Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Lady Hermon

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

We are at the Committee stage of the Bill, looking specifically at the Government’s provisions. Scotland is covered by Prevent. I am concerned that within schedule 3, which lists the bodies that are covered by the duty, there is nothing from Scotland. That worries me. I want to hear from the Minister why that is and what discussions are being held. As the rest of the Bill applies, I assume that there is a gap that needs to be filled.

On Northern Ireland, when the Government introduced the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, they neglected to consult the Northern Ireland Executive. The result is that, after four years, the National Crime Agency still does not have a remit to work in Northern Ireland. I am concerned that we could end up with a similar situation with Prevent and the agenda in Scotland.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady but I just want to correct a tiny detail. The National Crime Agency’s full remit does not extend to Northern Ireland because Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party refused to allow that. It is not about consultation with the rest of the parties or with the Northern Ireland Executive; they all want it. The people of Northern Ireland want it, but two parties are holding the rest of us hostage, so to speak.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that comment and for putting the record straight.

Although clause 38 is not covered by this group, I want to refer to it as it confers upon the Secretary of State the power to make amendments to any piece of legislation that interferes with the operations of the Bill, including Acts of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly. If I have read this correctly, if the Home Secretary thinks, for example, that the setting up of a new type of school in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament is affecting not just the implementation of clause 21 but the specific policies provided for under clause 24, she can change the devolved legislation on its operation. She can even do that without consulting the relevant Government, which is why I have tabled amendment 18, which we will discuss in the next group.

Similar issues exist with the Channel programme. It would be placed on a statutory footing alongside the rest of Prevent. As with Prevent, this is a policy area of enormous importance and the Opposition support efforts to strengthen it. Once again, however, the Government are putting obligations on local authorities without ensuring that there are provisions to make sure that they are fully supported by central Government. Clause 28 provides for the creation of local assessment and support panels in every local authority. According to clause 33, this includes county councils, district councils and unitary authorities in England and Wales. Again it seems that the Government have not yet reached agreement with the Scottish Government on how this would be implemented in Scotland. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point. In addition, the legislation is not clear on which local authorities are meant to have a panel when there are multiple tiers of local government. Does the responsibility rest with district or county councils? What happens where there are unitary authorities and district councils? Has this yet been decided and thought through? The impact assessment says that local authorities will be able to combine to create support panels, but can the Minister explain why that is not provided for in the Bill?

Many panels should already exist and comply with the current guidance provided by the Home Office. Will the Minister tell the Committee how many councils have created these boards and what assessment has been made of their operation? What evidence led the Government to decide that the current system was not working? I have asked parliamentary questions about this in the past, but the Government have refused to give details or even to confirm that a monitoring framework is in place. Will the Minister provide further information about how well these panels are working?

Under clause 28(3), a chief officer of police must make the referral to the local support panel. The current system allows numerous local bodies, including schools, colleges, universities, youth offending teams, local authority troubled families teams, charities and voluntary groups to be able to refer to the police, who can then conduct a screening process. Will the Minister confirm that this process will be allowed to continue, and will he explain why this particular aspect was not put on a statutory footing as well?

My first concern is with the level of expertise that these panels must have, which is why I tabled amendment 21. As provided for in the Bill, local support panels have to assess the individual’s risk of radicalisation and tailor a support package to address those risks. The issues are complex: the current guidance cites 22 vulnerability indicators that may lead to a Channel referral. The panel must weigh up these factors and tailor a support package, which could have any number of elements. In some areas, the panel will be addressing issues it has not faced before, such as sectarian hatred, which can be exacerbated by poorly provided support.

This is why we feel 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. The panel is tasked with assessing the progress the individual makes, but it does not necessarily have the ability to assess the quality of support provided by other agencies, which is why we want the Home Office to assess providers.

The Government have repeatedly claimed to be stepping up efforts to stop Prevent funding going to organisations that could be radicalising people. 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 seems quite reasonable for her to assess them as well. Indeed, it is my understanding that the Home Office, along with regional groups of police forces, do provide this level of support. It is our view that this role should be in the Bill, alongside the responsibilities given to local authorities. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment. We both want to see support working better to provide locally led interventions, but the Home Office needs a stronger role in supporting local authorities.

