EU Referendum: UK-Ireland Border

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate is due to finish at 5.30 pm. I shall call the first of the Front Benchers to speak at 5.7 pm. The Scottish National party has five minutes, Her Majesty’s Opposition five minutes and the Minister 10 minutes, and then Dr Alasdair McDonnell has three minutes at the end to sum up the debate. Five people are standing, so I am afraid it will be a time limit of three minutes each, if we are all to get in—

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The hon. Lady from the Social Democratic and Labour party had withdrawn voluntarily, so that is four Members to speak. We will go for a time limit of four minutes. Sammy Wilson will be the first to show us how it is done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) on making the debate possible as this issue has been debated across these islands. I welcome the Minister to his new position. For the record, I declare an interest, in that I am an officer of the all-party group on the Irish in Britain. I speak in the debate not only as an MP representing a Scottish constituency with a large Irish diaspora but as someone with Irish grandparents—a common occurrence for those of us in the west of Scotland.

From a Scottish perspective, during the European Union referendum campaign, the messages those of us on the remain side from across the usual party political divide conveyed were of the many economic and social benefits of being a member of the European Union and how best our country and our people can interact with our neighbours across that Union. Critically, free moment of people and goods are, and continue to be, important benefits, and ones that affect many of my constituents. I have no doubt that that was one of the contributing factors that led to such a large vote to remain, not only in my constituency but across the nation of Scotland.

The status of EU nationals living in this country must be urgently addressed to reassure those living, working and paying their taxes that their future is secure. While the issues facing Scotland and the status of EU nationals can be appreciated in Northern Ireland, the fact that the Province shares a border with a European Union country opens up a new layer of complex issues.

[Ms Ritchie]

On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the free movement of goods, services and people is vital to a sound economic base on the island of Ireland, both north and south, and also between Ireland and Britain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) South for bringing this important issue for debate. Despite the somewhat negative view, we must look at Northern Ireland and where we are. There are two sides to this very honest debate between those who feel that Brexit will create problems and those who feel that it will create opportunities. I am one of those guys who thinks that we can get lots of opportunities out of this. That is the point of view from which I see it, and that is where I will come from.

As an example, tourism is one of Northern Ireland’s great success stories over the last period of time. The economy has grown on the back of tourism as well as many other things, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said. Tourism revenue rose to £325 million, with some 2.1 million visitors in a year. Many of those visitors come from the Republic of Ireland up, and they come through customs in the Republic of Ireland. Whatever the system of agreed custom controls may be between Northern Ireland and the Republic, is there anything to say that they will not come through that? There is nothing whatsoever. If they have made the effort to come to Ireland and to come north, they will do the same again. I do not see any reasons why that should not continue.

We have had some high-profile events, including the £77 million Titanic Belfast and the Giant’s Causeway visitor centre, and the Gran Fondo Giro d’Italia took place in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). There are cruise liners to Ulster shores that come regularly down to Strangford—to Mount Stewart, to Greyabbey and down the Ards peninsula—to explore. Lots of people come to take advantage of that and I cannot see that changing; why would that change?

Another area of cross-border connectivity is Northern Ireland’s electrical grid. Let us look at some of the connections we already have. There are three cross-border interconnectors with the Republic of Ireland. The main one, between Tandragee and Louth, has a capacity of 1,200 MW. We are also connected to the national grid of the island of Great Britain by the Moyle interconnector. Those are just two examples of connections between the two nations. We also have interconnector gas pipelines with the Republic’s gas supplier, Bord Gáis, which provides gas directly.

Those are things that are working and I do not see any reason why they would not happen, because all of those involved have good economic relations. That connection has been in place since 2005 when the gas company from down south made its first connection, with others in 2006 and 2007.

There are people who use the route across to access the Republic of Ireland for jobs and those who come shopping. Is there anything to indicate that those things will not continue? People will still come across the border to work and they will still come across to shop regularly.

Sometimes we need to look at some of the things that have happened. One of my constituents witnessed a people-smuggling operation coming back from Dublin to Belfast. He contacted the Garda Síochána and the guards arrested 50 people, who were taken away in Transit vans. There is an example of what can work because two countries want to see the system working. Criminal gangs and illegal migrants may attempt to use Northern Ireland as a route into the rest of the United Kingdom, but that is an issue that can and will be addressed.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim mentioned customs. Vehicle recognition makes it easier to travel between Belfast and Dublin and it is very possible that that can continue. The Secretary of State will try to get the best possible deal for Northern Ireland and I believe that we can have that.

[Ms Ritchie]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Shannon]

No. I welcome the fact that the devolved regions are to be given a voice in that process and I am confident that the Northern Ireland Executive will stand up for Northern Ireland in that to ensure that Northern Ireland outside of the EU will be an outstanding success.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I welcome the Minister to his new portfolio—I am sure it will not be a boring time for him. I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) for bringing this very important debate to the House, because it is our friends and neighbours in Northern Ireland who may be facing the greatest uncertainty from the vote to leave the EU. The 56% vote across Northern Ireland to remain has been mentioned and, with the prospect of a hardening border with Ireland, there will be many disappointed souls across the Irish sea. As the hon. Gentleman said, the referendum has certainly provided the wrong answer to a question that was not wanted in the first place.

