Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
National Crime Agency
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(14 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(15 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.