detail. On amendment 7, I am surprised that the Government are not willing to agree that both Houses should have the opportunity to scrutinise the final version of the guidance, which we have not yet seen. I note what she said about keeping the matter under consideration. I am sure that the matter will be returned to when the Bill goes to the other place. On that basis, I will not seek to divide the House on amendment 7. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3

Specified authorities

[Karen Bradley]

I beg to move amendment 13, page 47, line 10, at end insert—

“A person carrying out a function of an authority mentioned in section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1999 by virtue of a direction made under section 15 of that Act.”

This amendment would add the authority specified to those subject to the duty contained in clause 21 and would make the relevant entry consistent with the corresponding entry in Schedule 4.

[Karen Bradley]

In respect of the duty to have due regard to preventing people from being drawn into terrorism in clause 21, the Government have tabled a number of corrective amendments to the list in schedule 3, which specifies the authorities subject to the duty. The amendments will ensure that the intended specified authorities are subject to the duty.

Amendment 13 would add:

“A person carrying out a function of an authority mentioned in section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1999 by virtue of a direction made under section 15 of that Act.”

This appears in schedule 4, as regards Channel, and should also appear in schedule 3. The effect will be to ensure that where local authority functions are transferred, for example to commissioners if an authority is failing, the duty will apply to them too.

Amendment 14 will add the principal of a secure college to the criminal justice section of schedule 3. That will ensure consistency with schedule 4. Amendment 15 will remove an unnecessary entry. An institution

“within the higher education sector within the meaning of section 91(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992”

will also be a qualifying institution within the meaning of section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004, which has its own entry.

Amendment 16 ensures that the privately funded higher education providers are listed in schedule 3 as intended. They are covered in schedule 4, as regards Channel, but are at present missing from schedule 3. The draft guidance published for consultation has been drafted as though they are included in schedule 3. Amendment 17 corrects an inadvertent error by removing reference in schedule 3 to police authorities.

[Diana Johnson]

Very briefly, I was surprised that there was reference to police authorities when they were abolished by the Government some time ago. I guess that that is what comes when Bills are hastily drafted. I have one question for the Minister, which relates back to the issue of Scottish bodies that will be covered by the Bill. Currently, they are not listed anywhere. When will we have a list of the Scottish bodies that are covered?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the shadow Minister for her question. If she will forgive me, I will have to get back to her on that point at a later date.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Amendments made: 14,  page 47, line 16, at end insert—

“The principal of a secure college.”.

This amendment would add the authority specified to those subject to the duty contained in clause 21.

Amendment 15, page 47, leave out lines 20 to 22.

This amendment would remove an unnecessary entry. An institution within the higher education sector within the meaning of section 91(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 would also be a qualifying institution within the meaning of section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004 (which has its own entry).

Amendment 16, page 48, line 25, at end insert—

(b) courses of a description mentioned in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 (higher education courses).”.

This amendment would make the relevant entry consistent with the corresponding entry in Schedule 4.

Amendment 17, page 49, leave out lines 5 and 6.—(Karen Bradley.)

This amendment removes references to police authorities which no longer exist.

Clause 36

Privacy and Civil Liberties Board

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 3,  page 22, line 14, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a body to—

(a) provide advice and assistance to the persons appointed under—

(i) section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006;

(ii) section 31(1) of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing &c. Act 2010; and

(iii) section 20(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.

in the discharge of their statutory functions.

(b) review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, [this Act] and any other law or prerogative power to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism;

(c) consider whether such legislation contains appropriate safeguards, is proportionate and remains necessary;

(d) review intelligence-sharing guidance and practice to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism and the functions of the Board;

(e) make recommendations to any public authority about the exercise of its statutory functions relating to the prevention of terrorism;

(f) undertake inquiries relating to counter-terrorism when invited to do so by the Home Secretary, the Treasury or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or on the initiative of the Board;

(g) encourage good practice in the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of terrorism;

(h) provide advice and assistance to Government on the development and implementation of policy relating to the prevention of terrorism.”.

This expands the remit of the body to match that which is described in the Government’s Terms of Reference for this body.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2,  page 22, line 22, leave out

“Privacy and Civil Liberties Board”

and insert “Counter Terrorism Oversight Panel”.