I appreciate that some steps have already been taken to address issues around the common travel area.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) on securing the debate. Does she agree that there is an urgent need on the part of the Government to provide guarantees about the common travel area and the free movement of goods, services and people on the island of Ireland, which is central to our economy and pivotal to it?

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing up those points, which I will certainly address in my speech.

I appreciate that some steps have been taken to address those issues. The new Secretary of State, in a written answer last week, told me that senior civil servants from the UK and Ireland have already met to discuss it and to plan a way ahead. That is heartening news that is much to be welcomed, because, as I think everyone recognises, the damaging effects of a hard border on the economy of Northern Ireland would be substantial. However, as the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) highlighted in their excellent speeches, even if the CTA is protected, the free movement of goods around the island and across the border will remain an issue of contention and of extreme importance to the economies either side of that border.

I applaud the Irish Government’s moves to try to get some answers on the issue ahead of the Brexit negotiations—particularly the Taoiseach’s attempts to persuade the German Chancellor of the importance of the issue. I also appreciate that the Chancellor was not in a position to give any assurances and that she will hold her counsel until we are deep into negotiations. Will the Minister give us any indication that the Government are taking the issue seriously, and perhaps give some indication on whether there is likely to be any discussion with the Stormont Executive and with the Irish Government about the free movement of goods as well as the free movement of people? Has the Minister discussed with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union the special circumstances in Northern Ireland? Have the legacy issues been raised with the Brexit ministerial team, so that the issues are clear in their mind when they go into negotiations with the EU?

On the comments by Enda Kenny at the MacGill Summer School in Donegal about a possible border poll, is the Secretary of State talking to the Irish Government about that possibility? I understand he is opposed to such a poll and has been clear that he will not call it, but there are circumstances, delineated in the Good Friday agreement, that would force him to. Will the Minister tell us whether contingency planning is taking place for all of the possible outcomes of that nudge towards a poll? For example, does he support the convening of a council of all concerned, so that it can be discussed around a table rather than in newspaper headlines?

The Secretary of State is only a few days into the job and it will not be an easy place to occupy for the foreseeable future—I almost feel sorry for him—but we need to get running. The important consideration in all of this will be the people. How does this affect the people of Northern Ireland and how does it affect their ability to make an income? The people and the economy will have to be front and centre all the way through this and we need to hear clear and definite responses from the ministerial team on how they intend to take this forward, what immediate plans they have and where they think the arrows are pointing. As the hon. Member for Belfast South said, “the detail is missing”. As I said earlier, I welcome the Minister to the job and look forward to hearing his answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Alasdair McDonnell]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for your great courtesy to all of us. May I also thank the Minister for his extensive reply? It is but the beginning.

[Ms Ritchie]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we are now in a unique situation in that Northern Ireland is being taken against our will out of the European Union while the other part of the island—Ireland—will remain part of it? That is the issue that presents difficulty for us.

[Dr McDonnell]

I agree with my colleague that there is potentially a pulling apart and a disconnect here; I certainly share that anxiety. We should all work and do all we can to ensure that this does not do too much damage.

My point is that if we fail to plan, we plan to fail. This situation has to be managed meticulously, in the finer detail. My sense over the last week was that in the light of the referendum, there were little or no plans in Whitehall. I mean no disrespect to anybody, because the vote to leave was not the expected result, but there was no negotiation strategy. There was not even a negotiating team.

Persecution of Religious Minorities: Middle East

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered persecution of religious minorities in the Middle East and its effect on the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank all hon. Members who have made the effort to come to Westminster Hall on such a lovely day. I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), in her place and look forward to her contribution. I congratulate the Minister on his elevation to his new post and very much look forward to his response to the debate. When he held other ministerial posts, we held him in high esteem. We still do, and we look forward to hearing a comprehensive response, like those he has given us previously in reply to other matters.

The persecution of religious minorities in the middle east and its effect on the UK is a massive issue. It is one that we are greatly concerned about and one that we want to debate fully. I speak as chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, in the knowledge that this human right—a right for all—is key to stability in the middle east. I shall talk about that freedom in the middle east and the effect on the UK. I make this speech very much on behalf of my Christian brothers and sisters who live in the middle east. They have been persecuted over many years and their numbers have been greatly reduced. Other Members present will be aware of that and may wish to address it in their contributions.

