Counter-Terrorism: Conflict Zones

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is basing her comments on statements that have been made in Turkey. The Metropolitan police have made it very clear what the position is and when they alerted the Turkish authorities.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)? I find it abhorrent that the media continue to use a photograph of a man who is a murderer, to name him and to give him an identity by giving him a nickname. That will probably reinforce the ideas of those who think that what he is doing is good and that he is some sort of modern Jesse James. I just find it abhorrent that our media continue to use this man’s name.

[Mrs May]

I will not comment on any individual case when ongoing investigations are taking place, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to do so. What I will say is that we are all appalled and shocked at the horrific barbarism that is being shown by ISIL, and we expect that to be reflected in any reporting.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

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

[Diana Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bob Stewart]

If someone, perhaps a childminder, has a worry about a threat and reports it, are they guaranteed anonymity? Is a system in place to guarantee that people are not found out, including when reports are fallacious?

[Karen Bradley]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Of course, a board can be effective only if it has a work plan that is agreed with the relevant parties, information-gathering powers and access to the relevant information which, for a board of this type, will often include classified information. All this would be provided for by amendment 5.

[Bob Stewart]

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

[Diana Johnson]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bob Stewart]

I cannot see any difference between that and what is proposed in the Bill. Those are exactly the same measures that everyone in this country wants to see instituted.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there are differences. They may just be nuances to him, but we take them particularly seriously in Scotland. For example, we work with key sectors in Scotland, such as the NHS, further education, the Prison Service and local authorities. Prevent also benefits from input from Police Scotland’s model of community engagement and from the strength of the relationship between various arms of the community and all the public services in Scotland. The key point is that we perhaps look at the cultural context differently.

What we are keen to do in Scotland—and we have had a great deal of success—is ensure that a sense of Scottish citizenship is given as quickly as possible to new immigrants, particularly from south Asian communities. That has been incredibly successful. We talk about the “bhangra and bagpipe” culture in some of our larger communities, especially in Glasgow, and we are particularly proud of that. Believe it or not, most Scottish Asians supported Scottish independence because they saw from their historical experience, and from being a colonial power or being part of the empire, that independence was not a scary issue. They were able to join us to ensure that such transformative change—

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

The power to seize a passport is set out in clause 1 and schedule 1. For the sake of clarity, I reiterate that we support the general principle of seizure, provided there is sufficient evidence to warrant such action being taken by the officials listed in schedule 1. The question today, which we discussed in Committee, relates to proportionality and to the opportunity for individuals to make representations to officials on the reasons why the temporary seizure has been made. The decision to seize a passport is taken on evidence and on intelligence.

In Committee, we discussed—I hope we can revisit the discussion speedily today—the range of intelligence that could be linked to third party intelligence on the movement of an individual, or to intelligence secured by the agencies. There are a whole range of reasons for such intelligence to be gathered, but that does not necessarily mean that it is correct. There may be a range of reasons for mistakes or for concerns about intelligence. As we discussed in Committee, people may have legitimate reasons—weddings, business, tourism and so on—to travel abroad to areas with difficult challenges. I accept that it would be the exception and that if the Government or a qualifying officer seized a passport, it would be based on strong intelligence, but the purpose of the amendments is to provide a couple of options to put in place stronger oversight and appeal mechanisms for individuals who feel aggrieved. Amendment 10 would ensure a

“right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport, and requires the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a relevant court and time limit by which an appeal must have been heard.”

Amendment 11 would do pretty much the same by creating

“the right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport and require the appeal to have been heard within seven days.”

It is not only the Opposition who are concerned. In an article on 3 September, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) wrote in support:

“Allowing police to confiscate passports at the UK border to prevent an aspiring young jihadi from leaving for Syria via Istanbul may be justifiable on good intelligence and a sensible extension of the home secretary’s powers. But unless there is some rapid means of review there must be the likelihood that mistakes will occur as the use of this administrative power increases and perfectly innocent young people will find their travel plans wrecked. We would be wise to insist on oversight, rapid review processes and compensation where justified.”

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If someone is going abroad with a British passport, either on business or for humanitarian reasons—to support a charity, for example—would it not be sensible, prior to departing the country, to drop a line to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, saying, “I’m going there for this reason”? That might help and be a good guide when people come back that they were not out to do mischief.

[Mr Hanson]

I suspect that that would be a recipe for chaos in the Foreign Office and for difficult decisions having to be made across the board. If everybody who travelled to one of the countries or to a third party country first—such as Istanbul on the way to Syria—it could mean thousands of letters a day pouring into the Foreign Office saying, “I’m going to a particular country.”.

We need secure, targeted, intelligence-led activity to seize passports. That is what I expect and what I am reassured the Government will do. The purpose of our amendments is simply to provide that if someone feels aggrieved, mechanisms are in place for them to challenge the decision in court, should they so wish. There are such mechanisms in place now—for example, allowing people to challenge TPIMs—but mostly people do not challenge them, because they know their grounds are valid and that the Government have made the right decision. It is important, however, that we put mechanisms in place to cover those bases.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The review process does not provide for that, but the consultation on the code of practice that governs the arrangements is open until 30 January, so there will be an opportunity for further representations to be made on the details of how the power would be used in the context of the code. That includes the details of the initial, immediate review by the senior officer and the 72-hour review by a further senior officer, followed by the submission of a report to the chief constable.

[Bob Stewart]

My children have three passports: French, Swiss and British. Is there any provision enabling someone whose British passport is taken away to be prevented from using another passport? I am sorry; that may be a silly question, and we may not be able to provide for such a power.

[James Brokenshire]

The Bill is, of course, a wider subject than the amendment, but my hon. Friend may wish to consult paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1, which defines a passport as

“a United Kingdom passport… a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom”,

or

“a document that can be used (in some or all circumstances) instead of a passport.”

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hazel Blears]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The work is difficult and complex. It is not easy. During my contribution I shall give a couple of examples that I hope will reassure him that we have made more progress over the past couple of years than in the past on exactly the area he mentioned.

I want to cover several aspects. Why is this work important? Who is best placed to do it? That is a key issue. I also want to address the importance of having an online presence these days, because so much is done through social media. I also want to address the role of religious leaders and scholars. That is a controversial area, but it is absolutely essential to work with them. I shall also give some practical examples.

Why is the work important? Young people are being drawn into situations and scenarios that are absolutely horrendous for them and their families.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady is a good friend of mine and one thing that has not been mentioned so far is friends. Does she agree that the peer group is probably as important—and sometimes more important—in influencing young people? I speak as the father of four teenagers.

[Hazel Blears]

The hon. Gentleman, whom I count as a friend in the House, makes an extremely important and valid point. Interesting research has been done lately on the contrast between exposure to radicalisation online and peer groups. It is very interesting that we concentrate on having a presence on online social media, but evidence is emerging that peer group influence is just as important—possibly more important—than online messaging.

This work is very important, particularly for young people who are even more vulnerable. Quite a lot of research has been done on people with mental health problems and how vulnerable they are at certain points in their lives. We had a good discussion about that on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked about the tipping point and what we really know about the issue. The work is also important because it counters the justification for terrorism and the powerful narrative about grievance and victimhood, which underpins all the work done by our Contest counter-terrorism strategy.

In the past such work was seen as something of an add-on to the Contest strategy: the important thing to do was to pursue the terrorists, disrupt plots, prosecute and convict. All that is absolutely essential, but because the Prevent strand of our work is about emotional vulnerability, mental health problems and families, friends and peer groups, it is much more difficult to have a direct and targeted strategy. It was therefore almost seen as a second-order issue. I am absolutely delighted that Prevent has now been put centre stage not only because the Bill puts it on a statutory footing, but because of the contributions of many Members. Of the 500 young people who have gone to Syria, 250 have come back, some of whom will be radicalised and pose a threat to this country. There is now an increased focus on that aspect, and I am absolutely delighted about that.