This would rename the body created by clause 36.

Amendment 4,  page 22, line 25, at end insert

“in accordance with the Code of Public Appointments”.

Amendment 5,  page 22, line 32, at end insert—

“(i) the information-gathering powers of the board;

(j) reporting requirements, and the formulation of and consultation on an annual work plan; and

(k) the access to such relevant classified material as may be required in order for the board to undertake its functions under subsection (1);”.

This increases the points that have to be included in regulations brought forward by the Secretary of State to include information gathering powers, formulation of an annual work plan and relevant to classified material.

[Diana Johnson]

These amendments relate to part 7, which confers powers on the Secretary of State to establish a body to be known as the privacy and civil liberties board. While most of the Bill introduces new powers, part 7 introduces checks on those powers. It is worth mentioning at this stage that no level of general oversight will ever negate the need for proper judicial oversight of the specific use of these powers, which until yesterday the Government unfortunately were fiercely resisting.

Labour has always said that strong powers need strong checks, which is why we support the principle of a new oversight body. It is also why we tabled amendments to the Justice and Security Bill when it went through Parliament to increase the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee and why we have consistently called for a bigger role to be given to the intelligence and surveillance commissioners.

Although the creation of a new body is good in principle, what is actually set out in the Bill does not match the name “privacy and civil liberties board” or what the Government set out in their terms of reference, and it does not introduce what we think is needed. That is why we have tabled amendments 2 to 5. The problem is that the Bill determines nothing other than the name of the body. The name evokes the idea of a body with a wide remit to work on privacy and civil liberties issues in the UK, a body to safeguard human rights, a body similar to the Joint Committee on Human Rights created by the Labour Government, but that is not actually what is provided for in the Bill.

The terms of reference published by the Government suggest a body that will support the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in providing oversight of counter-terrorism legislation in the UK and investigating its operations. Broadly, we think that what is contained in the terms of reference is very sensible and that it would provide both capacity and openness to the oversight of counter-terrorism policy. It would also address some of the issues relating to the capacity of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation that the current incumbent, David Anderson QC, identified earlier this year—I went through some of that in detail in Committee.

However, what we see in the terms of reference does not match what we see in the Bill. The third version of the board is the one provided for by clause 36, a body that the Home Secretary may create in future if she wishes. In future she may decide on the body’s procedures, membership, work plan and the publishing of its reports. If the body is created, it will have very limited statutory remit and powers. We do not think that is good enough, so amendments 2 to 5 address what we see as the Bill’s shortcomings as currently drafted.

Amendment 3 would ensure that the panel or board will have a remit that includes all the key counter-terrorism issues. Specifically, it includes the terrorism statutes, which the independent reviewer is currently precluded from investigating. Unlike the independent reviewer, we do not envisage a remit that is overly prescriptive or requires annual reviews of certain pieces of legislation. Amendment 3 would also give the board a role in undertaking specific inquiries in certain circumstances, to make recommendations to public authorities, to review intelligence-sharing guidance and to encourage good practice in the prevention and investigation of terrorism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

On classified information, all the information will be very sensitive, so presumably whoever is considered for appointment to such a board will be vetted and security cleared to receive such information. Is that assumption correct?

[Diana Johnson]

No doubt the Minister will be able to confirm that. My understanding is that the level of information and intelligence given to the board will mean that its members will have to undergo appropriate vetting to make sure that they are suitable. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

The amendments would give the board a proper remit, with members appointed on merit, procedures for agreeing a work plan and access to the relevant information. Finally, amendment 2 would give the board a name that matches the role that we envisage for it—the counter terrorism oversight panel.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making good points about the role of the panel, but does she not think that the name she suggests increases confusion? She and I want judicial oversight of the operation of the Bill and other counter-terrorism Acts. To call the board an “oversight panel” invites confusion because that is not precisely its role.

[Diana Johnson]

We have argued throughout our discussions that we want proper judicial safeguards where appropriate, especially in relation to the provisions of the early parts of the Bill. I am not sure I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the proposed name of the panel causing confusion. The current name, the privacy and civil liberties board, does not describe its role. The name is problematic. We have suggested an alternative. If it can be improved, I am happy to consider that, but we think the name proposed in the amendment best serves us at present.