While we watch, and are deeply saddened by, the recent horrific terrorist attacks that have rocked the world—in Nice, Dhaka, Medina, Baghdad and Istanbul, among other places—we must continue to bear in mind those throughout the middle east whose lives have been radically changed forever. We think especially of people in Syria and Iraq. In Syria, 1 million Christians have been displaced and dispersed all over the world. Just on Sunday past, I was talking to a gentleman from Canada who told me that Canada has taken in 30,000 Syrians, many of them Christians. Other countries around the world have also taken in Syrians. Many of those 30,000 will never return home; they will be settled in Canada and wish never to go back to their home country.

We are very aware of the situation in Iraq, which is one of those countries in which Christians are a small minority. Where do they feature in an Iraq where Christians are attacked or murdered and their churches destroyed? They are under a lot of pressure when it comes to education and employment. The Iraq displacement tracking matrix found that, between January 2014 and 22 June 2016, there were more than 3.3 million internally displaced individuals—more than 550,000 families—dispersed across 100 districts in Iraq. Such has been the impact of the persecution of Christians and religious minorities in the middle east. I shall also discuss other religious minorities, because so many people are displaced and/or under pressure.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on an issue that is so very important, not only to us parliamentarians and the wider community, but to Christian communities in the middle east. Does he agree that we would like the Minister to say in his response that the Government will utilise all their diplomatic and trade links to protect religious minorities from persecution?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for pre-empting a later part of my speech. When we give aid to countries around the world, we need to ensure that it goes fairly to all people in those countries. We have previously debated spending by the Department for International Development, and I want to make it clear that we support that spending and the commitment to spending 0.7% of GNI on foreign aid.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He has raised the very important point that we need to adhere to that 0.7% commitment. Does he hope that the Government will continue to adhere to that principle?

[Jim Shannon]

In a previous debate, the Government committed to that 0.7% spend. We see a lot of good coming off the back of that, so why should we not do it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman has given some examples that he is aware of, and I thank him for that.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way once again. This debate and this issue in particular raise article 9 of the Human Rights Act. In that regard, does he agree that the championing and protection of human rights in the UK are vital if we are to protect those same values in other countries, particularly in the middle east?

[Jim Shannon]

All the hon. Lady’s interventions have been applicable to the issues, and I thank her for that. It gives us a focus. I am conscious of time, Mr Stringer, so I will try to head on.

Despite the systematic persecution of religious or belief groups in Iraq—some expert bodies think that the situation with the Yazidis amounts to genocide; I think that, too, as do many others in the House—the UK’s Gateway, Children at Risk and Mandate resettlement schemes have helped only a few hundred in the past year or so. While some Iraqis may fit all the criteria under the current Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, they are not eligible for asylum in the UK because they are not Syrian nationals.

The all-party group that I chair is urgently calling for a modest expansion of the Syrian scheme to create an Iraqi vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. That would permit Iraqis who fit the current vulnerability criteria and are recommended by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to be made eligible for asylum in the UK. That would be a small change and a small number, but it would be a significant move that would enable those subject to persecution to have an opportunity. In the wake of the Chilcot report, the UK cannot absolve itself from assisting Iraqis. Prioritising Iraqis alongside Syrians for resettlement in the UK is the least we can do. Daesh does not discriminate depending on whether individuals are Iraqi or Syrian, and neither should we.

Finally, the all-party group’s latest report, “Fleeing Persecution: Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom Grounds”, which I referred to a few moments ago, highlights what happens when individuals who have been persecuted for their religion or belief reach the UK and claim asylum, and the lack of understanding and misperceptions of religion and belief among decision makers working in the UK asylum system. We are trying to be constructive. We are not pointing the finger or trying to be nasty. We want to point out where constructive changes could be made to help the system and those people who have every cause to be here and can no longer live in their own country. In religious persecution cases, Home Office caseworkers have often based their decision on whether an asylum seeker is genuine on quick internet searches, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said, on informal staff-made crib sheets and, in the case of Christians, on Bible trivia questions including, “What colour is the Bible?” It could be black, white or red. Does it matter what colour it is, for goodness’ sake? What is in the Bible is what matters. The word that it contains is the important issue. I sometimes wonder how these things happen. Such methods limit the capacity to differentiate between individuals who are genuinely part of a religious community facing persecution and those who have learnt the “correct” answers, as has already been referred to. Misinterpretation also plays a large role in the errors occurring in such cases. I urge the Home Office to recognise its genuine shortcomings and equip itself with well-trained staff and suitable translators to ensure a fair hearing of all cases.

I hope that the Minister agrees with the importance of addressing persecution in the middle east in both short and long-term strategies so that we in this House can, in conjunction with our partners abroad, secure the most stable world possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the other Members of this House and of the other place who sat on the Committee and did an excellent job of producing a well-thought-through and careful report. We will of course carefully consider the issue of definition. We are looking at all three of the reports from the Science and Technology Committee, the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Joint Committee and we will make revised Bill proposals in due course.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

On the specific issue of private businesses, will the Home Secretary outline what recent discussions she and her Ministers have had on that subject with the devolved Administrations?

[Mrs May]

Discussions with the devolved Administrations have gone on throughout the preparation of the draft Bill. They have continued and will continue, as will discussions between Ministers and officials with companies and private businesses.

Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Lady is right. Voting for the motion does not mean an ever closer union—that issue is still under negotiation with the Prime Minister and the rest of the EU—but it does mean helping us to fight terrorism and serious and organised crime. I hope that she will vote with the Government on this occasion, as I am sure she has done on many other occasions since she came to the House.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

My right hon. Friend is making a compelling argument. We all, including those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, want issues of cross-border crime to be dealt with and eliminated. Does he agree, however, that data protection must not be sacrificed and that civil liberties must be protected?

[Keith Vaz]

I do agree with that, but I am reassured by what the Home Secretary has said about the creation of the oversight board, and the fact that information about those on the database who have not committed criminal offences will not be shared.

That brings me to an important point. I am getting confused with all these various databases, so I asked the Library which databases on criminal and terrorist links are available and could be shared with the rest of the EU. It came up with an awesome list of databases that contain hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of names. The police national computer holds a number of pieces of information—11,559,157 names. There is the Police National Database; ViSOR; the DNA database, which currently holds 5,094,325 names; Semaphore, which is about to be improved because the Home Office announced an extra £25 million to improve its capability; and the Warnings Index, which is also capable of improvement—I will make reference to this—because we heard recently that it is not as effective as it ought to be in tracking those who come into this country. We do not know how many are on the Warnings Index, of course, because it is confidential. Again, we do not know the numbers on the Watch lists database, but it is still of interest. As far as the European Union is concerned, there is the second generation Schengen information system, SIS II, the Europol information system and the Interpol database. Again, we do not know how many names are on those databases.

We are talking about an awful lot of databases. When the Minister comes to wind up, it would be very helpful if he told the House which of the UK databases will be subject to this decision and which of the European and international databases—it may be all of them—are also going to be part of the decision we make today. I support what the Government are doing, but it is nice to have clarity for those who think that every single bit of information ever collected about a British citizen will be made available.

My concern is the security of the border, especially after the events in Paris. I believe the decision of the Government will help us to track people who leave this country and end up in the European Union; people like Trevor Brooks and Simon Keeler, who on Wednesday 18 November were arrested at Hungary’s border with Romania. One of them was subject to a Home Office ban, but managed to leave the country, cross our borders and go into the rest of the EU. On Sunday, The Sunday Telegraph reported that a senior Daesh fundraiser, Mohammed Khaled, who was under a strict counter-terrorism order, managed to flee the United Kingdom to join jihadists in Syria. As we have heard in the media, one of the Paris attackers, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, was wanted for previous offences in Europe but managed to travel to Syria and back without detention.

The problem—I put this to the Home Secretary when I intervened—is our European colleagues not putting suspects’ names on the databases as soon as they become people of interest. It is very important that they do so. If suspects cross borders and we want to know where they are, it is important that they are on the database in the first place. The Greek ambassador gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee two weeks ago. He lamented that in the case of one of those involved in the Paris attacks, even though the French decided this individual was a person of interest, his name had not been put on the database. When he crossed the border between Turkey and Greece it was not possible for his name to be flagged up on the system, so they were unable to alert the French. We therefore want to be sure that this happens as quickly as possible. We welcome the speed of the new arrangements; I think the Home Secretary said 15 minutes as opposed to two-and-a-half months, which sounds absolutely incredible. That is fine, but the names have to go on the database in the first place.

Only yesterday, the head of Europol, Rob Wainwright, said there was a “black hole of information” that hampered co-operation on counter-terrorism. He mentioned the fact that fewer than half the foreign fighters identified by national counter-terrorism authorities are registered in our system, which is meant to provide a basic cross-European data check. As we know, 18 million or so people are not part of the passenger name recognition system that the Home Secretary has been battling away—I think for all the years she has been Home Secretary—to get the rest of the European Union signed up to. The fact is that just one person coming into our country who we do not know affects the security of our borders.

We should take the head of the Europol at his word and try to assist those international organisations. A few years ago, the Committee suggested the creation of an international counter-terrorism platform as part of Interpol. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. Interpol and Europol have a great deal of information and data, and we should be building on what they have got. That is why I am pleased that on 1 January Europol will be launching the EU’s counter-terrorism centre, which will help us enormously in the fight against terrorism.

Finally, I turn to the European arrest warrant, which is not the subject of the debate but to which right hon. and hon. Members have referred. The Committee, in successive reports, has pointed to real problems with the EAW. It is a great idea, but there are technicalities that cause problems for British citizens, and we should be extremely careful about taking the view that signing up to these agreements means that everything will be all right. We need to monitor carefully what is being suggested, and if, for any reason, we need to change our involvement, we should do so.

Wilson Doctrine

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

At the heart of this debate is the concern that the confidentiality between Members and our constituents should not be undermined. That is the nub of this debate and why this issue is so crucial.