I ask the Minister whether that increased focus will be reflected in the money to be allocated to the Prevent programme. I would be very interested to know how much of the £130 million that the Prime Minister promised will actually be allocated to Prevent and Channel work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

Absolutely, and by using concepts such as “the war on terror” as part of our counter-propaganda campaign we may indeed be scoring an own goal. But in discussing techniques for what we are doing in this place, believe me, there are not a host of radicals hanging on every word we use in this debate about the machinery that we should set up. Once we have set up the machinery, we can then go into the niceties of which expressions we use and which we do not. But let us be frank; this is a battle of ideas. It is a battle between barbarism and civilisation. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire and others can shake their heads as much as they like but were I to make, for example, a similar argument against racist and Nazi exterminatory ideology, they would not blame me for couching the argument in the terms of a battle of ideas. It is a battle of ideas; the people who subscribe to this extreme doctrine have declared war on our civilised standards of democracy and tolerance.

I always mention—it so appropriate and someone always forces me, or perhaps I should say, incentivises me to do so—what the late great Sir Karl Popper described as the paradox of tolerance in a free society. He defined it in the following terms: you should tolerate all but the intolerant because if you tolerate the intolerant, the conditions for toleration disappear and the tolerant go with them. I make absolutely no concession to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire or indeed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). My right hon. Friend was talking about something slightly different—what we do when we are engaged in a battle of ideas—so I will give my right hon. Friend that get-out. But I make no concession to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire about using the phrase “a counter-propaganda battle.” That is exactly what it is. We used to wage it against fascism and Nazism and against communist ideology and extremism. This is the latest incarnation, albeit one that goes back to a time hundreds of years before those terrible and extreme ideologies came on the scene to terrorise mankind.

It is fully understandable that a Government’s first concern has to be with the end of the conveyor belt at which fully formed terrorists spring into action, either on what they call a “spectacular” scale by killing hundreds or even thousands of people, or what we on the Intelligence and Security Committee prefer to call the self-starter end of the spectrum. We use that rather than the “lone wolf” appellation for reasons similar to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. But whichever it is, by the time we reach that end of the conveyor belt nothing can be done. I venture to say that even the best counter-radicalisation and counter-extremism programme will not prevent some individuals from getting on that conveyor belt and travelling all the way to the end. The question is how we isolate them from the majority and prevent them from infecting the majority.

In the amendment, my opposite number—and friend—the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles and I are trying to get something stronger in the Bill. For example, we are trying to add to clause 21 words about developing

“capacity to combat and reject the messages of extremism”.

I am terribly sorry but the word “combat” is in there; I make no apology for it. The clause says that a

“specified authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.”

I think having “due regard” is a pretty weak obligation and, as the right hon. Lady said, much of the focus here is on the obligations of various organisations and authorities covered by the Bill towards individuals who have already been identified as being vulnerable, at risk or on the path towards radicalisation. But we need to do something else. We need to try to create an atmosphere and a climate that is totally hostile to the propagation of the basic extreme ideology so that it becomes increasingly difficult to find anyone who is on that path to radicalisation because the whole concept of the ideology is anathema to society as a whole, or will be by the time we have finished.

[Bob Stewart]

I have been listening to my hon. Friend talk on the subject of ideology. One thing that crosses my mind is that some of these gentlemen may well have no ideology whatever, beyond the fact that they think that it is a good cause and they are a jihadi and are suddenly big men in their community. They can swank around and say “I’m a jihadi and I’m going off to fight.” After all, did not one of them have “Islam For Dummies” in his bag when he left?

[Dr Lewis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and the insincerity of some of those who do these sort of things is an important issue. It is important because if we succeed in making adhesion to the ideology something that nobody in the community would want to touch with a bargepole, it makes it much more difficult for anyone motivated by the desire to say “Look at me: I’m this glamorous figure and I’m going on jihad”, particularly if they know that the rest of the community would respond with “What are you saying? Are you mad? Why do you think we should admire you for saying that you are signing up to this ideology?”

A related point common to all these totalitarianisms is this: it is interesting to note how often everybody else gets wrapped up with the historic inevitability of whatever extreme cause it is or the God-given duty to follow it, but funnily enough, it is the people at the top who always seem to end up having supreme power over everyone else. Is it not convenient if someone is an megalomaniac to have to hand an ideology that justifies doing whatever the person wants to do in a society in which civilisation has broken down? As the famous philosopher Thomas Hobbes said, life would be “nasty, brutish and short” in such circumstances.

In reality, these extreme ideologies allow psychopaths and megalomaniacs to get to the top and exercise untrammelled power—but not, of course, for themselves. No, they are doing it because God has laid down that society should be run this way. I feel that, over many hundreds of years, our civilisation has torn down this edifice of extremism, and most of us feel that we will be damned—I use the word almost literally—if we do not stand up to prevent it from being re-erected in the heart of our own society or other societies.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, he will recognise the challenges. He is right to underline the significance and to reiterate what I said on Second Reading—that security and liberty should be mutually reinforcing. His point about it not being a zero sum game is well made.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who speaks for the Opposition, identified a list of 10 points, and I will do my best to respond to some of them. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) underlined the role of sensitive categories of person and additional safeguards that may be provided in respect of them when we consider communications data and the ability of the police to request such data. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) pointed out, we are looking at metadata—who said what to whom, when and where—rather than the content.

It is clear from the contributions that we have heard that gaps in communications data capability have a serious impact on the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to carry out their functions—the point that was made clearly by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and the shadow Minister. One such gap is internet protocol address resolution. The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 maintained our lawful data retention regime. It did not create any additional powers, nor did it address any of the gaps in capability. To respond to the point made by the hon. Lady, we remain confident about the manner in which it did that in seeking to address the points raised by the European Court of Justice.

Clause 17 amends that Act—DRIPA—to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time. Every internet user is assigned an IP address to ensure that communications service providers know which data should go to which customer and route it accordingly. Addresses are sometimes assigned to a specific device, such as a broadband router located in a home or within the work environment, but they are usually shared between multiple users—hundreds or even thousands—and allocated automatically by the provider’s systems. Many providers currently have no business reason for keeping a log of who has used each address. It is therefore not always possible for law enforcement agencies accessing the data to identify who was using an IP address at any specific point in time.

The provision would ensure that these data are available to law enforcement. It would improve the ability of the police and other agencies to identify terror suspects who may be communicating with each other via the internet and plotting attacks. It would also help to identify and prosecute paedophiles, organised criminals, cyber-bullies and computer hackers, and to protect vulnerable people. For example, it could be used to identify a child who has threatened over social media to commit suicide. The IP address has direct relevance to all these issues and it is evidence that can be brought before the court. In the context of the previous debate, it is often instrumental in bringing prosecutions. Communications data are used in about 95% of all serious crime prosecutions, so they have a direct utility.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Just a question to the Minister—does this also apply to medical in confidence communication between, say, a doctor and a patient, and documents being intercepted, or am I totally out to lunch, as it were?

[James Brokenshire]

I am not sure that my hon. Friend would ever be out to lunch, particularly at 3.26 in the afternoon. I think he is talking about interception. The clause is about the connection, the metadata—about who communicated with whom—rather than the content of the communication. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke specifically about interception and the way in which certain protected categories of individual may be affected. My hon. Friend highlights a specific point, but I will come on to communications data, DRIPA and the codes of practice, and the status of certain individuals in respect of requests that may be made for that information.

Amendment 5, as the hon. Lady explained when she moved it, seeks to limit the scope of the provision to the retention of data that is necessary to allow the identification of a user from a public internet protocol address. I am pleased to say that there is no difference of principle between us on this issue. It is important that this provision goes no further than necessary to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time.

I can confirm that the provision is already limited in the way the Opposition propose. Subsection (3) defines the data to be retained as data that

“may be used to identify, or assist in indentifying, which internet protocol address, or other identifier, belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.

As such, any data that cannot be used to identify, or assist in identifying, the user of an IP address are already outside the scope of the provision. A requirement to retain the data may be imposed only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so.

On the hon. Lady’s specific point about web logs, I can assure the Committee that the Bill is already tightly drafted. In particular, clause 17(3)(c) excludes so-called web logs. It provides for the retention of data relating to IP resolution, and only such data. Anything else is already beyond the scope of what the clause permits. Accordingly, although I entirely agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Part 4 and schedule 2 deal with aviation, maritime and rail security. For the benefit of the Committee, I will go through each of the provisions, listen to right hon. and hon. Members’ contributions and then respond to their questions. I welcome the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to the Opposition Front Bench. He has taken a close interest in these issues.