[Mr Heath]

I am not particularly enamoured of the Government’s suggested name, either, as it does not describe the role properly. But I believe the word “oversight” invites confusion.

[Diana Johnson]

Perhaps the matter can be discussed further in another place. “Counter terrorism oversight panel”, the name that we have suggested, best describes the role that we envisage for the body.

As I have stressed, these amendments do not seek to do anything radical. They aim to ensure that the legislation matches what the Government have previously committed to do, and they ensure that what is in the Bill goes some way to addressing the concerns raised by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The amendments are not overly prescriptive; they leave plenty room for the detail to be spelled out in secondary legislation, but they would ensure that that secondary legislation was meaningful as it related to the provisions of the Bill. I hope the Minister will seriously consider accepting the amendments.

[Karen Bradley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling the amendments.

Our debate has built on the one held in Committee where there was broad support for the principle of creating the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. The Bill introduces a comprehensive package of measures to disrupt people’s ability to travel abroad to fight, reduce the risks they pose on their return, and combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, these powers are essential to keep up with the very serious and rapidly changing threats we face. Of course, as that threat evolves, we need to consider and update our legislation accordingly. However, it is also right that at this time, in the light of the increased threat level, and as the legislative landscape changes, we consider the oversight arrangements that we have in place for UK counter-terrorism laws to ensure that we are getting the balance right between responding to these threats and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.

The United Kingdom already has a very effective and transparent system of independent oversight and scrutiny. Few, if any, other countries in the world manage as well as the UK the balance between the need for powers that must necessarily be exercised in secret and the need to provide reassurance to the public about what is being done in their name. However, we should not rest on our laurels. During the passage of the Bill that became the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which received Royal Assent in July, the Government committed to establishing a board that would provide additional assurance to the public.

Clause 36 provides the Secretary of State with a power to create a privacy and civil liberties board, which will support the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, currently David Anderson. The increased demand for a review of particular aspects of counter-terrorism legislation means that this is a substantial task for one individual to undertake. David Anderson himself has been clear that there is a need for reform of the independent reviewer role. The board will be chaired by the independent reviewer. It will assist, advise and undertake particular duties in support of the independent reviewer’s statutory functions, and expand the capacity and breadth of experience available in our oversight arrangements.

[Diana Johnson]

What is the reason for the name of the board, because it does not seem to fit with the role that the Minister has described? “Privacy and civil liberties board” goes much wider than that.

[Karen Bradley]

I assure the hon. Lady that I will come to that point.

Clause 36 provides for the making of regulations that would set out the detail of the board, including provisions about composition, functions and appointment. These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We can debate, as we are, the precise details of the board’s composition and functions, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration noted when the Bill was in Committee, no one took issue with the principle that establishing such a board would build on the already strong oversight arrangements that exist in this country. I am pleased to say that since that debate took place, the Government have published a consultation paper on the composition, functions and remit of the board. It can be found on the gov.uk website, and copies have been placed in the libraries of both Houses.

I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members, as well as those from outside Parliament with an interest in these matters, to participate in the consultation exercise. We hope that it will elicit a large number of replies covering a wide range of views. The results of the consultation exercise will certainly influence the terms of the regulations. Those regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will cover all the key questions about the board’s composition, remit, powers and functions. Those responding to the consultation will be free to express an opinion on all relevant questions relating to the board. That is why I do not believe that amendment 5 is necessary.

Amendment 3 deals with the board’s functions. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration explained in Committee, the board will fully support the independent reviewer. In doing so, it will provide much needed capacity to allow the reviewer to consider a wider range of areas than it is perhaps currently possible for one individual to undertake. It is therefore right that we ensure that the board’s statutory functions and objectives are in line with those of the role it is designed to support. Should the statutory role of the independent reviewer change in future, we would need to ensure that the board’s role fully reflected that change.