In the past 10 years, there have been two instances that, strictly, did not come within the Wilson doctrine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) found that a conversation he had with a prisoner in prison had been recorded secretly by the authorities. That was totally unacceptable. Understandably, concern was expressed not only by my right hon. Friend, but by many other Members of this House. The other occasion, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) mentioned, was when the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) had his Commons and constituency office searched by the police. I want to make it clear that that was not seen at the time as any sort of party issue. The right hon. Member for Ashford is not a member of my party, but I was among those who said that what had occurred was totally unacceptable. The police had no warrant and should not have been allowed to search his Commons and constituency office: just imagine if that were to happen all over again. This is indeed a very important issue.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important for Northern Ireland MPs to be able to ensure the protection of all our constituents whenever they give us certain information that requires representation or investigation? That is particularly important in a divided society.

[Mr Winnick]

I agree entirely.

What was announced by the then Prime Minister in 1966 has of course been confirmed by successive Prime Ministers, including to me when I put a question to Mr Blair shortly after the Labour Government were elected in 1997. To argue, as some have done—the Home Secretary has more or less in some ways given the impression that this is her opinion—that we, as Members of Parliament, want to put ourselves above the law, is in effect to say that the protection we have had for centuries in this House to be able to speak without the threat of legal challenge is wrong. The occupant of the Chair always warns us that we should be careful what we say, especially if we make comments we would not make outside the House. That is an absolute protection for this House: just imagine if it did not exist and we could not say, without legal challenge, what is most important and what could not be said outside. The same applies to what we are debating today: confidentiality between Members and their constituents and others—journalists, whistle- blowers and so on—and their ability to speak to their Member of Parliament on the telephone, or via other forms of communication, safe in the knowledge that their conversation is not being intercepted by the authorities.

The nub of the issue is not special protection or privileges for ourselves. Of course we cannot be above the law. Of course we cannot say to our constituents, “We are special people and we want rights that you do not have.” What we are emphasising—it cannot be emphasised too much—is the right of those who want to contact their Member of Parliament or another Member of Parliament and speak along the lines I have already indicated. That is what this debate is really all about.

I congratulate all those who took a case to the tribunal: the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and even Mr Galloway—I say that with some reluctance, but I give credit to even such extreme cases. Had the case not gone to the tribunal, we would still not know whether the Wilson doctrine was being applied. It is not appropriate for the tribunal, or any other tribunal for that matter, to take over responsibility for what is essentially a political matter.

I am pleased this emergency debate has taken place. I hope the proposed legislation mentioned by those on both Front Benches will be introduced. In essence, the Wilson doctrine remains. It is quite true, of course, that since 1966 there has been a total revolution in communications. It is a different world, but that does not alter the basic position between Members of Parliament and those who wish to contact them over various matters.

It may be said that the great danger now is terrorism. No one disputes that—the country does face an acute terrorist danger—but in 1966, in a very different political climate, it was the height of the cold war. There was concern on many occasions about spies, and even the possibility of Members of Parliament being engaged with foreign intelligence agencies. What I am saying, since I was there at the time, is that the suspicion was of a different enemy, but suspicion remains. Indeed, it would be difficult to think of a time when there were not enemies who wanted to cause harm to this country, but that does not alter the fact that what Harold Wilson said, under pressure arising from the events in 1966 and the seamen’s strike, was right.

For all the reasons stated, the doctrine should be kept and it would be an extreme disservice to Parliament if the Wilson doctrine was undermined. It is an essential protection, not—I repeat—for MPs, but for those who wish to contact us, constituents or otherwise. That safeguard and security, which I hope they continue to have, is crucial if they are to contact us without fear of having their conversations monitored by the security authorities or anyone else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

At this stage of the debate, I am pleasantly surprised that the contributions have not been as piously pompous as I thought they might be. It is appropriate for MPs of all parties to recognise that this should not be, and must not be, about us. Protections for constituents must lie at the heart of the intended purpose of the Wilson doctrine. If anything is laudable to pursue, it is the protection of those who most need our help.

I have listened to many of the contributions. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) asked the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) whether the breach of the Wilson doctrine applies to this Government, or to previous Governments over successive decades. We know of many cases of such breaches occurring.

The former Member for Belfast West, Mr Gerry Adams, will be known to many in the House. His car was bugged by MI5, the bugs were detected and it was admitted—not in the House, but in newsprint throughout the UK, by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mo Mowlam—not only that the bugging had occurred, but that it had been appropriate. There was no hue and cry about a breach of the Wilson doctrine. It is appropriate for Members to recognise that in situations involving terrorism, steps will be necessary to defend this country’s national security. That was only one example.

Nobody thus far has touched on not just communication between someone of interest to our security services and a Member of Parliament, but communication from Members of Parliament themselves being subject to stringent scrutiny. Reference was made to the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Many Members have described with a straight face his position as a threat to national security. If that is the case and it is earnestly believed, that individual should, of course, be subject to appropriate scrutiny in the best interests of this nation and our society.

