Eurojust

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Nick Hurd

Monday 14th January 2019 General Committees

[Mr Hurd]

I am struck that there appears to be a level of cross-party consensus on this matter that I have yet to witness in the main Chamber on Brexit. I welcome that. Underlying that is, I think, a recognition that no party or Member of Parliament wants to risk losing capability when it comes to security and the No. 1 priority of any Government, which is the enforcement of the law and the protection of our citizens. I welcome both sets of questions and the recognition of the positive decision to opt in and of the wider agenda to try to secure a security partnership that, as far as possible, maintains our existing capabilities. That is our explicit objective.

The hon. Member for Torfaen asked about planning for the next phase. At the moment, as he would expect, the immediate priority is planning for a no-deal scenario, because the risks have risen and the consequences are potentially severe in terms of loss of capability. He will understand and I hope appreciate that the priority of the Government is to prioritise no-deal planning, not least an agreement on Eurojust or any of the other co-operation mechanisms on security, so that we have more time to establish that. A green light and a signal from the Commission is also required to start to engage in the negotiations, and, for reasons we understand, that has yet to materialise. It is fair to say, if the starting point is a standard third country agreement, that we would hope to do better than that.

I make the same point as I do in the context of Europol, for example, where there are some parallels by virtue of our long history inside the agencies and our weight within them. I gave data that made it clear how important we were in Eurojust, in terms of both requests for support and requests for support from other states, and in Europol we are the second biggest contributor of data. We start those conversations with, “What does the deal look like after we leave? Are we third country or third country plus?” We will argue for third country plus. I have spoken to a number of interior Ministers on this journey, and it is clear to me, certainly in the case of Europol, that there is a clear desire for as much continuity as possible, in recognition of the weight and the important value that the UK adds to those agencies.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East raised an extremely important point about whether we can do this and how consistent it is with the withdrawal agreement. Our position is that we can. As noted by the Committee, article 127(4) provides that the UK,

“shall not participate in any enhanced cooperation in relation to which authorisation was granted after the date of entry into force of this Agreement”.

However, article 4 of the opt-in protocol provides that the procedure for approval set out in article 331 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union on enhanced co-operation applies mutatis mutandis to the UK opt-in request. Therefore, the UK may only opt in if the Commission or Council approves the request. Here is the essence of it: article 4 uses the process set out in article 331, but this does not in itself constitute enhanced co-operation. We therefore consider that article 127(4) of the withdrawal agreement would not affect the operation of article 4 of the opt-in protocol. That is our understanding and we believe that is the understanding of the Commission; we are just waiting for that in writing, but it forms the basis of why we are proceeding as we are.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East asked about timing. Assuming there is an implementation period, our interpretation is that the Commission has four months to confirm the UK’s request to participate in the Eurojust regulations. That would obviously take us into the period after 31 March, but, for the reasons that I have set out, we think that what we propose is entirely valid, and that, in our view, is the view of the Commission as well.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I want to pick up points raised by all three contributors, and especially to echo my colleague on the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Luton North, and to pick up two of the points made by the Committee in the summary of its conclusions on page 5, paragraph 1.18.

I am grateful to the Minister for his letter, which arrived over the weekend. First, how will operational co-operation differ in practice once we have left? How will it compare with the UK’s current level of co-operation with Eurojust? He has touched on that point, but if he can expand on his comments, I would be grateful. Secondly, will opting in make it more likely that we will secure better terms than other third countries once EU law ceases to apply? If he could address those two points, I would be grateful.

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for those additional questions. I welcome his contribution and, indeed, the Committee’s scrutiny of the process and the calling of the debate. It is extremely important that these decisions and processes are scrutinised properly and that the Executive are held to account, particularly at this pivotal, highly emotive stage of the negotiations and the reshaping of our relationship with our European partners.

The key word here is “co-operation”. We are seeking to maximise continuity, and these are co-operation mechanisms that work. They are valued by our partners and are an integral part of our collective effort to protect our citizens and pursue justice. We have invested a lot of time and money over the years in building these mechanisms, and it is our shared desire to continue them. That is my experience from direct conversations with other interior Ministers. I have yet to meet one who does not want to continue the way we are. Obviously, politics might override that in the short term; none of us can know how this will work out. In seeking to opt in, the UK Government’s primary motive is to seek continuity in the existing arrangements. We recognise that if we opted out, we would be out, and we feel that the opportunity costs of that are too high.