On amendment 4, one of the issues that the consultation covers is the appointment of board members, including those to whom that task should fall and whether there are any prior qualifications that board members should have. It might emerge, for example, that there is strong support for the notion that each board member should represent a particular interest group or category and that that interest group should have a say in the appointment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) asked whether members will be vetted. It will clearly be important that any individuals appointed to the board are provided with an appropriate level of security clearance. The independent reviewer is cleared to see classified information, and if necessary the same will apply to the board members.

[Diana Johnson]

Has the Minister given any thought to whether it would be appropriate for Members of Parliament or Members of the House of Lords to serve on this body?

[Karen Bradley]

I will return to that point in a moment.

I am sure that we will want to ensure that all appointments are made in accordance with best practice, but it seems to me that it would be premature unduly to prescribe the process until we have decided exactly how appointments are made. I think that that applies in this case.

Amendment 2 would change the board’s name. We have been clear that the primary objective of the board is to offer further assurance to the public that careful, independent scrutiny is being given to the UK’s counter-terrorism powers to ensure that, in the face of the threat to the UK, we are getting the balance right and that our legislation and policies have due regard for civil liberty and privacy concerns. The board’s name properly reflects that purpose, and I see no reason to change it.

I am pleased to say that there is no great disagreement within the House on what we are seeking to do. Given the threats that the UK faces, it is a sad necessity that we need a suite of counter-terrorism powers. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in Committee:

“I have always taken the view that without our security we cannot enjoy our civil liberties”.—[Official Report, 15 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1229.]

To return to the point about Members of Parliament, we have no firm views on that question. We are currently consulting on the board’s composition, and we will take all views expressed into consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend has clearly given considerable thought to that matter. We will of course consider all points of view when we look at the responses to the consultation, and the point will be considered at that stage. Does the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) wish to intervene? [Interruption.] He was going to make the same point.

Given the exceptional nature of counter-terrorism powers, it is right that they should be subject to proper oversight and scrutiny. This country has been very well served by the very distinguished individuals who have been independent reviewers, not least the present incumbent, but it is right for us to keep our oversight arrangements under review and be prepared to change them when required. It is worthwhile creating a new board to support the work of the independent reviewer, providing greater capacity in this area and giving the public greater assurance that in framing our legislation we are striking the right balance between privacy and civil liberties.

As I have said, the Government have published a full public consultation inviting comments on the proposals. We will seek to act on the points made in response to the consultation, which covers the composition and functions of the board. I believe that will address most of the issues covered by the amendments. Accordingly, I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw amendment 3.

[Diana Johnson]

There is a question about the board’s name, and I hope that that will be considered in the other place. I am interested to hear about the consultation on its membership. On the basis of what the Minister has said about this group of amendments, I will not press them, but we will want to return to them in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 3.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.



Clause 38

Power to make consequential provision

[Karen Bradley]

I beg to move amendment 12, page 23, line 24, at end insert—

“( ) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must—

(a) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if included in an Act of that Parliament, consult the Scottish Ministers;

(b) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales if included in an Act of that Assembly, consult the Welsh Ministers;

(c) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if included in an Act of that Assembly, consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the relevant devolved administration before making consequential provision by regulations under clause 38 if any of that provision would fall within devolved competence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

It is very nice that the Government have tabled amendment 12, as it is effectively the same amendment that the Opposition tabled in Committee to ensure that there is proper consultation with the devolved Administrations if the Home Secretary introduces changes. We are pleased that the Government have seen the sense of what Labour suggested, and that we can claim a victory on ensuring that there is full consultation. I am happy not to press amendment 1, because Government amendment 12 is exactly what we were trying to achieve.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

As we discuss counter-terrorism for a fifth day, our thoughts are very much on the appalling murders in Paris today. It was not only an appalling attack on journalists and a newspaper office but an attack on free speech, and today all of us can say, “Je suis Charlie”. Given those sickening events, it is pretty hard to discuss counter-terror measures today, but we live in a democracy and we will discuss them. We will not let any terrorist attack deter us from our influence on the matter or how we approach our business.