There are three plaques at the rear of this Chamber, and last week we had a memorial service for Mr Gow. Threats exist for Members of Parliament, and particularly in the context of Northern Ireland, I suspect that there have been many more breaches than in respect of the former Member for Belfast West.

There is a clear desire that should an MP have his communications intercepted, there must be structures in place to make sure that such interception is appropriate and proportionate. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) cited many examples of communications between MPs and their constituents in prison, and we have heard about whistleblowers from the Home Office and the police force. What I did not hear was a fair reflection of what that right hon. Gentleman believed were the consequences regarding the interception of such communication. We should not get caught up, especially with the catch-all methods involving e-mail, in whether a message has been intercepted. Rather, the question is whether it is analysed, and whether action is taken as a consequence of that analysis. Those are the more appropriate considerations for Members, so that will be the important issue when we scrutinise forthcoming legislation.

A briefing paper by Liberty for this debate says that RIPA was silent on the Wilson doctrine, so we were encouraged to believe that the doctrine was enshrined. If I asked a question and the response was silence, I am not sure that I would be satisfied that such a response suited my purposes. I do not think that Members should have had an over-high expectation that the Wilson doctrine was still as it was outlined in 1966. The experiences from Northern Ireland that I cited eminently suggest that that is not the case. The question that this Parliament must decide, which is why the debate is important, is where we go from here, so Members’ contributions in the Chamber will be crucial. It is important that the tone and nature of the debate recognise that protections must be in place not for our sakes, but for those of our constituents.

[Ms Ritchie]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an even greater need for the protection of constituents in our context of Northern Ireland where a dirty war operated between paramilitarism, probably, and members of the armed forces by detailing information that could have led, or has been alleged to have led, to people’s deaths?

[Gavin Robinson]

I thank the hon. Lady, but the Northern Ireland context is likely to have led to more breaches of the Wilson doctrine—and rightly so. In the context of an ongoing terrorism campaign, it is important that our Government and our national security services are there to protect us from people’s—whether they be terrorists or MPs, or terrorists and MPs—nefarious actions.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so gracious with his time, but does he not agree that sometimes people’s lives—the ordinary lives of decent constituents—were placed in tremendous peril as a result of such interception involving paramilitaries and others?

[Gavin Robinson]

I do not want to place too much trust in the security services, but I do trust that when they act, they do so in our best interests, and in the interests of the safety and security of this nation—any of its four regions. That is not to say that my trust could not be misplaced, and it is appropriate to place an onus on the safeguards, how they operate and, most fundamentally, how they will protect us.

Finally, I want to touch on the counter-extremism strategy that the Home Secretary published today. Its goals are laudable, but this constitutes yet another example of how Northern Ireland is excluded from the counter-extremism strategy. Given the extremists who are operating in Northern Ireland, and given the way in which we have had both parliamentarians and constituents operating in such an extreme and destabilising way there, it is ludicrous that Northern Ireland should be specifically excluded from that strategy. Our experience tells us that we have a contribution to make to this evening’s discussion, but it also tells us that if any part of the United Kingdom requires protections from extremism, Northern Ireland should feature.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that each of the three reviews of the powers and legislation relating to interception of communications and access to communications data came up with a different answer in respect of the authorisation process for access to intercept material. David Anderson suggested that there should be a judicial authorisation, the Royal United Services Institute suggested that there could be a hybrid, and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament suggested that the authorisation should remain with the Secretary of State. We have been considering the matter very carefully, and, as I have said, a draft Bill will be published in due course.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Will the Home Secretary tell us which is more important to the Government, national security or accountability, truth and justice for victims?

[Mrs May]

All those things are important, and I do not see that it is necessary to draw a distinction between them.

National Crime Agency

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The short answer is that those powers are extremely limited; they are virtually non-existent. I will come on to some of the issues that date back to SOCA operations, which have now been superseded by the NCA.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman has referred to my party. The SDLP has vigorously opposed any form of criminality at every stage. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify and outline the depth and intensity of accountability he sees in respect of the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Chief Constable?

[Mr Campbell]

I understand that the Chief Constable has had at least one—possibly even several—meetings with the SDLP and has assured it on the issue of his role and co-operation with the Policing Board by repeating what was said in the May 2013 statement that “nothing proceeds without agreement” in connection with the work of the NCA, and that the Chief Constable is

“held accountable for NCA operations via the Policing Board.”

The hon. Lady will know that members of her party and of Sinn Fein serve on the Policing Board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Campbell]

I look forward to the discussions between the SDLP and the Labour party resulting in that pressure being applied. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for specifically indicating, when he was in office, where the problems were in relation to this matter. I hope that that will be repeated by those on the Government Front Bench today.

[Ms Ritchie]

In my previous intervention, I asked the hon. Gentleman to specify the level of accountability between the NCA, and the Policing Board and Chief Constable. So far, he has not specifically dealt with that request, but perhaps he will do so in his further comments.

[Mr Campbell]

I repeat what I said on the previous occasion. The Chief Constable and the Policing Board appear to be totally content with the level of accountability and co-operation that will exist. I am afraid that the onus is on those who say that there is a lack of accountability. After having been reassured that there is no such lack and after it was indicated at several meetings that there is no reason or rationale for continuing to object to or oppose the implementation of the National Crime Agency, there is an onus on those who say that to explain why it is the case.

I now want to turn to a very relevant, important and topical issue that demonstrates the nature of the problem we face. Last month, a combination of security services boarded a yacht off the Irish Republic and detained the people on it, who had up to €80 million-worth of illegal cocaine. The cocaine was bound in part for the Irish Republic, but informed sources from the Irish Republic have indicated that the vast majority of it was for the United Kingdom. Of course, as we all know, the Republic of Ireland has a land border with the United Kingdom. Part of the reason why the authorities in the Irish Republic were able to apprehend the haul successfully in international waters off their coast was the co-operation of the National Crime Agency.

As a result, I tabled a question to the Justice Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly last month. I asked him what the response would be if a similar consignment were to arrive on our shores from Northern Ireland waters, and we endeavoured to get the same level of co-operation to ensure that it did not reach land on the North Antrim or the County Londonderry coast—[Interruption.] Or anywhere—even the South Down coast. His written answer states:

“In a situation such as that outlined in the question I would expect the PSNI to be involved. There may also be a role for the NCA, the UKBA and HMRC to play. The role of the NCA would be limited, if the operation was in Northern Ireland territorial waters, as drug operations fall into the devolved sphere.”

The Northern Ireland Justice Minister is absolutely clear that if we have another consignment that comes close to our coast like the one I mentioned—it has not been the largest such consignment—the National Crime Agency will have severe limitations in helping to deal with that haul.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate to outline, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), the SDLP position. May I say at the outset that the SDLP has consistently and persistently opposed all forms of violence, at times when it might not have been popular to do so and at times when others promoted violence? Leaving that aside, may I also say that when we signed up to the new policing measures and the PSNI in 2001, it was to those Patten principles of inclusivity and respect for political difference, and it was about accountability and oversight mechanisms? Those were clearly embedded back in 2001, when the new Policing Board, to which the police are accountable, was established.

[Naomi Long]

Earlier, the hon. Lady intervened on the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), asking him to be specific about the accountability issues and what accountability mechanisms were in place. Would she like to be equally specific about where the gaps in those mechanisms are, because some of us are at a complete loss on that?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. If I am allowed to make a little progress, I will be able to explain those things.

Let me also say at the outset that it was due only to the SDLP’s efforts in ongoing negotiations that others are now talking about accountability and oversight; it was because of our efforts that those things are now taking place. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that nobody should gainsay or deny that. We are concerned about the lack of proper oversight mechanisms, and we are in discussions and negotiations with the Minister of Justice. Two weeks ago, during the debate on the issue in the Northern Ireland Assembly, he freely acknowledged that and took on board our concerns. I would like to highlight those—if I am allowed—as will my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle.

The SDLP is not opposed in principle to the NCA. We are opposed to violence of any kind, and we are opposed to child abuse and the other various matters that have been raised. However, I wish to raise certain issues. We have been given indications from Opposition Members and from DUP Members that questions have been raised as to the effectiveness of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and now the NCA. Why, despite the efforts of the PSNI, SOCA and other agencies on the island of Ireland, has almost nobody ever been before a criminal court in relation to such matters? For us to support the NCA it has a responsibility to us—to everybody—to prove that it will go after those fuel launderers. We have to see the evidence that it has worked heretofore. One of my colleagues, the former Minister of Environment, pursued many of these issues to do with national crime, through the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, with a measure of success, and he probably did not receive that much help from SOCA. So those issues have to be taken on board.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Ritchie]

If I am allowed to make a little progress, I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman.

Let us consider what we need in order to make progress in these negotiations to a positive outcome and to have an organisation embedded with the principles of inclusivity, respect, accountability and other such issues. The hon. Gentleman never addressed the issue of accountability that I raised in my interventions. I hope that that is not because of glibness on the DUP’s part, and I am sure they will clarify that issue. I would like the Minister in today’s debate to work with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland to clarify: that accountability of the NCA is to the Chief Constable and to the Policing Board; that covert operations would take place only with the agreement of the Chief Constable and subject to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and that issues of national intelligence would be carried through only for England and Wales.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Ritchie]

If I may continue, I would be happy to give way in a minute. I wish to address a couple of other things that we see as being missing from the current NCA. It is further proposed in the helpful paper from the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland that the conduct of an NCA officer comes within the remit of the police ombudsman. It is not, however, stipulated that the power would be enshrined in statute, although a commitment to that effect appears to have been given to the Policing Board—clarification could be given on that—or that the standard of conduct would, as a result of statute, be that of the PSNI code of ethics. In the latter case, there may be some difficulty in circumscribing an NCA officer by way of the PSNI code of ethics as it may conflict with that officer’s own code of conduct by which he or she is bound according to their contract of employment or service. In respect of covert powers and the remit of the Policing Board, it is proposed that the PSNI be accountable to the board for giving its agreement to the NCA’s operations. However, there may be an issue over the extent to which the board can hold the Chief Constable to account—for example, for giving agreement or for all that follows from that agreement.