My hon. Friend and others asked about operational co-operation on standard third country terms and about what that might look like in the future. Our White Paper, published in July 2018, outlined that if the UK’s participation in Eurojust were limited to the existing third country terms, there would be a reduced capability for the UK and the EU to co-operate in tackling serious cross-border and organised crime. We would have a reduced role in operational activity at Eurojust, and there would be limitations to the extent to which Crown Prosecution Service and Crown Office prosecutors could work with and at Eurojust.

It would not be a disaster—other areas of our security participation toolkit would be more damaged by our being limited to third country status—but our starting point is that we should try to maintain, as far as possible, the capabilities that we have, because that is where we have a mutual interest with our European partners. We will therefore go into these negotiations with a determination to move beyond standard third country status. We are not a standard third country: we helped to build these platforms, we helped to fund them and we are core to their success. That will be the core of our argument to the Commission as and when we get to that point.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Nick Hurd

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Bryant]

When I was re-reading the Second Reading debate last night and remembered that the hon. Gentleman had joined the Committee, I thought it was just as well that he joined very late. Otherwise, he would have tabled an amendment to that effect, we would be debating it this morning, and I would have had to prepare for it.

The exegesis is simply that I was initially hopeful of a two-year maximum sentence on indictment. Obviously, in nearly every—in fact, in all—other cases, the sentence in a magistrates court is six months on summary conviction. That is what I had assumed that we would be proceeding with, but the Government were keener to go to 12 and 12. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer on that point later. I am enormously grateful for the support that the Government have given in making sure that the legislation is in good shape. There have been some tussles along the way, and we may want to return to the issue of sentence length on Report. I think there is still an argument for a maximum of two years for an offence, but others argue that that would be disproportionate when there are other offences that one could be convicted of that would attract sentences of anything between two and five years. Some people are arguing that that might be a more sensible route to go down when seeking to prosecute.

The new offence in clause 1 also applies to those who are off duty when they are performing the functions that they would have been performing if they were on duty. That is an important provision. Legislation in Scotland is similar but is far more complicated and difficult to use in prosecutions, and there have been instances where that has been used effectively as a loophole. It is also important to say that, as with all such legislation, the offence is not retrospective.

The second provision in clause 2 is the new aggravated offence in relation to seven sections of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and manslaughter, kidnapping and ancillary offences. I am glad to say that those ancillary offences cover quite a broad range of those who might be caught. This particular provision has taken the model of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which created an aggravated offence originally in relation to those perpetrating an offence in relation to somebody’s sexual orientation or their disability, and was subsequently amended to include whether the victim was or was presumed to be transgender. That is a good parallel because, although it does not necessarily increase the maximum sentence available, it means that the court has to state the fact that this is an aggravated offence in open court. That will be of some comfort to quite a lot of emergency workers who have gone to court and seen the person get a minimal sentence with no reference to the fact that this was an aggravated offence. Secondly, it means the court has to consider that as increasing the seriousness of the offence.

I have heard people say that the court already has lots of other means of assessing aggravated elements of the seriousness of an offence, but those vary enormously from things such as the time of day to the vulnerability of the person and the venue and so on. It is important that we put this at least on a par with the provisions of the 2003 Act. Again, it would not apply retrospectively.

I hope that all hon. Members will support the inclusion of the two offences.

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I join the hon. Member for Rhondda in saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan, I think for the first time in my case. If you will indulge me, may I also place on the record my admiration for the success that the hon. Gentleman has had so far with the Bill? Unfortunately, I could not attend Second Reading, so I could not place on the record my genuine admiration for his work. He is characteristically modest in describing himself as the midwife of the Bill, although I join him in congratulating the hon. Member for Halifax on her tireless work. Her speech on Second Reading was extremely powerful in helping to explain through human anecdote why such a Bill is necessary. I also join the hon. Member for Rhondda in congratulating the other sponsors of the Bill.

Having sat in the hon. Gentleman’s shoes and taken a private Member’s Bill through in my first Parliament, I also congratulate him on how he has managed the process and resisted many temptations and invitations to add baubles to the Christmas tree that is this Bill. The reality of these situations is that the more baubles you add to the tree, the more likely it is to fall over. This tree stands proud before us today because it has the right number of baubles on it, which is in large amount due to the discipline of the hon. Gentleman in seeking to pursue a Bill that is simple and coherent. He has done that and I congratulate him on it. That in large part explains why the Government are pleased to support the Bill, not least because it sends a clear message that assaults on emergency workers will not be tolerated.

As the hon. Gentleman made clear in his remarks, clause 1 creates a new form of common assault where the assault is on an emergency worker. An offence committed under those circumstances will be triable either way and will have on indictment a maximum penalty of 12 months in prison. That is double the current maximum penalty for the existing offence of assault. The new offence provides increased protection under the law for emergency workers who may be assaulted in the course of their day-to-day work.