Clause 18 provides a new legal basis for the operation of authority-to-carry schemes, which are commonly known as no-fly schemes. We have a scheme in place that relates to passengers being carried to the UK. The clause makes provision for a broader scheme that relates to individuals who are arriving or are expected to arrive in the UK, and individuals who are leaving or are expected to leave the UK.

Authority to carry is necessary to prevent the entry or return to the UK of foreign nationals who pose a terrorism-related threat and to mitigate the threat of an attack, primarily on aircraft. It is also necessary to disrupt the return to the UK, and prevent the departure from the UK, of British nationals who are subject to legal restrictions on their travel. Under the clause, any scheme must set out the carriers to which it applies and the classes of individuals a carrier may be refused authority to carry to or from the UK. Classes of individuals may be specified in a scheme only if it is necessary in the public interest. When travelling to the UK, that could include persons who are excluded or have been deported from the UK, individuals whose presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good, and those who would otherwise be inadmissible to the UK. It may also include individuals subject to a temporary exclusion order under clause 2.

When travelling from the UK, carriers might be directed not to carry individuals subject to a TPIM or a post-custodial licence preventing travel following a conviction for a terrorism-related offence. The scheme may also include individuals who have had their passport cancelled or not issued on public interest grounds, or seized under powers in schedule 1. Any scheme must set out the process for carriers to request authority to carry, and state how that authority is granted or refused. That may include requirements for carriers to provide passenger information by a certain time before departure, or for carriers to be able to receive information that grants or refuses authority to carry in a way compatible with the Government’s border system.

We will work with carriers to resolve any compliance issues, but if a carrier fails to comply, clause 19 provides regulations to impose a civil penalty on those who breach a scheme. The new regulations set out how a penalty will be calculated, imposed and enforced, and must provide a means for carriers to object to a proposed penalty. The regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, and the authority-to-carry scheme to which the regulations refer must be laid in Parliament at the same time.

Clause 20 makes provision for schedule 2 to the Bill. Part 1 of schedule 2 amends passenger, crew and service information relating to aircraft and ships, and may be extended to international trains through secondary legislation. Paragraphs 1(2) and 1(3) mean that a carrier may be required to be able to receive communications about information that it has provided to the border authorities in a way compatible with the Government’s border system. That might be a simple receipt, or an alert about errors in the format of the information.

Paragraphs 1(4) and 1(7) of schedule 2 allow the regulations to introduce requirements for advance information about persons on flights or voyages to and from the UK that do not operate to a published schedule—collectively referred to as “general aviation” and “general maritime.” The regulations will set out the classes of ships or aircraft to which they apply, the information required, the time by which it must be supplied, and how it is to be supplied. That will allow a much clearer picture of incoming and outgoing traffic and the identification of aircraft and ships that require close attention from the border authorities. Those paragraphs also provide for regulations to impose a civil penalty for a failure to comply with new requirements to provide information. The regulations may set out how a penalty will be calculated, administered and enforced, and make provision for an appeal.

[Bob Stewart]

The Minister has not mentioned this so far, although I assume he will come to it, but is it correct to say that if a carrier brings someone to this country whom we do not want to come, not only will it receive a civil penalty, it has a responsibility to take that person back to whence they came immediately?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will realise, provisions in the Bill overlap with other issues and provisions. He will be aware of sanctions that are already available and establish penalties for those who have no lawful authority to be in the UK, and of the checks that are obliged on people to ensure that appropriate visa or other requirements are in place. These measures build on that and there are established processes for the return of individuals who should not be here.

The new transport security provisions in part 2 of schedule 2 build on existing powers and enhance our ability to respond effectively to transport-related terrorism threats. They amend transport security legislation to strengthen existing powers and require certain security measures to be implemented before an operator may operate into the UK or, in the case of ships, a UK port. The schedule makes similar provisions for services in the aviation, maritime and rail transport industries.

The schedule inserts provisions into the respective aviation, rail and maritime statutes enabling faster collection of security related information from operators. It provides enabling powers to make regulations, imposing a wider range of methods for electronic service of security directions or requests for information, to ensure that security directions become effective in the shortest possible time. In addition, it inserts a power into the Aviation Security Act 1982 for the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce civil sanctions for non-compliance by the aviation industry, with information requests or security directions subject to the affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

In the old days, when I was working with the security services in Northern Ireland, it used to be called profiling. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are looking at a form of profiling again?

[Mr Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman is far more informed on these matters than I am, and I certainly would not argue with him about that. This is a similar approach, but it psychologically categorises the processes within that and shows how it can be dealt with. It is easier for the people operating these systems to be able to recognise particular behavioural patterns and to deal with them. This does do what the hon. Gentleman says, therefore, but it is important that this has already been designed and that security personnel are working with it. In order to meet the issues raised in clause 18, it is important that we have such a system in place, but the only way we can do that is by sharing best practice. That has already been done by Sussex police, and I commend that approach to the Minister and hope he takes lessons from the work that has already been done by Detective Sergeant Mike Redmond. We should all acknowledge the great work he has done.

EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Indeed, it is the speed of operation of the European arrest warrant that is one of the most significant improvements over what was there before. I simply invite the House to consider this for a second or two not as a European issue but as a public safety issue. We live in an increasingly dangerous world in which criminals operate on an international scale and in which this country is a particular target not just for international terrorists but for serious criminals of all types. The three biggest and fastest growing international crimes are the trafficking of guns, drugs and people across frontiers, which is precisely why we need international measures such as the European arrest warrant to make us safe.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

For me, the crucial factor in deciding to support the European arrest warrant was precisely that the police and security services wanted it so that they can do their job better. That was pivotal in my decision to support it.

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend is wise in his decision. We have had some facts and figures that back up both his judgment and the judgment of the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary. Over the past five years, slightly more than 5,000 people have been extradited from the UK to Europe after an arrest warrant was issued. They include suspects wanted for 124 murders, more than 100 rapes, nearly 500 serious assaults, and in connection with seven terrorism cases. For those who rightly worry about the fate of British citizens, only 217 of those 5,000 were British—just 4.3% of the total.

Since 2009, the arrest warrant has also seen 647 people returned to this country to face justice, including 51 suspected killers, 80 suspected paedophiles, 46 suspected violent thugs and one wanted terrorist. The warrant works both ways and it works effectively. Without the arrest warrant, there are 22 EU member states that could refuse to extradite their own nationals to the UK, including Spain, France and Germany, so it does act in the safety of our country and our citizens as well. The question for those who oppose the European arrest warrant is: can it be worth putting the safety of our fellow citizens at risk a bit more than it is now for the genuine constitutional concerns that they have? I hope that even those who are against our opting back into the European arrest warrant will admit that not opting in would put the safety of our fellow citizens in this country at greater risk. They might well say that that would be worth while, but I hope that they acknowledge that fact, given the surprising unanimity about it among experts in law enforcement and criminal justice.

UK Drugs Policy

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on moving the motion today. As the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said, everyone who has spoken so far has supported her views in one way or another. Like the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), I have been dealing with this issue for a long time. When I spoke in a debate in the House nearly 30 years ago, I told the story of how my closest friend had gone to prison for possession of pot—cannabis—in the late ’60s. He was in prison for six months and he came out a heroin addict. Within six months of his coming out of prison, I went to his flat to call for him one day, only to find him dead on the floor. He had died of a heroin overdose. From that day on, I have done everything I can to fight the scourge of drugs and to bring to people’s attention not only how evil and destructive drugs are but how senseless the policies to combat them are.

The report on so-called legal highs is an interesting document, and the Government’s response to it is equally interesting, but they do not mention how we are going to solve the problem. It is proposed that we talk and think more about it, but we need to look at the overall picture of how we are going to help people by dealing with drugs in prisons and in the community generally.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) spoke eloquently about the late Jim Dobbin. Jim dealt with this issue not only in this country but abroad. I sat on committees with him in the Council of Europe, where he persistently got the issue on to the agenda, against the odds, and got it discussed. We owe Jim a great debt of gratitude for his courage in tackling this issue and for having the strength of character to keep fighting for it. We are doing him justice by keeping the debate going. I was delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments about Jim; we are sad that he is not here today.