Clearly, we have certain issues on which we need clarification. We call on the Minister to hold immediate discussions on those issues with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland. We will continue with those discussions because we support the principle of the NCA, but we are awaiting clarification of the issues around accountability and the oversight mechanism to ensure that everything is perfectly in order and that there is nothing untoward in relation to that organisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

It has taken SDLP Members two years to come to that position, but it is always good when they eventually arrive at it. We will wait to see what happens in the next week or two when the talks proceed. There is now even less of a deterrent for criminals when it comes to those areas not covered by the NCA in Northern Ireland.

[Ms Ritchie]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady. I think that earlier somebody said firmly, “The Member for Down South”, but she is the hon. Member for South Down.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my neighbour, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for giving way. Does he agree that it is other people who are now coming to our position on the issue of accountability, and that it was through our intensive efforts on that issue that we have now achieved that particular position?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but the fact is that the parties who have spoken for this matter are the parties that are moving forward. We are very happy to drag the SDLP along screaming to the process, if that is the way it has to be, and make it feel part of it. If the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) feels that things have moved forward that is great news, but we have to see the evidence. Accountability is here. We do not think there is any need for delay.

Modern Slavery Bill

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The group to which the hon. Gentleman refers was part of the round table that I attended with businesses. It sits on the working group led by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

The right hon. Lady is generous with her time. Just a few weeks ago, a lady in Northern Ireland discovered a cry for help letter sewn into a pair of trousers, which were made in China, from a leading high street chain. The letter detailed the atrocious working conditions in the prison where the garment was made. With longer and more complex supply chains, does the Secretary of State agree that the Bill needs to ensure greater transparency and accountability so that the products of slavery and forced labour do not find themselves on our high street shelves?

[Mrs May]

Across the House, we all share the same intention and desire to stamp out modern slavery, wherever it occurs. We all recognise that companies have a responsibility to look at what is happening in their supply chains. The hon. Lady talks about the increasing length and complexity of supply chains, which is one of the precise difficulties faced by companies today when it comes to any responsibility they have for looking at every aspect of their supply chain and ensuring that it is not involved in modern slavery. That is why we are sitting down with business to talk about the issue and how we can best address it. There is not a blanket approach of saying, “The only way to do this is X.” We are saying, “Let’s sit down with companies and talk to them about the issues that they are facing.”

In answer to the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), of course we need to work internationally to address modern slavery. This House, and this Parliament, will take an important step by passing this Bill in the United Kingdom. The Bill will be an important sign, but the work will go on, and sadly I suspect that the work will have to go on for some years, to ensure that we stamp out modern slavery. That work is wide-ranging and is not just limited to what we may say or do in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I accept that any Minister who has taken such a decision has done so for proper reasons. In relation to the right hon. Gentleman’s question on control orders, I can assure him that the Government and I have national security at the forefront of our minds. In considering the counter-terrorism legislation review, we need to rebalance national security and civil liberties, but we are absolutely clear that we can enjoy our civil liberties only if we have national security.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

Does the right hon. Lady accept that the current system for intelligence gathering in Northern Ireland used to counteract the threat from dissident republican and other paramilitary groups has failed? The system is flawed and needs to be reviewed. The Police Service of Northern Ireland needs to take the lead in intelligence gathering to counteract the security threat.

[Mrs May]

I do not accept what the hon. Lady says about the flawed system that has existed so far. Sadly, the PSNI has had to deal with an increasing number of incidents over recent months in relation to bombs and other attempts on the lives of people in Northern Ireland. As I say, that threat has been increasing. It is important that we ensure that the tools are available to enable the PSNI to do the job that it has been doing. The whole House should congratulate the PSNI on its work.

Counter-terrorism and Security Powers

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am happy to give that assurance to my hon. Friend. She may have noticed that in my statement I specifically said that we would look at the issue of photographers and stop-and-search powers. It is one issue that has been brought home forcibly to me. I have had constituency cases of people who have been stopped under those powers and been concerned about it, and I have received a number of representations from Members of this House, and indeed of another place, about those problems.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

In the interests of promoting civil liberties and the principles of human rights while recognising the need to reduce terrorism, will the Secretary of State indicate the nature of the involvement with intelligence agencies and Government Departments in Northern Ireland?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to confirm that, as I said in my statement, we will of course talk to agencies and Government Departments in Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady will have noticed the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the Chamber listening to the statement, and he is here so that we can ensure that the power that we obtain as a result of the review, and the exercise of that power, is appropriate throughout the United Kingdom.