We are eternally grateful for amendment 12, because it is the beginning of a recognition of Scotland’s distinct responsibilities for measures under the Bill. The Bill asks that we be consulted on competencies for which we are actually responsible. It is not consultation that the Minister requires, it is our consent. We are responsible for delivering those competencies in the Scottish Parliament. We are responsible for education and health, we have a distinct legal system, and we are responsible for the judiciary. The Scottish police force, Police Scotland, is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. We have our own institutions and our own set of responsibilities and competencies. Yes, we are grateful that the UK Government are going to pick up the phone and consult our Ministers, but it is our consent that they require when passing measures under the Bill.

We will agree with the Government on most measures, and I am sure we will get on perfectly well, but we take a different and distinct approach on a number of issues. Of course we do—we have a different culture in Scotland. We do not have the same size of ethnic communities as there are south of the border, and we have a different and distinct approach to community relations. We see and deliver some things very differently from the UK Government.

The vast platform of the Prevent strategy will be administered in Scotland by Scottish public bodies, responsible to the Scottish Parliament and under the guidance of Scottish Ministers. Consultation—great. Thank you ever so much, Home Secretary, for being prepared to consult Scottish Ministers, discuss things with them and maybe even ask their views, but what we need is to give consent. If we are to be realistic about the devolution settlement and the range of responsibilities we have, and if we are talking about the respect agenda, that consent is required. Consultation is certainly not good enough.

Our approach to Prevent is different, of course. We see it more through the lens of safeguarding, with an emphasis on keeping people safe, community cohesion, participative democracy and ensuring that action is consistent with the needs of, and risks to, all our communities.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

Retention of relevant internet data

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 8, page 11, line 3, at end insert—

(iii) any information beyond that which is necessary to allow the identification of the user from the public Internet Protocol address.”

This amendment would make it explicit that the extra data retention provided for in Clause 17 does not extend beyond that which is necessary for the purpose of identifying a user from the IP address. This amendment is not intended to impact on the rest of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, only the extra retention requirements created by Clause 17.

The amendment attempts to clarify the limit of data that may be subject to a retention notice allowed for under clause 17. To put this into context, we need to understand that the Government are attempting in clause 17 to increase the types of metadata that the Secretary of State may require communications service providers to store. The amendment seeks to clarify the limits on what those extra data actually are. The aim of the Government’s proposals is to ensure that CSPs store internet protocol address information: the information required to enable the identification of the device that received a communication from the IP address that received the communication. The Opposition support the principle of what the Government are trying to achieve, and this is the one area of the Government’s ill-fated draft Communications Data Bill for which there was clear evidence and a relative consensus. We agree that this will be a vital and proportionate tool in fighting not only terrorism, but other serious and organised crime, most notably online child abuse.

However, the Opposition have some concerns about how this measure will be implemented, both legislatively and in practice, which is why we have tabled amendment 8. Clause 17 amends the definition of “relevant communications data” for the purposes of section 2 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 and subsequently the meaning of “relevant communications data” within the Data Retention Regulations 2014, which were created under the powers conferred on the Secretary of State under section 1 of DRIPA. This is not perhaps the most straightforward way of implementing change, and it certainly adds to the confusion and suspicion about data retention.

The Minister informed the House in Committee that the Government did not intend to issue new regulations following on from this Bill, because the change in the definition of “relevant communications data” would alter the meaning of the 2014 regulations. So the combination of this primary legislation and the existing secondary legislation is meant to be sufficient to bring about a change in the types of data retained by CSPs. I believe that could create confusion in interpreting the regulations, which is exactly what we want to avoid when we are trying to increase confidence in the use of retained data.

If we look at the definition of “relevant communications data” in the 2014 regulations, we find that such data are specified in the schedule and that they are the same as those in the schedule to the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009. Although the regulations make it clear that section 2 of DRIPA is not being prejudiced, no explicit reference is made.

Would it not be clearer for all concerned if the schedule were updated with clear explanations of what exactly is intended? As I explained in Committee, there are serious issues with the drafting of clause 17, and it contrasts unfavourably with the clear wording currently used in the 2014 regulations. If the Minister is not willing to make that update, will he accept amendment 8, as he agrees with its principle? In Committee, he argued that it was unnecessary, but accepting it would be an important step to achieving clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for raising these important issues. This is a complex and technical area, and I am grateful for the opportunity to return to some of the points that we discussed in Committee. Communications data—the who, where, when and how of a communication but not its content—are a vital tool in the investigation of serious crime, including terrorism, and in safeguarding the public.