What we do know about drugs is that we have spent billions of pounds and we have a policy that, by common agreement, has failed; it has taken us not a step forward. That is why I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention on having the courage to persevere and the commitment to see this report through on the comparisons that need to be examined seriously. The hon. Member for Reigate said that it contained few conclusions. There are no conclusions in it, but there are ideas of where we could go. The Members who have talked about a royal commission are going in the right direction; the sooner that can be done, the better.

We have to examine the situation in Portugal, which has been mentioned a lot. The report says clearly that not only has cannabis use there been reduced, but heroin use and cocaine use have been reduced dramatically. The way in which the initial possession has been treated as a health-related matter and not a criminal one is a major step in the right direction. If we can do no more in the life of this Parliament, before it ends next year, than get the royal commission set up and get the idea that we treat the possession of very small amounts of drugs, in some cases, as a health-related matter rather than a criminal one—

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I want to support the excellent speeches I have been hearing. As a commanding officer in the Army, I had far too often to rid myself and the Army of outstanding young men and young woman because they had just touched a drug. Things have got better, but think what will happen once we deal with this as a medical and not a criminal situation. Of course if someone is high on drugs and leading a patrol, they have to be brought before the commanding officer. But if we are talking about just possession and just usage, our current approach is just too wrong.

[Mr Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman is for ever bringing us his experience and the House should welcome that. Once again, he has touched on a very important point: careers are being thrown away because of the attitude of the Army, in his case, and of other organisations, which have taken draconian measures against people for the very minor crime of carrying or smoking cannabis. We have to look seriously at this issue. We owe it to the people outside this place because, as other Members have said, they are now ahead of Parliament on this matter. We should not be playing catch-up; we should want to find a way of leading on the issue. The report on comparisons is a step in the right direction, but I hope that the strength of the support in the Chamber today will carry forth that message to our colleagues, including the Prime Minister, who should be continuously reminded of his stance in 2002. He should be reminded of it daily, because when he talks about this issue he seems to forget what he might have said before.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

You are of course a criminal—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

I am not a criminal.

[Bob Stewart]

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are certainly not a criminal, but others may well be criminals if they take drugs or alcohol and put members of the public in danger as a consequence. They are criminals, but just taking a drug or drinking something does not make them criminals.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. If we look at the difference between recreational drug usage and smoking, we will see that the harm is so much greater with smoking. For every 1,000 smokers who are admitted to hospital, 123 of them are suffering from health problems directly caused by smoking. If we look at 1,000 drug users who are admitted to hospital, only two of them are there because of the use of illegal drugs. We have at least one drug in this country—we could add alcohol to the list —that is far more dangerous than anything that anybody uses by way of recreational drugs or other illegal drugs. We must focus our attention on dealing with that as a health problem rather than as a criminal problem.

Let me come back to one of my opening propositions, which is that the war on drugs has been lost. A survey of the public earlier this year proves that that is not just my view. It is the view not just of the world leaders who used to hold office to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate referred, but of 84% of people in this country. It is true that only 39%—up from 27% in 2008—of those in the same survey believed in the widespread decriminalisation of illegal substances. The likely reason for that is the hangover from the debate that we have not been having in this country for the past four decades. We have not had a national debate on this issue, which is why people have not turned their minds to the question of whether some form of liberalisation, some different approach, taking into account the detrimental health effects, is the right way forward.

As the hon. Member for Newport West said, what is the point of this war on drugs? If it is to prevent people from taking substances that may harm them, plainly it is not working. According to the most recent crime survey for England and Wales, 2.7% of adults had taken class A drugs in 1996 compared with 2.6% now—statistically not significant.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who is no longer in her place, referred to the fact that there has been a seeming reduction in cannabis usage among young people. There are many reasons for that, one of which might be the tougher line that has been taken on cannabis by the Government, which has driven people into using so-called legal highs, on which the Minister has today published his report.

If we talked to criminal justice professionals—judges, the police and probation officers—we would learn that they do not support the war on drugs. It is a war that has been lost. If we acknowledged that fact and looked at the experience of Portugal and the other jurisdictions that have liberalised their drug regimes and taken away criminal penalties for small amounts of possession, we would free up enormous resources for the police. More importantly, we would free up enormous financial resources for the treatment of those who are addicted to these substances. Therefore, I venture to suggest that I am correct in my first proposition—I think the Minister will agree with me—that the war on drugs has been lost and that we must look very carefully at a new policy.

My second proposition was that the health outcomes of existing policy are at best poor. In fact, what also happens is that society is harmed by existing policy. We know that funding a drug habit is not a cheap business. It increases crime, particularly acquisitive crime. Drug dependency is therefore one of the drivers of crime in this country. Home Office figures for 2003-04 show that the annual cost of drug-related offending is £13.9 billion, £9.9 billion of which goes to the victims of crime. The other £4 billion of public money is being poured into the criminal justice system every year to deal with the issue. If that £4 billion were taken away from the criminal justice system and put into the health system to try to encourage better outcomes, we would not only get something better for those who use illegal substances and for society, but achieve a reduction in the total amount that has to be spent.

If existing policy is not deterring drug use and drug dependency, it is leading to crime, and that cannot be in anybody’s interests. A great deal of money is evidently being wasted, and it is money that, in these times of austerity, should not be wasted.

Let us turn now to the health of those who take illegal substances. By criminalising them, are we dealing adequately with them? Many young people who take drugs have no idea not only what they are taking, but what the effects might be. Those who are standing in a nightclub at 1o’clock in the morning having consumed, no doubt, a large amount of vodka are much more interested in getting the pill than they are in what is in the pill. What is in the pill is not always what people have been told. They might be told that it is MDMA when it is some other entactogen that has not been tested on humans. It may be rat poison, or it may even be harmless. Even if someone does know that the pill they are about to pop is ecstasy, there is no guarantee that they are aware of its potential effects. Although there are admirable websites such as Talk to Frank, not many young people necessarily go on them. Not everyone knows about the risks of these drugs or how to mitigate those risks. We know that from some of the tragic cases that we have seen in the past of users taking excessive amounts of drugs in clubs and elsewhere.

Let us consider those who inject their drugs, and look at the comparative treatment in other places, and the experience of the criminal justice system in Georgia. Georgia reduced its prison population from 24,000 to 10,000 by taking out of prison those who had been put there for possession of small amounts of drugs. The first result of that was a massive saving to the taxpayers who fund the Republic of Georgia. Much more importantly, there was an incredible improvement in the health of the prison population. Deaths in prison fell, and there was a significant reduction in the hepatitis C and HIV infection rates among the prison population. I am not sure whether that experience is included in the Minister’s report, but it is another strong indication that we are not doing this right and that if we focused on this as a health issue rather than as a criminal justice issue, we would serve our constituents and our society a great deal better.

Untrammelled use of drugs, especially recreational drugs, fuels disinhibition in those who take them, and that in itself leads to criminal behaviour. We know that that is a significant part of organised crime. The Association of Chief Police Officers has estimated that 50% of all organised crime in the UK involves illegal drugs, mostly class A drugs. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has said that drugs are the most profitable sector of organised international crime, with a total turnover of $2 trillion in 2009.

My third proposition is that other countries are doing this much better, and that is why the Minister’s views and the report that he and his predecessors, including my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, have pushed for so hard, are so important. In the limited time available, I will deal only—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I had felt that I was in a somewhat surreal debate, hearing all Members on both sides of the House agree about the need for reform and a different approach, all making coherent arguments about why the present arrangements need to change. But I woke from my dream when I heard from the shadow Minister, who appears to be the only Member of the House who wishes to defend the status quo absolutely.

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said that he has waited 43 years for this report. I think that it is a very good report and that people can take from it what they want; they can look at the evidence and draw their conclusions from it. I think that the Home Office deserves credit for having the courage to issue it, and I hope that it will be the start of a debate.