Such increased protection will also extend to situations where an emergency worker is not at work, but acts as if he or she was—for example, when an off-duty firefighter rescues someone from a burning building. The offence will sit alongside the existing common law offences of assault and battery but will be targeted at assaults against emergency workers. In the case of a more serious assault against such a worker, the existing offences of actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm are likely to apply.

It is worth reiterating why we are creating a new form of common assault when perpetrated against an emergency worker.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am sure the Minister heard my intervention. Perhaps he is answering it in his own way by explaining about other offences that sit alongside this one, but I wonder if he would directly address my point. I believe it is unusual for there to be exactly the same length of sentence for an offence that is tried summarily as for one that is tried on indictment. It may be that he is already answering that point, but I would press him slightly further on whether there is a specific explanation why the six-month and two-year sentences initially proposed have not found favour with Her Majesty’s Government.

Steel: Preserving Sustainable Jobs and Growth in Europe

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Nick Hurd

Tuesday 7th February 2017 General Committees

[Mr Hurd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions. He opened with a humble suggestion—experienced Ministers know that those are the most dangerous. I will, in the same spirit, take what he said on board and feed it to my Secretary of State, whom I am seeing after this Committee, because we have a meeting with the steel sector trade unions. I make that undertaking.

On the energy costs, the assurance the hon. Member for Aberavon is seeking is one that I gave on the Floor of the House at departmental questions the other day. As he knows, we have made a commitment on compensation. We have made it quite clear that we want to move to an exemption-type scheme. He knows because he is well informed, but that process is taking longer than we expected and wanted. We will therefore continue with compensation until that is worked through. I have made that undertaking on the Floor of the House and it stands, because we totally understand the need for consistency and visibility. I hope that that is reasonably clear.

On the broader challenge, I genuinely welcome the APPG report. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it feeds into what I hope is quite a deep collaborative set of conversations between Government and leaders of the steel sector about its future. Those leaders have embraced the challenge we have set, which was that we need to move on from the language of survival, sticking plasters and muddling through, to a situation in which we have politicians and society recognising the steel sector for what it needs to be, which is an incredibly important foundation sector and part of a dynamic and valuable national supply chain. They bind to that, and the process that we are working through is informed by the capability study we funded and input such as the APPG report. That will all feed into, I hope—if the right spirit and rigour are in place—some form of sector deal in which Government and industry can set out their mutual commitment to some form of agreed common goal. That is an exciting process and I hope he welcomes it. We welcome his contribution.

In that context, and going back to what I was saying, the hon. Gentleman and the report are quite right to identify that the issue of energy costs is now a complex one. We have to move from where we are now. After a lot of sticking plasters have been applied, we still have a gap. As he said, the factors determining that are complex and relate to wholesale energy costs, our energy mix and network costs. They also relate in part to ongoing policy commitments. We need to take a bit of time and work with people who have an interest and expertise in this area, so that we thoroughly investigate all our options.

As the hon. Gentleman might expect, the Department has done a lot of work in this area, but it needs to be sweated a bit harder. Our commitment is to publishing a road map later this year to show what our strategy is. That will be informed by the review that we are setting up, which is, in part, an external challenge relating to our processes and work. This issue is of such importance that it requires a structure and process around it that leads to a strategy that is more long term than the sticking-plaster approach we have taken until now. That has not got us to where we need to be, in respect of having a level playing field for this sector and others—this is not just about the steel sector—that are, quite rightly, pushing us hard.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I want to pick up the point about the automotive sector specifically and the 10% tariffs. The hon. Member for Aberavon said that our Prime Minister—not this Minister—said that no deal was better than a bad deal. However, does the Minister agree that the best way to get a worse deal is by saying that we want a deal at any cost? Specifically on tariffs, the value of the pound has dropped by some 15% since 26 June. Therefore, in the automotive industry there is still a 5% net even on 10% tariffs. Nobody wants tariffs—we all want free trade—but we can surely go into negotiations in the knowledge that we are already 5% better off.

[Mr Hurd]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The only thing I would add is that currencies move. Therefore, this is not necessarily a structural shift that we can rely on. It has provided some relief and some offset not only for the auto sector, but for the steel sector, as hon. Members who represent steel seats, if I can put I that way, are well aware. The message that I get from chief executives of steel companies is, “Yes, it is helping.” The picture is complicated because some input prices have increased, but either way, we cannot rely on that completely as the long-term solution for the steel sector. The sector is facing other big, structural issues, not least the massive, deep-seated problem of structural overcapacity, which we have to address. Arguably, that is even bigger and more fundamental than the issues raised by Brexit.