The second amendment I shall speak to is amendment 22, which seeks to expand the membership of panels provided for under clause 29. At present, the Bill provides for just two statutory members of the panel: the local authority and the local police force. The local authority may, according to the explanatory notes, appoint other members. This contrasts sharply with current best practice as set out in the Home Office guidance, which suggests panels of up to 14 members. We do not think all need to be on every panel, and indeed many of them are part of the local authority, so they could be brought in as and when necessary, but we do think that both probation and health professionals should always be on the panel.

There are two advantages to increasing the expertise on the panel. First, the panel will be in a better position to assess the 22 vulnerability indicators that I mentioned and to make a correct decision. Secondly, it ensures that more of the bodies that will provide the support have a role in determining that support. If we look at the existing guidance, we find that it may include: life skills, anger management, cognitive and behavioural contact, health awareness contact and drug and alcohol awareness. Each of those categories would obviously need to be tailored, and would come with a cost. We therefore think it is important for probation and health professionals to be included as statutory members of the panel.

Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Debate between Diana Johnson and Lady Hermon

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

As I just said, we are interested in trying to deal with crimes such as human trafficking, financial fraud and the serious organised crimes that go across borders, which are not about what is happening in the UK but are Europe-wide and global. We should make sure that we have procedures in place to ensure co-operation where it is useful.

The three main aims of the reforms are, as we understand it, to increase democratic accountability to member states’ legislatures; to increase efficiency through more streamlined management structures; and to improve EU member states’ effectiveness in the increasingly globalised fight against organised crime. All are laudable aims with which I am sure we all agree. Equally laudable is the aim of increasing our effectiveness in tackling cross-border crime. The Government’s current objections can be divided into those that need working through, which we recognise, and those that, I suggest, appear to be spurious.

The major change, and the one that we recognise poses the biggest challenge, is the appointment of the national member. Under the proposed reform, member states will second a national member—a prosecutor, judge or police officer—to work full time at Eurojust. Member states will grant national members the power to fulfil the task conferred on them by the Eurojust regulation. That means national members, once appointed, will bear responsibility for ensuring that their member states co-operate with Eurojust, including through legal assistance, information exchanges, liaising with international bodies and assisting in joint investigation teams. National members, working with other competent authorities from member states, will also:

“a) order investigative measures;

b) authorise and coordinate controlled deliveries in the Member State in accordance with national legislation.”

The Opposition accept that the appointment of national members represents a big step up for the role of Eurojust. We fully recognise that it is not acceptable for the national member to be in a position of oversight over the UK criminal justice system. I reiterate that we do not support any move to cede prosecuting powers to the EU, either to the EPPO or through some mechanism of Eurojust. However, we would like to see the Government attempt to reconcile those proposals with the current set-up in our criminal justice system.

The Government appear concerned that, as currently formulated, the proposals could allow Eurojust to order investigations, or even prosecutions, that duplicate efforts already under way in the UK. Prosecutions in the UK of course require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, while investigation of most of the crimes listed in annex 1 are the responsibility of the newly formed National Crime Agency. Perhaps the Minister will explain what work is being done to look at the possibility of drawing the national member from one of those bodies and work on the basis of a memorandum of understanding to ensure that the UK retains sovereignty over our systems while improving cross-border co-operation. As has been mentioned, special arrangements will need to be put in place for Scotland.

[Lady Hermon]

Unfortunately, special arrangements will also have to be considered for Northern Ireland, because the National Crime Agency’s jurisdiction cannot be extended in full to Northern Ireland as a result of opposition from two parties, Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party. It is most unfortunate indeed.

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Lady is right that the National Crime Agency does not cover Northern Ireland. I am grateful to her for reminding me.

The Commission envisages a special relationship between the EPPO and Eurojust, as I mentioned at the beginning and as the Minister set out. Of course we need to ensure that countries that are not involved in the EPPO—it is clear that the UK will not be, and others have already declared that they will be opting out—can still enjoy the co-operation of Eurojust without being drawn into the EPPO, which we all agree is a bad idea.

The Opposition have less sympathy for some of the other concerns that the Minister put forward, particularly his concern about the European convention on human rights. It might be helpful if he explained that a little more. Our major concern remains that the Government seem prepared to allow the rest of Europe to go along with these matters without us being at the table.