My view, which is drawn not only from the report but from the public opinion polls that have been referred to, is that the genie is out of the bottle and it is not going back in. I think that the days of robotic, mindless rhetoric are over, because the facts and the evidence will no longer allow that. We now have to base what we do as a country on the facts and the evidence that we can accrue, and the issuing of this report is part of the attempt to do that.

I welcome the efforts of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and many other Members—many of them are here today—who over the years have made brave comments that have not always been welcomed by the Government of the day. I sense that there is a public mood now for a proper debate on these matters, and what could be wrong about a proper debate on a matter of such importance? It is much better than trying to shut down debate and pretend that everything is all right.

The coalition Government has made lots of progress over the past few years, which I am very pleased with, and there was progress in some regards under the previous Labour Government. However, it would be arrogant to say that we have everything right and that we can learn nothing from other countries. Of course we can learn from other countries, and it is right that we should seek to do so. The report seeks to highlight some of those lessons that can be learned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) referred to the Portuguese experience. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) drew attention to the fact—he quoted the report in full—that we have learned from Portugal for more than a decade that there is no correlation, at least in that country, between the level of penalty available and the extent of drug use. That is an important finding that we ought to bear in mind as we go forward.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who is not in his seat, made an interesting case for legalising cannabis. That is not Government policy, I have to tell him, but his case was coherent and others may or may not want to take it forward. The report’s stated position—its “observations” as the civil servants put it—is that we ought to keep a watching eye. Of course we should keep a watching eye on what is happening in the world. Does anyone argue that we should not?

These are experiments and it is far too early to say what the outcomes will be. They may be negative or positive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said. We do not yet know the consequences, but we should certainly watch with interest to see what they will be for public health and crime—and public finances, indeed, if we are to see a regulated market such as that in Colorado or Uruguay.

[Bob Stewart]

We have not touched much on the subject of crime. If we legalised drugs, the business would be less lucrative to the criminal world and that would stop some of the criminal gangs killing one another. We would have the bonus of fewer young people being killed on the streets of London.

[Norman Baker]

I shall take that as a comment in support of our right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. As I said, it is not Government policy to legalise drugs—nor, I think, is it the policy of any party in the House. However, my hon. Friend has made his point. Those sorts of discussions ought to be taking place and people ought to be able to argue the whys and wherefores in each case.

I turn to the question of new psychoactive substances, sometimes unhelpfully called “legal highs”. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion wanted more detail about what we were doing and was not entirely sure whether our policy was correct. I should say to her that in some ways it mirrors the approach taken in the international comparative study: it recommends that we get very tough on the suppliers of these dangerous substances, which cause immense harm to our constituents and, unfortunately, the deaths of young people. We are trying to rid our high streets of headshops, which are not an asset, but we do not seek to criminalise the users of the substances. That approach seems entirely appropriate—hammering down on those causing misery and helping those who use the substances.

National Crime Agency

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Lady for that comment, which is very true. Only in the past two weeks has the Chief Constable indicated the scale of reductions in normal policing in Northern Ireland that result from the budgetary changes that he has to implement. That will further compound the issue.

Some six years ago, a consignment arrived, also via the Irish Republic, that totalled €700 million-worth of cocaine. That of course predated the National Crime Agency; it was when SOCA was in operation. I mention those drug operations for the reason given by the hon. Lady. These drugs are doing untold harm to people not just in Northern Ireland, but in the entire United Kingdom. The Republic of Ireland market would not have provided even a toehold for €700 million-worth of cocaine. The report on 7 November, when the haul was located, said that the vast bulk of the cocaine was bound for the United Kingdom market.

The problem does not just apply to a small part of the United Kingdom; it will be felt in every constituency across this United Kingdom. On the streets of our cities, young people will be sold dope or illegal substances that have come from the shores of the Irish Republic and through Northern Ireland to the GB market. There is therefore an onus on everyone, particularly the SDLP and Sinn Fein, to sign up to the implementation of the National Crime Agency. I must say that Sinn Fein may well have associates who benefit from the failure to implement the National Crime Agency. I fully accept it when the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) says that the SDLP has no such hang-ups and no such associates, and that is all the more reason to sign up to the agency that will help to stop the problem.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What my hon. Friend has just alluded to stirs me to ask: how many of the 160 gangs operating across the border into Northern Ireland does he estimate are linked to paramilitary organisations?

[Mr Campbell]

That is a very pertinent question. When that question has been put to the police, the response has generally been, “Very many of them”, although I have not seen any figures indicating exactly how many the police believe are so linked. Many paramilitary groups have stopped their so-called politically inspired campaign and have now moved on to money laundering, illegal fuel and, of course, drug smuggling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I respect my hon. Friend for that. As I was saying, it is worth going down there to see what it is like. It is extraordinary. Lots of HGVs are scattered around the place, too. I do not know what was being smuggled, but it was difficult to get down some of the lanes because of the sheer number of vehicles. People should go and see that as well.

Stolen electricity is another huge issue. I should like the Northern Ireland electricity board, or whatever it is called, to tell us how many electricity bills are paid, because it seems to me that very few people do pay. Do not ask me how they manage it, but it is something to do with magnets: they get the meters going the wrong way. This is a major issue because, if someone is not paying for the electricity that he is using, someone else will be paying for it.

Benefit fraud across the border is big business. It is not just a question of a few people stealing a few pounds. As one drives around South Armagh, one sees staggering new homes—plush new buildings—all of them built during a time of recession. Where is the money coming from? A huge number of brand-new Mercedes cars can also be seen on the roads of south Armagh. I wish I had one of those. Where is the money coming from? These are huge rackets, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) knows, because her constituency borders on south Armagh.

I am sorry to say that the rule of law does not apply in what used to be called bandit country. I pay tribute to the PSNI, which is under constant threat in the area, and I thank it for the work that it has done. As for the Government of the Republic of Ireland, under Enda Kenny, they are absolutely on side. They do not want to have this criminal area on their border, because there is an overspill. So we have to ask who is against allowing the NCA, which would deal with this serious and organised crime, to operate in Northern Ireland, and why.

The SDLP has been mentioned. I get on well—I hope—with its Members. I think that they are honest and decent people, and I do not want to reopen the old arguments, but I am bewildered as to why they are opposing the NCA proposals. I really think that they should examine the reasons for their opposition. I fear that we may be seeing the scourge of sectarianism yet again. I understand what Sinn Fein are up to, and I would not describe Sinn Fein as a party with which I would wish to do business. We know the background of many of its members. I will say that I think Martin McGuinness has travelled a very long way, and that he behaves almost like a statesman.

[Bob Stewart]

Oh, God!

[Mr Robathan]

I heard that from a Unionist politician in Northern Ireland.

[Bob Stewart]

You have heard it from me, too.

[Mr Robathan]

I do not think of Gerry Adams in the same way. In any event, we know the background of members of Sinn Fein, and we also know the background of many of the people who are operating in south Armagh. Everyone who ever served in the Army there—in fact, nearly everyone who ever served in the Army in any part of Northern Ireland—knew the name of “Slab” Murphy. Well, he is still there, and he is still up to his old crooked business. I think that he has been to jail in the past, but what is he doing with his money? That is the question we must ask. Well, some of it is going into new houses, some of it is going into Mercedes cars, and some of it is probably going into villas in Spain, but who is funding political organisations?

I must say to Ministers—or, rather, to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who is the only Minister still in the Chamber—that I fear she will find that quite a lot of the money that used to go to the Provisional IRA is now going, through the back door, to Sinn Fein. I cannot see it going anywhere else, and I want the NCA, which deals with serious and organised crime, to go and examine that funding as well. If it is not able to do that, it damn well ought to be able to. Twenty years ago, these people were in organised gangs. They are still there, and the proceeds of crime still exist. Where is the money going? We need to be taking back those proceeds of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), and I appreciate his plain speaking on this and, indeed, other issues. I have no doubt that we shall hear more plain speaking from the Back Benches.