The hon. Lady explained that her amendment seeks to limit the scope of the provision to the retention of data that are necessary to allow the identification of a user from a public internet protocol address. She is trying to restrict the provision and to gain clarity, and as I explained in Committee, I do not think there is any difference between us on the principle. It is important that the provision goes only so far as is necessary to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time—in other words, to link person A to person B. At the moment, internet service providers might not be required to retain that level of information. That was the Government’s clear intention when drafting the clause, so the provision is already limited in a way that I believe reflects what the hon. Lady intends.

Subsection (3) restricts the data to be retained to data that might be used to identify or assist in identifying the internet protocol address or other identifier that belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication. Any data that cannot be used to identify or assist in identifying the user of an IP address is already outside the scope of the provision, which deals with a number of the specific points about communications platforms that the hon. Lady highlighted.

I appreciate that the wording in the clause is quite technical, but I want to assure the House that great care has been taken to ensure that the Bill is tightly drafted. In particular, clause 17(3)(c) excludes so-called weblogs, a record of internet communications services or websites a user has accessed. The Bill provides for the retention of data relating to IP resolution and only such data. Anything else is already beyond the scope of what clause 17 permits. It is also important for the House to note that any requirement for communications service providers to retain data under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which the clause amends, may be imposed only where it is necessary and proportionate. Access to that communications data is then subject to robust safeguards, and the UK already has one of the most rigorous systems in the world for safeguarding the acquisition of comms data.

Before such data can be acquired, an application must be made that clearly demonstrates that the request is both necessary and proportionate to the objective of a specific investigation for one of the statutory purposes in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The process is clear and accountable and includes a strong and rigorous system of oversight, which includes the interception of communications commissioner, who must have held high judicial office. Following DRIPA, he will report every six months on the interception of communications data, and of course he regularly inspects all relevant public authorities.

The hon. Lady asked whether we intend to issue new retention notices. The Government will issue new data retention notices to affected communications services providers following the enactment of the legislation. We will also enable law enforcement agencies to resolve a communication to an individual or device, not to ascertain which services or websites an individual has accessed. The data would be considered to be weblog data, as I have said, which is already excluded from the Bill.

A communication can include any message sent over the internet. The legislation relates not to the retention of what the message contained, but purely to the fact that a message was sent, which is the key distinction between comms data and what might be regarded as the interception of a communication. The provision amends the definition contained in DRIPA, not the meaning of the regulations. The definitions in the Act are used in the regulations, so there is no requirement to amend the regulations. Accordingly, I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. If I have any reflections on the detail of the further points that the hon. Lady has highlighted, perhaps I can write to her further. However, with these assurances, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the Minister for going through this very technical part of the Bill. I think it is helpful to have heard that explanation on the Floor of the House. I do not wish to press the amendment any further at this stage, although I think that it might be returned to in the other place, and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

This country is doing its fair share in many different ways through the direct aid that is being provided—£700 million that is directly affecting and benefiting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people—and the asylum that is being granted through the vulnerable persons relocation scheme. We are also working overseas with countries affected to create a long-term settlement of this issue, as well as confronting the organised crime that exploits the vulnerable.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The UK does indeed have a very proud tradition of offering refuge to those in desperate need. The Government’s relocation programme for Syrian refugees was supposed to help orphan children, sexually abused women, victims of torture, and those needing specialist medical treatment. Other European countries are providing this support, with 310 people going to Ireland, 1,000 people going to Norway, and 1,200 people going to Sweden. As the Minister said, in the UK last year only 90 people were accepted. How many victims—specifically, how many orphan children and sexually abused women—will the UK be offering support to this year?

[James Brokenshire]

We remain on track to support several hundred vulnerable individuals over the next three years. The figures underline that. Those who benefit from the scheme are chosen by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, with whom we work in close co-operation. It is therefore the UNHCR that advances and puts forward individual cases based on the vulnerability-type factors that the hon. Lady identified.