This is an important debate about an issue that our party raised in the Northern Ireland Assembly just a couple of weeks ago. Like our debate, it has focused on the prevalence of organised crime gangs—particularly in border areas, but throughout Northern Ireland—and has stressed the need for it to be dealt with. That need arose a long time ago. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) called for the setting of a deadline. I should be interested to hear, perhaps during the Opposition wind-up, what he thinks should happen if that deadline is not met.

The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting that the Government should deal with the issue themselves, because the NCA is a national agency. He rightly pointed out that this is not just a matter for Northern Ireland, but a matter that affects constituents and citizens throughout the United Kingdom. We cannot afford a situation in which Northern Ireland is the one part of the United Kingdom that is seen as a safe haven or bolthole for criminals and their illegal criminal assets and activities. It is an outrage, in the 21st century, that that should even be considered.

Given what the Chief Constable has said, given the overwhelming weight of opinion among ordinary people on all sides of the community in Northern Ireland and in all the Northern Ireland political parties apart from Sinn Fein and the SDLP, and given the views that have been expressed in the House, it is time to act. I am all in favour of appeals to common sense and appeals for people to sit down together and go through the arguments, but that has been going on for a long time, and there comes a point at which, in the absence of agreement, action must be taken. As we have heard again today, it has been reported that the SDLP has been engaging in talks with the aim of making the NCA more accountable. I should be interested to hear what issue is still outstanding, because it seems to me that all the issues have been addressed, and more than addressed. As we have heard, the current proposals go far beyond anything else that exists in the United Kingdom.

Even if the SDLP signs up to the proposals, I understand that Sinn Fein is not engaging in the discussions. The Minister of Justice made it clear in the Assembly that it had not even responded to invitations to speak about the matter. When Sinn Fein was challenged in the Assembly a couple of weeks ago on what should be done about criminal assets—and the figures are startling: some £12 million, £13 million or £14 million of criminal assets apparently cannot be seized because the NCA is not operating in Northern Ireland—its answer was that we should set up a bespoke system to deal with them. Another of its suggestions is that, at a time when we are facing massive budgetary deficits and welfare penalties are being imposed, more money should be spent. It has not said where the money will come from. It is an impossible demand, unfunded—we have no idea where the money will come from—but rather than actually introduce the NCA, it wants the Northern Ireland Assembly to have these bespoke arrangements. In terms of making arrangements to fill the gaps if the NCA does not operate in Northern Ireland soon, Minister Ford was asked about the cost implications of doing it ourselves and he replied:

“I think the technical term is ‘quite horrific.’”

What the costs to Northern Ireland would be if we had to go down this road are unimaginable, and the Sinn Fein attitude is reckless, irresponsible, bizarre and totally obnoxious. Its attitude is, “We’re not going to do it, we’re not going to speak about it, and we just do it ourselves whatever the costs may be, and we do not know where the money is coming from.”

[Bob Stewart]

This is the National Crime Agency, and I know policing has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, but if we do not get resolution on this, which is in the interests of everyone, surely we ought to start thinking of imposing it in these circumstances, for the good of everyone in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I was coming on to. Whatever happens in the interminable discussions between the SDLP and the Government, I have to repeat to the SDLP the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). By putting the preference, and the emphasis, on implementing Patten and all of that rather than protecting children from online abuse, the NCA, with every day that passes, is unable to bring its expertise, help and assistance to bear. The UN has already criticised Northern Ireland in that regard. We have criminal assets being smuggled and used in a terrible way, benefiting paramilitary and other gangs, and every day we have this wittering on—dancing on the head of a pin—from the SDLP about accountability issues, which have already been addressed, yet people are suffering.

Even if the SDLP overcomes its objections—whatever they may be, and it is a matter for it to explain to the people how it can justify all of this—we will still be left with the problem that without Sinn Fein’s agreement, we cannot make this work in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein shows no signs whatsoever of being prepared to sign up—maybe for some of the reasons mentioned by some Members already about the gains it gets from some of this. Because this is a national matter that affects not just Northern Ireland but the entirety of the United Kingdom—it is about our ability to combat criminal gangsterism across the entire United Kingdom—there comes a point at which the Government at Westminster have to face up to the issue. For the sake of the children and for the sake of the citizens who are being victimised and denied the protection and defence other people throughout the United Kingdom are being given, there comes a point when we cannot simply keep appealing to the better nature—if there is one—of Sinn Fein to recognise reality, and instead we must take action.

I simply want to make that point very strongly and leave it with the Government. I look forward to hearing their response and to getting a very definite answer on that issue.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Serious and organised crime is not just a threat; it is a daily reality that can affect everyone and costs the overall economy of the United Kingdom approximately £24 billion each year. I want to focus on the serious and organised crime threats we face nationally and show just how valuable the National Crime Agency is in countering serious and organised crime. The NCA covers a wide variety of criminality, and we have already heard some aspects of that, but I want to concentrate on the issues of money laundering, drugs, organised immigration crime and human trafficking, and the criminal use of firearms.

The single cross-cutting issue that has totally changed the landscape for serious and organised crime is the growth of the internet. On the internet, there is real-time child sexual exploitation and abuse. Over the internet, firearms are obtained and cyber-techniques are enabling so-called traditional and other crime to proliferate. Using the internet, the movement and supply of drugs are managed. In addition, the internet is increasingly being used for attacks on Government services such as tax collection and for fraud. More than 80% of identity theft also involves the internet. Finally, illegal immigration and modern slavery crimes increasingly rely on the internet, of course.

The scale of the laundering of criminal proceeds, despite the UK’s leading role in developing international standards to tackle it, is definitely a strategic threat to the UK’s economy and reputation. Some of the same financial transfer systems used by serious and organised criminals in the UK are used by terrorist groups both domestically and overseas. It is also clear that the UK and its dependent territories are the destination for billions of pounds of European criminal proceeds. Many hundreds of billions of pounds of international criminal money is almost certainly laundered through UK banks, including their subsidiaries. The high transaction volume—estimated at trillions of pounds a day—and the language, developed financial services industry and political stability of the UK make our financial system particularly attractive to money laundering despite the measures to identify and stop it.

Most proceeds of UK serious and organised crime are laundered through UK banks, wire transfer companies and other regulated businesses, including money service businesses and cash-rich businesses. Thereafter a large proportion is sent abroad, where profits are often ultimately invested in real estate. Importantly, a proportion is reinvested in criminal activity in various stages. Like many of my friends the hon. Members for Northern Ireland constituencies, I know from personal experience, as does the late Minister—

[Mr Robathan]

I’m not dead yet. [Laughter.]

[Bob Stewart]

I will just reach out and check. I am so sorry; I mean my right hon. Friend the former Minister. Both of us know that cross-border crime really does support paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. If the NCA were used properly there, what great benefits would accrue to all the people of Northern Ireland, including those who supported Sinn Fein Members of Parliament.

On the drugs trade, the supply of heroin from Afghanistan and amphetamine processing and production in the United Kingdom are on the increase. Although most of the opiates consumed in the UK originate in Afghanistan, heroin continues to be imported from Pakistan. It also appears that Turkish-controlled trafficking is increasing. The Turkish national police report increasing seizures of heroin in Turkey; apparently they are almost back to pre-2009 figures, which correlates with a dip and then an increase in poppy production in Afghanistan. Heroin trafficked via Pakistan to the UK is most often sent directly by parcel, air courier, air passengers or maritime container, and the traffickers often have family links to Bradford, the west midlands and south Manchester.

Cocaine consumed in the UK mainly comes from Peru, Colombia and Bolivia. It is imported into the UK from the Caribbean using all forms of transport, but west African countries are also a major hub for moving cocaine to Europe. Nigerian nationals in particular have increased their involvement in the cocaine trade, to the extent that they are now on an equal footing with Latin Americans in their ability to source, finance and transport both bulk and smaller quantities of cocaine. However, the Netherlands and Belgium continue to be the primary source for amphetamine and MDMA, which is used in the UK. There are also some indications of an increase in amphetamine processing in the UK. Despite an increase in the amount of skunk cannabis being grown domestically in illegal farms, cannabis resin is still imported from Afghanistan and Morocco.

We all know that human trafficking is a significant global problem. Clearly, it is linked to modern slavery. In 2013, there was a 47% increase in reports of slavery in our country compared with 2012, and these are just the victims we know about. Slavery’s hidden nature means the actual numbers are likely to be far, far higher. Once in the UK, illegal immigrants provide a pool of people whom serious and organised criminals can exploit by selling them forged or counterfeit documents to support fraudulent applications for leave to remain in our country.

The national strategic assessment of serious and organised crime suggests that the supply of firearms to the UK marketplace is increasing. Obviously, there is also concern that weapons, whether from illegal or legitimate sources, might find their way into the hands of extremists. The latest Home Office crime figures show that firearms have reportedly been used in 11,227 recorded crimes in 2010-11 in England and Wales. Thankfully, that is on the decline: there has been a 13% decrease in the use of firearms. Most criminally used firearms are found in London, Merseyside, Manchester, the west Midlands and west Yorkshire, and the majority of shooting incidents are of course perpetrated by members of urban street gangs.

All the most serious crime threats are transnational and rely on unstable countries. This applies to trafficked people destined for modern slavery, as well as to fraud and cybercrime. Most of what I have outlined has been culled from the national strategic assessment of serious and organised crime 2014, which I read in preparation for this afternoon. It is a chilling document which I hope other Members will read in order to understand the severe challenges that our National Crime Agency faces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), but I hope to correct some of the things that she said in her speech.

Real difficulties are being faced by law enforcement agencies because of the ongoing situation with the National Crime Agency. Northern Ireland may be the locus of the problem, but the difficulties that we face affect crime right across the UK and indeed internationally. As Members have said, we are talking about transnational operations.

The history of the NCA has been well outlined today. It has been in effect from 7 October 2013, and yet some parties in Northern Ireland have yet to reach agreement on extending its powers fully with appropriate accountability mechanisms in place, and that is despite every effort being made to meet those parties’ requests. The Alliance leader, David Ford, who is the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland, was absolutely clear with the Home Office from the outset that any operation of the NCA in Northern Ireland would have to adhere to the accountability mechanisms that fit within the justice devolution settlement. That was made crystal clear from the beginning, and was not something that was said in response to complaints from others.

The Minister of Justice has been holding talks with most of the Executive parties on a proposal paper that he has put forward. There is a significant gap in Northern Ireland's law enforcement effort, as anyone who has read a recent article by the Chief Constable in the Belfast Telegraph will have seen—many Members have quoted liberally from that article this afternoon. It is of increasing concern that we do not have access to NCA skills.

[Bob Stewart]

The hon. Lady has just said that there is no access, but I feel almost sure that when the NCA gets intelligence that affects Northern Ireland, it will not sit on it; it will pass it on to the PSNI, even though it does not have officers operating in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

No, because I did not intervene on any Northern Ireland Members. I heard an awful lot about us on all sorts of questions, and I want to deal with those points and to set the issues in context.

Hon. Members have suggested that the SDLP has wilfully set out to stop the NCA and is still somehow vetoing it. We pointed out issues that needed to be addressed and could have been addressed when we considered the legislation. Many people then dismissed those issues, saying, “It’s impossible. You can’t have the National Crime Agency make anything available to the Policing Board. You can’t have it working with the Chief Constable in such a way. They can’t operate differently in Northern Ireland from how they operate anywhere else.” Lo and behold, we now have proposals for those things to happen, but those who wasted time in dismissing our concerns—saying that they could not be met, but were impossible and specious—now accuse us of having a vacuous position. The fact is that if our views had then been properly pursued and followed by others, we might not now be in the impasse that we have been in for too long.

I want to make a point about child protection. Hon. Members have referred to the recent Assembly legislation on human trafficking. When I sat on the Public Bill Committee on the Modern Slavery Bill, I was at pains to make sure that the legislation in this House was in a better state so that it was properly compatible with the Northern Ireland legislation and there were no jurisdictional or other gaps. That included ensuring that the new anti-slavery commissioner—a UK appointment; potentially a British appointment—could, under the legislation in this House, review and make recommendations on matters in devolved areas if the devolved Administrations opted any of their services into the scope of the anti-slavery commissioner’s work. It is not therefore the case that the SDLP has said that nothing at British or UK level can be applied or that we will have no part of it.

It has been suggested that the SDLP is somehow reluctant to do things on policing that Sinn Fein does not do. Let us be very clear: we committed to Patten. We went on the Policing Board, and we drove the delivery of Patten when Sinn Fein refused to do so and attacked us for our position on policing in council chambers and at every political level. We did not need Sinn Fein then. Even before that, we supported the creation of the Assets Recovery Agency, which Sinn Fein completely opposed, and we supported its work when it was attacked and demonised by Sinn Fein. When SOCA was created, we had concerns that it might not carry forward the good work being done in Northern Ireland by the Assets Recovery Agency, and some hon. Members from other parties shared those concerns. They were not opposed to the existence of SOCA; like us, they had concerns about whether the work would be properly carried forward. People can raise concerns about agencies such as the NCA without being opposed to good law enforcement.

There is no question of our needing to know where Sinn Fein is going before we take a position on the NCA or on anything else. Equally, we differed from Sinn Fein on another aspect of policing. Annex E of the St Andrew’s agreement covered the provisions that basically allowed MI5 to get around the accountability mechanisms provided in Patten. It ensured that what happened with the Mount Vernon gang report by the previous police ombudsman could not happen again, and that no question that touched on or took in aspects of national security and the performance of MI5 could be examined by the police ombudsman. We opposed annex E at the time, and we were the ones who were isolated. We therefore have no problem in differing with Sinn Fein on policing issues. We have done it regularly. We have, however, been absolutely consistent in opposing—

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

[Mark Durkan]

I will not give way, because I want to answer several questions and challenges.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) mentioned issues of statute earlier. It is true that commitments have been given that certain provisions will be set in statute, but we need to see the statutory provisions. Any Member of the House would say that the commitment to put something in statute is not enough and that they want to see it. There was exactly that character of exchange recently in the Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee. The Government have committed to table amendments in new areas. We welcome that, but we will judge the amendments when we see them.

Similarly in this matter, we are not telling people, “No, do not draft any statutory provisions or show us what they might look like.” We were told that the statutory provisions will ensure that the ombudsman can look at things. We want that to be properly framed in statute, because we do not want the role that has been promised for the ombudsman to be got around by something in the style of annex E of the St Andrews agreement, which allowed the Government to get around the issue of MI5.

On the issue of MI5, I have asked questions of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in this House about how MI5 could conduct operations in Northern Ireland in ways that seem to abuse the role of SOCA. I have spoken to her privately, outside the Chamber, about the cases of people who have supposedly been put under pressure using SOCA powers, on the basis that, “That will go away if you turn for us, work for MI5 and join dissident organisations to be our agent.”

We do not want the NCA to be used and abused in that way under the new arrangements. We want clarity on that. That is one reason why we want to ensure that the role of the Police Ombudsman is absolutely clear. When people come to us with those sorts of problems, there must be a proper channel through which they can take their case and their evidence. And evidence they have. I gave the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the phone numbers of those who were ringing people up and pressing them. They were stopping people in other parts of the world and taking them into custody in hotels. That is the sort of thing that is going on currently using the MI5 position and the SOCA role. We want to ensure that none of that will apply to the NCA. Those good and proper standards for our constituents are not a lot to ask.

We have engaged with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland. In the past, I have acknowledged that he has done good work in this area and has taken some of these issues forward. I also credited his special adviser, even though politicians are not meant to acknowledge special advisers, for his good work and engagement on these issues. We need to take this matter forward. We want there to be no hiding place in relation to any aspects of crime.

Let us be clear that it is not just people in the SDLP who have questioned whether SOCA and all the other agencies to date have been as active and assiduous in relation to whole areas of organised and commercial crime in Northern Ireland as they should have been. The NCA has powers in non-devolved areas such as customs, and there are a lot of things that it could be doing.

When the Crime and Courts Bill was going through the House and we were identifying the problems, some of us said that provision could be made for the PSNI to access and use the resources and insight of the NCA. Other people said, “No, it is only constabulary powers that will work. It cannot work in any other way.” We also made it clear at that time that we were worried that there might be discontinuity in the pursuit and recovery of assets because of the difficulties that had been created. We made it clear that we did not want to see that and that we did not share any of the objections or anxieties that appeared to be coming from Sinn Fein in relation to the pursuit and recovery of assets. It was other people who made those choices. We made it clear that we did not have any issue with that and did not want to stop it in any way. We wanted to ensure that the provisions would be proper and robust.

I refute the insinuation that the SDLP is wilfully blocking the good work that the NCA should be doing. On the Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, I have argued for future-proofing the provisions to anticipate that the NCA will have a role. That proves that this is not a case of wilful and persistent obstinacy for the sake of it, but a matter of principle. Our principles can be put into good practice. Other people have disputed that, but they now tell us that they have the last word and documentation on how to do it. I think that that so-called last word needs a little more work, and that we will get there.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak on issues of such importance, and for the Democratic Unionist party to get the opportunity to debate an issue of such regional and national importance.

As we know, the National Crime Agency became fully operational last October, and it was set up to work alongside law enforcement organisations to tackle serious and organised crime. It boasts of a national and international reach covering areas such as sexual exploitation, drugs, human trafficking, fraud, cybercrime and organised criminal groups, to name just a few. The NCA delivers its national response through four pillars: pursue, prevent, protect and prepare. That all sounds well and good, but it cannot pursue, cannot prevent, cannot protect, and cannot prepare in Northern Ireland as it can in the rest of the United Kingdom—and as it would like to—and as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, the whole United Kingdom will suffer from that. The NCA sounds good, but it cannot deliver its promises or cover the areas that it claims to cover.

While I have great respect for the hon. Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I cannot agree with what they are saying. We have great difficulty trying to understand exactly why they, as members of a nationalist party, cannot agree to support the NCA and move things forward.

On Monday the NCA claimed that the system cannot realistically prosecute all 50,000 sex offenders. That is what it stated: 50,000 sex offenders are free to act as they wish in Northern Ireland because of the intransigence of the nationalist parties. That is particularly worrying as “child sexual exploitation and abuse” is the first “crime threat” listed on the NCA’s website—my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) also referred to that. Furthermore, recent years have seen a number of historical cases of child abuse come to light throughout the UK, from those involved with TV and radio, to those in responsible positions in children’s homes. That makes the latest statement from the NCA truly worrying.

Ultimately, owing to the huge scale of child sex crime in Britain, some paedophiles will escape prosecution as police target the most dangerous abusers among the 50,000 regularly viewing indecent images of youngsters. Just this week, Keith Bristow said that it was unrealistic to expect the criminal justice system to deal with every child sex offender, and that it was time to start “thinking differently” about how the police pursue less dangerous offenders. Several things sprang to mind when I read that in the news. The NCA is crucial for accountability, and we need it to be active in Northern Ireland, to make its case, and for us to have its protection as well as its experience. What does it say for our system that child sex crime in the United Kingdom is so large and widespread? We all know about the disturbing evidence across the whole of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland that shows that it is a clear issue.

[Bob Stewart]

I took a lot of comfort from the words of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). To me he suggested that some things have changed and that there was a possibility that the SDLP would now consider the matter. That is the way I read the speech. Perhaps I am wrong—[Interruption.] He is nodding, and that is exactly the way I read the speech. There is a possibility that we can get agreement from the SDLP, which is fantastic.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to wind up this important debate on behalf of the Government.

As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, the Government are committed to ensuring that the National Crime Agency can operate fully in Northern Ireland. In my capacity as Minister for serious and organised crime, I have observed at first hand how important the NCA’s role is in disrupting organised crime groups—more than 5,000 of which are operating in the United Kingdom—and how important it is for us to ensure that the maximum skills and territorial reach are available to it, so that we can protect the citizens of the United Kingdom and disrupt these criminals.

As has been pointed out a number of times today, Northern Ireland is currently losing out because the NCA cannot operate there with full powers as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is only right for the people of Northern Ireland to be afforded the same protection in the fight against serious and organised crime. Organised crime is a threat to our national security. The NCA has national and international reach. It will always have a level of capability and specialism that cannot be achieved at force level. It can operate across jurisdictional boundaries in a way in which local law enforcement cannot. Serious and organised crime groups do not operate in isolated pockets in each region. They do not respect borders or false boundaries, as the recent Tilbury incident demonstrated. We need to be co-ordinated, because otherwise it becomes easier for serious and organised criminals to exploit the gaps and pull at the seams.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland recently estimated—these figures have already been mentioned a number of times today—that between 140 and 160 organised groups are active in Northern Ireland. That amounts to an estimated 800 active criminals. Nearly a third of those groups have been assessed as having links to international criminality, and a further third have been assessed as being linked to criminality in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Important points have been made about the reach of those organised crime groups, and the extent to which we in the wider United Kingdom are exposed to them as a result of the NCA’s lack of capability in Northern Ireland.

Owing to its limitations, the NCA is unable to target serious and organised crime groups in Northern Ireland that are involved in activities that require policing powers to tackle. They include groups that are involved in the supply of drugs, the supply of firearms, fraud, cybercrime, human trafficking, and the sexual exploitation of children. An international approach must be taken by everyone if we are to tackle that crime. Irrespective of the debate in Northern Ireland, if the United Kingdom does not opt into the 2014 European justice and home affairs measures, there will be very serious implications for the way in which the threat in Northern Ireland is tackled. Those measures are hugely important to cross-border co-operation between the UK and Ireland on licensing and criminal justice. They include the arrest warrant, the European criminal records information system, SIS II, and other important capabilities of which we need to be part.

Our strategy approach needs to be tightly co-ordinated to counter the threat, because otherwise, as I said earlier, it will become easier for serious and organised criminals to exploit and pull at the seams. We need to ensure that there are relentless measures to disrupt serious and organised criminals, stop people getting involved, and strengthen our protection against organised crime. Leading that fight is the National Crime Agency, with its crucial national and international reach. It has already become an integral part of law enforcement in Great Britain, but, as has been said many times today, that is not the case in Northern Ireland.

[Bob Stewart]

I have to agree with my friends from Northern Ireland. After two years, I think that the national Government should take a national position with the National Crime Agency and impose it on the people of Northern Ireland, who are just as British as I am.

[Karen Bradley]

I shall deal with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend shortly, but let me first say that we respect the devolution settlements in the same way that we must respect devolution settlements in regard to a number of matters. That can apply to something as trivial as a planning decision made by one’s local council, which one may not agree with as the Member of Parliament, but which one must respect because it was made by the people who were given the authority and competency to make it.

[Bob Stewart]

I am sorry, but that is not the same as—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is up to the Minister to give way before the hon. Gentleman can come in. Let us leave it that way; we are not changing the rules today.

Foreign National Offenders (Removal)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the key points: the number of appeals that have led to delays in deportation until now. We are reducing the number of routes of appeal significantly, from 17 to four. We have also introduced the ability to deport people before they appeal so that they are out of the country when they do. As I said in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), there have been 100 removals prior to appeal as a result of that change in the system.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When a foreign national approaches the immigration desk at a point of entry into our country, if a message flashes up on the immigration officer’s screen stating, “This person is of interest to us or is a foreign criminal”, does that officer have any more power to stop that person, or even to deport them, under the current law?

[Mrs May]

When certain information about an individual is available, the systems in place at the border enable UK Border Force officers to stop them entering the country. What is crucial, of course, is that we have a proper exchange of information with other countries on the criminal records of individuals so that we can act on it.

Police Reform

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on the changes that we are introducing. I will take away the point that he has made about defendants and interviews. He will have noted that the Attorney-General is on the Front Bench as well, and will have noted that issue.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Superintendents have huge responsibilities—professional responsibilities, and a requirement to lead. Direct entrants, who are possible future superintendents, will require quite a long period of training. How long might that training period be?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need for training. We have been clear that direct entrants need to have a period of training. The College of Policing has developed such training, which lasts 18 months. I am pleased to see that one of the side benefits of direct entry is that the training of direct entrants will be looked at in conjunction with that of officers who are promoted to superintendent levels through the police force. This is welcomed by the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales.