National Crime Agency

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Campbell]

It would be extremely difficult for an efficient organised criminal gang to operate in any part of Northern Ireland without at least the tacit support, acknowledgement and say so of the paramilitary groups on either side. Whether there is a specific connection, an endorsement or just an allowance for the gang to continue, that is certainly the case.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Bearing in mind the seriousness of the implications of what we are discussing for all constituencies in Northern Ireland, is it not significant that the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) has been left on her own? The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who is always here, and the leader of the SDLP are absent. Does that not send a message in itself?

[Mr Campbell]

I look forward to the full participation of all SDLP Members. I hope that they will appear before the conclusion of our deliberations.

To conclude, many members of the paramilitary groups, who were engaged for almost 30 years in brutality, murder, mayhem and destruction, have moved on to issues of a more financial nature, such as how they can glean their illegal and ill-gotten gains from various darker sides of society. The police are reasonably sure where and how those people operate, and are fairly confident that they can inhibit their activities. However, they can do so only when they have not just the full support of the entire community, which I am confident they have, but all the resources and manpower and womanpower they need to tackle such activity. The knowledge, expertise and information of the National Crime Agency will be a central part of that. It has knowledge of the international community and international policing. The two examples to which I have alluded are the tip of the iceberg. The €80 million last month and the €700 million six years ago were from just two operations that were apprehended. The police believe that many more operations are ongoing or have got through the net. The net needs to be tightened. The organisation that can help tighten it is the National Crime Agency.

I hope we will send a message today to peace-loving and law-abiding people in Northern Ireland and across the UK that the net is tightening. More importantly, we will send a message to the criminal gangs, the drug dealers, the human traffickers, those who break the law, those who depend on loopholes and those who depend on political parties that should know better allowing them to drive a coach and horses through those loopholes that their days are numbered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

The NCA is the UK’s leading agency against organised crime, human, weapon and drug trafficking, cybercrime, and economic crime that goes across regional and international borders, but it can be tasked to investigate any crime. The NCA has a strategic role as it looks at the bigger picture across the United Kingdom, analysing how criminals operate and how they can be disrupted. To do that, it works closely with the regional organised crime units, the Serious Fraud Office and individual police forces.

In Northern Ireland, where police assessments indicate that more than 140 and perhaps even 180 organised criminal gangs are in operation—that is those that are known—the NCA is unable to operate owing to the intransigence of the nationalist parties, namely Sinn Fein and the SDLP. The need for the National Crime Agency to have full powers extended to cover Northern Ireland is recognised by many interested parties, including the agencies responsible for administering justice and the courts and those involved in policing. Of course, we in the Democratic Unionist party strongly support that extension.

As someone who represents a rural constituency in the heart of Northern Ireland, I am well aware of the impact criminal gangs have on our rural communities by creating victims of crime, and their negative impact on the rural economy. We have seen audacious attempts by many gangs to carry out all sorts of crimes, including the exploding of ATMs on the forecourts of garages, the laundering and selling of illegal fuel, the stealing to order of valuable machinery, and the worrying trend in the theft of cattle, and the illegal slaughter and sale of those animals in the Republic of Ireland and certain areas such as south Armagh. Those incidents illustrate the need to have at the PSNI’s disposal the expertise and assistance of the National Crime Agency. As we all know, criminals do not respect borders or victims in their illegal pursuits.

The work in which the NCA is involved not only relates to the crimes that I have outlined but, importantly, has a significant role in the area of internet-based crime. Members will be aware that the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed its strong views on the protection of children online. The UN committee is rightly concerned, as we all should be, about the lack of NCA powers in Northern Ireland, as that means that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre is not fully operational in Northern Ireland. The entire House should be alarmed about that. Our children are at much greater risk owing to the fact that the NCA is not operational. I challenge the nationalist parties to explain to the public why they have adopted a negative stance on its implementation in Northern Ireland given the UN report and its ramifications.

I certainly feel that the issue is directly affecting a broad range of people, from the rural farmer who has valuable machinery stolen to order to those involved in the detection of online crime, such as the serious and sickening issue of child pornography. The National Crime Agency is a body that Northern Ireland simply cannot do without. It operates in other regions of the UK and, at a time when our policing budgets are under severe pressure, it makes complete sense to allow the PSNI to have the necessary assistance of the NCA to carry out its investigative duties. I also believe that the ability to seize assets is vital in the fight against gangsters who think that they are untouchable.

The reluctance of Sinn Fein and the SDLP to accept the necessity of allowing the NCA to operate and the PSNI to avail itself of its expertise in the fight against crime internationally puts Northern Ireland and its citizens at a severe disadvantage. The two nationalist parties continually bleat about equality, but once again those calls fall short of ensuring that our communities have the very best security and that the organisations tasked with their protection have the very best intelligence and powers at their disposal.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman is saying. Many people will understand why Sinn Fein might not want to enter into this, because it does not actually want Northern Ireland to be successful, but what does he think is really at the bottom of the reluctance of the SDLP, which has worked very closely with all parties in trying to take Northern Ireland forward?

[Dr McCrea]

I have to say to the hon. Lady that I am still trying to work that out. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), but there is no genuine reason whatsoever that she can give her constituents—she certainly did not give one today—for why she and her party are standing in the way of introducing the NCA in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Dodds]

On that point, was my hon. Friend as disturbed as I was that one of the arguments that the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) seemed to advance was that the NCA, in her view, had not performed as well as it should have and needed to step up to the plate? In fact, one of the reasons it cannot do what it wants to do is that the SDLP will not allow it to operate. It was a bizarre argument and, along with the other stuff about accountability, lays bare the total vacuity of the arguments advanced by the SDLP.

[Dr McCrea]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. In fact, it lays bare the bankruptcy of the SDLP’s argument on the matter. There certainly has to be some other reason—a hidden reason—why it is unwilling to take forward the NCA in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland’s Justice Minister has highlighted that the NCA’s limited powers in Northern Ireland place an extra burden on the PSNI. While the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland and Wales—have the expertise of the NCA, as a result of the Belfast agreement the people of Northern Ireland are held to ransom, because concessions to nationalists meant that policing was subject to a far higher degree of community oversight and monitoring than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, in Northern Ireland we are left with a shadow form of the NCA that can carry out only its border and customs functions, but not its other crime-fighting roles.

In her sixth statement to this House on the security situation in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State said that the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland remains severe, compared with the threat in Great Britain, which is moderate. The Northern Ireland Justice Minister has warned that the PSNI is already facing pressure with the threat from dissident republicans and loyalist street violence and therefore does not need extra burdens placed on it when there is a fully equipped national agency able to deal with those duties.

The inability of the NCA to operate to its full extent in Northern Ireland means that a back door is open to organised criminal gangs in areas of drug enforcement, human trafficking and other forms of serious criminality. However, the nationalist parties in Northern Ireland do not seem to care about the most vulnerable in our society. This House should be aware, however, of the duplicitous nature of the nationalist parties, as this week in the Northern Ireland Assembly they voted for the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill, introduced by my party colleague Lord Morrow, which would ensure that the perpetrators of the crimes of human trafficking and slavery are caught and appropriately punished for the suffering they have inflicted, yet they carelessly oppose the NCA having the ability to administer those powers. Furthermore, the House should note that a number of years ago the nationalists approved the devolution of justice, with SOCA in place, without any caveats.

Even though there is more accountability in Northern Ireland than in any other region of the United Kingdom, it appears that the nationalist parties simply do not like the NCA, and here is the reason: it is a UK-wide agency and they are on a crusade to block anything that is British and remove it from Northern Ireland. It is high time nationalists and republicans stopped using excuses and faced up to the reality of the world we live in and the necessity of such an agency to keep the people of Northern Ireland—their constituents as well as mine—and particularly the most vulnerable, safe.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am glad that two things have emerged during this debate—first, that this is not some esoteric discussion among the parties in Northern Ireland who cannot agree on some issues and therefore dance around the various points. As members of both Front-Bench teams and other speakers have accepted, the subject has huge implications for the constituents of all Members of the House. If Northern Ireland becomes, as it is becoming, a back door for serious international crime, that impacts on the streets and the people in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The second theme that I hope has come through in this debate is that despite the enormity of the issues at stake, the objections, as described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), are vacuous. I want to deal with some of the objections raised today by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and the reasons why the SDLP has blocked the proposals.

Many people in Northern Ireland and in the House will find it rather odd that, because of the inability of the NCA to operate fully in Northern Ireland, people who abuse children are getting away with it, people who are laundering money are getting away with it, people who are smuggling drugs are getting away with it, people who are engaged in the smuggling of fuel and so on are getting away with it and building up vast empires. People who are engaged in all these activities are able to keep their ill-gotten gains because of the absence of the NCA.

What is the objection? The SDLP claims that it wants to make sure that the Patten principles are adhered to, it wants to ensure that the accountability mechanisms are all in place, and it wants clarification that there is no clash in the code of ethics. Meanwhile the criminals, who do not give a stuff about Patten principles and all the rest of it, are walking off free. That is the importance of what we are debating here today. Let us look at what is being asked for.

As has been pointed out, we want to make sure that the ineffectiveness of SOCA, which has been described, is not repeated in the National Crime Agency. Of course, there is already a mechanism for doing that. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has pointed out that there is far more accountability in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. If there is concern about the effectiveness of the NCA, let us remember that it must bring its plan for the year to the Policing Board; it cannot just say, “This is our plan.” The NCA can then be questioned about the implementation of the plan. Not only that, and just in case the National Crime Agency decides, “Well, Northern Ireland is only small beer and we are not too worried about it,” it is required to show how its plan marries up with the Policing Board’s plan for policing in Northern Ireland.

So if the SDLP is concerned about how to ensure that the National Crime Agency will be relevant and effective in Northern Ireland, there is the accountability mechanism. The fact that the NCA has to go along to the Policing Board, which comprises members of the SDLP, my party and all the other parties in Northern Ireland, as well as independents, means that there is every opportunity to make sure that the plan it is putting forward will be effective in Northern Ireland. The NCA will certainly not be effective if it cannot even operate in Northern Ireland. In the absence of full implementation of the Patten principles, whatever that means, that seems to be the alternative that the SDLP is suggesting,

[Dr McCrea]

Does my hon. Friend think that perhaps the SDLP has tried to tie up the NCA so much that it becomes totally ineffective, just as the hands of the security services were tied behind their backs when they were fighting the IRA?

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will get on to the specific points about that. I accept the points he makes, and they have been made throughout the debate, but I will get to those specific points shortly.

The consequences of not acting are potentially devastating. This is about drugs and violence on our streets, children being abused and vulnerable people defrauded. Organised criminals make money out of other people’s misery and undermine the fabric and cohesion of our communities. That threat costs the UK more than £24 billion a year, and it is not just the financial cost—it is the emotional and physical cost, and the impact on families and communities. We should not underestimate the importance of the threat.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) opened the debate very well and made a number of important points, some of which were followed up later. He set the scene very well and his example of drug smuggling and the co-operation required on that powerfully highlights the importance of this matter.

The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), and I spent many happy hours in the Modern Slavery Bill Committee recently. I am pleased to say that he, like us, is supporting the motion before us today. He wanted to know what extra steps the Government are taking, and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and others asked about that, too, including the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). The UK Government have been fully involved in the discussions, rightly led by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister David Ford, and in developing the package and supporting the discussions. The package represents a sound proposal to enable progress and it has the Government’s full support. We remain ready to support David Ford in those discussions, including by meeting the parties if they would find that helpful. I will pass back to the Justice Minister the comments that have been made about setting deadlines.

Comments were made about whether the UK Government should legislate for the NCA in the absence of agreement, and I want to be absolutely clear. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said recently:

“Be in no doubt, it may have ‘national’ in its name but the UK Government completely accepts the crucial importance of ensuring that NCA’s operations in Northern Ireland are fully consistent with the devolution settlement.”

We have to accept that devolution settlement. That is what this Westminster Government agreed to do when that settlement was set up by the previous Government, and we must continue to respect it in order to maintain that settlement.

[Dr McCrea]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karen Bradley]

I will not, because we do not have long and we have another debate.

[Dr McCrea]

rose—

[Karen Bradley]

No, please forgive me.

David Ford has also been clear that this cannot go on indefinitely. He said we are now at the end of the road. His proposed package is comprehensive and gives clear, transparent and significant local accountability, which we fully support, but if agreement is not reached we will have to draw a line under it for the foreseeable future and we will need to assess how that affects law enforcement here.

Policing is devolved in Northern Ireland and we respect that. We have been, and are, fully supportive of the discussions being led by the Justice Secretary to address the concerns around accountability. These discussions remain ongoing—David Ford is trying to meet Sinn Fein and Keith Bristow, the director general of the NCA, has met the parties to address their concerns and offer assurances. If agreement is not reached, we will have to accept that the NCA will not be fully operational for the foreseeable future. I therefore urge all parties—

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I should have been clear: it was Madam Deputy Speaker who gave me very strict warnings.

[Dr McCrea]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to hide behind stating that you had instructed her not to give way because she had little time, leaving us in a potentially devastating position?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Dr McCrea, we both know that that is not a point of order. The bottom line is that I clarified the position: it is exactly in the Minister’s hands and quite rightly; she will choose whether she wishes to give way or not. She has given way already, and it is the choice of the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting question, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

[Dr McCrea]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When I spoke to Madam Deputy Speaker earlier, she said that the first debate was to finish at 4.45, yet the Minister would not take an intervention even though she had four minutes left. I think there was a suggestion that she was hiding; she certainly was.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We have discussed this matter already and I have ruled on it. It is not a point of order and, in fairness, it is up to the Minister to decide what to do with the time allowed, and that was absolutely correct. We have now allowed extra time for the next debate, which is well subscribed.

Foreign National Offenders (Removal)

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right: I believe the Immigration Act will make a difference. The reduction in the number of appeals only kicked in this week, but since July there have been 100 cases of people being removed under the non-suspensive appeals ruling in the Immigration Act, which means that we have been able to deport them before they have a right of appeal in the UK. They have a right of appeal, but it will be from outside the United Kingdom.

On the other matter that my right hon. and learned Friend raises, we have obviously set out proposals to change our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights. I have been very clear all along that no option should have been off the table, including coming out of the European convention, if that is what it took to restore the situation. We have made proposals that we expect will deal with the relationship with the European Court, which is a crucial issue for not just the Home Office but the British public.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Home Secretary, when I go into a restaurant for a steak, it is known where the animal was born, what field it grazed in, what other cattle it grazed with, every time it was moved and who killed it. If such traceability is possible for cattle, how is it that this country cannot trace hundreds of dangerous criminals who should have been deported years ago? Does the Home Secretary really feel and understand the frustration felt out there in the community?

[Mrs May]

Of course I understand people’s frustration on the issue. It is this Government who have put in place a specific team, for the first time, to trail and find those absconders and it has been successful in two thirds of the cases it has dealt with. Obviously, we want that to improve but at least we have taken that step.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Given the nature of the legislation, we are clear that it is reserved, so it does not require a legislative consent motion, for example, to be passed. It clearly has that approach, given the interception powers and the communications and national security issues inherent in the powers under RIPA and reflected in the Bill. We are clear that it is a reserved piece of legislation, so it will be passed by the House without the additional requirement that may otherwise be the case.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

In the light of that, the Government accept that this is a reserved matter and I am happy that that is so, but were discussions held on that with the Northern Ireland Executive before the Bill was brought to this House?

Modern Slavery Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I, too, welcome this Bill. Although it does not extend to Northern Ireland, I believe it is an important part of the framework for protecting individuals across the United Kingdom. I will have something to say about the Bill’s application to Northern Ireland in a few moments.

More than 200 years ago, slavery was accepted as part of the norm across the world. Christians in this country believed that it was wrong because all people were equal in the eyes of God. They found a champion in this House, which voted to abolish slavery. The power of the Royal Navy was used to stop international traders who continued to traffick people from Africa to America.

That manifestation of slavery was dealt with by this House. Where there are weak people and strong groups with no moral scruples, however, the exploitation of individuals will continue. More than 200 years later, we see that slavery is still being manifested in many ways. If this debate does anything, it will awaken many people to something that they perhaps did not know was occurring in the United Kingdom—slavery on our doorsteps.

I remember when the issue of slavery was raised in the Northern Ireland Assembly by my colleague, Lord Morrow, who found that people had been brought to the provincial town of Dungannon in his constituency, having been trafficked from other countries, used as prostitutes, beaten and held in captivity. I am sure that many people in Dungannon did not have a clue that was going on. Lord Morrow presented the evidence to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and is currently taking through a private Member’s Bill to deal with that particular issue.

I believe that the Government were sincere in their attempt to legislate, even with only one year of this Parliament left. As other Members have pointed out, a whole range of people have put great pressure on the Government to deal with this issue. I particularly welcome the Government’s recognition that those who are caught up in the slave trade need protection, and that if a case goes to a court of law people need to be sure that they can give evidence without intimidation. The court system and its advocates must help and guide people who might be strangers to our country through the process. We need tougher sentencing and advocates need to raise awareness of the problem with public authorities. I welcome all those aspects of what has been said needs to be done.

Like other Members, I make criticisms of the Bill not because of a sense of churlishness, but because of a sense that if we are to have legislation, and if there is a genuine desire for that legislation, we should ensure that it is effective. I hope that my comments will not be seen as being totally negative, or as being an attack on the Government because I do not believe that they are trying to do their best.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

After the House has passed legislation, is it not vital that the courts step up to the mark and take the matter seriously as well? The sentences that are given often do not fit the crime.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am pleased that the Bill enables sentences to be extended to life, which will give the courts an opportunity to deal properly with the criminals who are involved in the trade of slavery.

As a number of Members have pointed out, the Bill contains a notable omission. The best thing to do is to prevent slavery from happening in the first place. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) gave us a lot of information. How likely is it that companies that are using slave labour in the United Kingdom will be caught as a result of fewer inspections? I believe he said that there would be one inspection every 250 years, and that there was a chance of employers being convicted once in a million years. That is hardly going to focus the minds of those who use slave labour on the fact that the authorities are going to get them.

I know that one argument will be about the expense of inspections. As the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) pointed out, we know that certain areas and certain industries in the United Kingdom are more prone to using slave labour than others. If there are to be inspections, why can they not target likely employers? Some of them may have a record; there may be local knowledge. If such people are harassed, there may at least be a chance that they will desist from using the slave labour that they are currently exploiting.

It has rightly been said that the offences that have been specified are really just a gathering together of existing pieces of legislation. The fact is—and there may be a number of reasons for this—that the number of convictions has been very low. Even when people have been identified as engaging in the slave trade and using slaves, the percentage who are taken to court and are convicted is below a third. A small number of people are taken to court, and there is a small percentage of convictions. Moreover, given the complexity of the legislation, those cases often take a long time. A case in Northamptonshire involved 200 police officers; 13 arrests were made, and, three years down the line, there were two convictions.

As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) pointed out, it is not that the Government do not benefit from good legal advice. I am not a barrister, but I know that legal advice has been sought on how the offence could be made simpler, more understandable and easier to prosecute. However, none of it has been included in the Bill. If we are to have effective legislation, let us not just gather together elements of legislation that have not been seen to be working so far; let us look at offences and define them in the Bill. Of course the Government may argue that consolidating the legislation and all the support that will be made available will increase the conviction rate, but if the legal opinion is that the plethora of laws at present causes complications, this is the time to change that.

The protection of children has been well highlighted. From her vast experience, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made it clear that we need separate definitions and separate measures to deal with the exploitation of children. I cannot understand—the Minister did not make it clear—why a definition of children would cause complications and perhaps lead to even fewer convictions. If the reason is to do with establishing the age, there is an easy way to deal with that. If there is some concern about establishing the age, put the individuals in the general legislation. Where it is clear that we are dealing with children, let us have separate legislation and a separate definition of children.

The next issue I want to raise is in relation to other parts of the UK. The Joint Committee pointed out that, although private Members’ legislation does mirror the Bill, it does not totally mirror it. One easy option would be to ask the Northern Ireland Assembly to pass a legislative consent motion, so that the legislation would apply in Northern Ireland. The alternative is to take separate legislation through the Assembly, but given the length of time it takes to get some legislation through the Assembly, the legislation might be passed not in this Session of Parliament or the next, but the one after that. That gap causes great concern in one particular area: the seizure of assets and their use to recompense victims.

If assets are kept in Northern Ireland or Scotland, will it be possible to pull those assets in when someone is convicted of using slave labour in England and Wales, or will it be much more difficult? In Northern Ireland, we have an added complication. I know that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) tried to dismiss the point I made earlier but it was also highlighted by the Joint Committee. The National Crime Agency is not able to operate fully in Northern Ireland because that is being blocked by the Social Democratic and Labour party and by Sinn Fein. That in turn creates a difficulty in dealing with the trafficking gangs, who may see places such as Northern Ireland as a haven from which they can operate.

Stop-and-Search

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I recognise that my hon. Friend, as a special constable, has particular experience in these matters. I will reflect carefully on his comment. I want to reiterate that I accept that stop-and-search is a very important power. What is crucial is to make sure that it is used properly, because if it is not used properly but is misused, then it falls into disrepute.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

No one can excuse the abuse of stop-and-search powers, but does the Home Secretary accept that the Security Service believes that it cannot move effectively against organised crime without the proper and appropriate use of stop-and-search? Will she therefore assure the House that her proposals will not undermine the safety and protection of the community?

[Mrs May]

Yes, I can. I am absolutely clear that this is an important power, but it is an important power that should be used properly and effectively. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he asks for by again citing the experience that the Metropolitan police has already had: it has reduced its no-suspicion stop-and-searches by 90% and its overall stop-and-searches by 20%; yet stabbings and gunshot crimes have actually fallen over the same period. It is therefore possible to use this important power more effectively than it is being used at the moment.

Metropolitan Police

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.

I beg hon. Members’ patience while I set out what I want to talk about, which is of a complicated nature. It concerns six territorial support group officers who were based at Paddington Green police station in June 2007: Police Constable Mark Jones, who was my constituent; PC Neil Brown, whose MP is my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes); PC Steven White, whose MP is the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng); PC Simon Prout, whose MP is the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington); PC Giles Kitchener, whose MP is the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May); and Police Sergeant William—known as Bill—Wilson.

My constituent, Mark Jones, first contacted me in April 2012. He told me what had happened to him and his colleagues. I consider every case on the basis of whether or not the person has been treated fairly, so I decided that the only thing to do was to take this matter up.

This whole sorry saga commenced on Friday 1 June 2007, following the arrest of two Arab youths, Basil Khan and Ahmed Hegazy, and the apprehension and eventual release of a third youth, Omar Mohidin, by seven Metropolitan Police Service territorial support group officers who were in a carrier on the Edgware road in London W2. I shall use the abbreviations MPS and TSG from now on.

A complaint was made by the one black officer on the carrier, PC Amechi Onwugbonu, about the treatment of the youths by the six white police officers. PC Onwugbonu had challenged the six officers about their behaviour on many previous occasions. By the nature of the work that these officers did, sometimes some force was necessarily used. When he challenged the officers, they clearly advised him that if he had a problem with the way that they had behaved, with which they saw no problem, he should take his allegations to a senior officer. It is important to note that the youths who were arrested did not make any complaint about their treatment until the following day, and only after they had been made aware of the details of PC Onwugbonu’s complaint via the directorate of professional standards.

During the evening of 1 June, the six officers were made aware that a serious complaint had been made about their conduct, but they were not given details. By that time, the six officers had completed their handover of the youths and their case notes, and the officers had been examined by an independent forensic medical examiner, who checked them for injuries, primarily on their knuckles. The six officers were informed in the early hours of Saturday 2 June 2007 that they were on gardening leave. About five days later, all the officers were recalled to Paddington Green police station. Mark Jones and Bill Wilson were suspended immediately and escorted from the station. Neil Brown, Steven White, Simon Prout and Giles Kitchener were dispersed and placed in separate teams across the MPS.

In about September 2007, the six TSG officers—regardless of their employment status at any particular time, I will refer to them as TSG officers—became aware that a civil claim against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner had been made by Basil Khan, Ahmed Hegazy and Omar Mohidin for false imprisonment, assault and battery, damages for anxiety, distress, inconvenience, stress, pain, humiliation, discomfort and loss of liberty, breach of the Equality Act 2006, and breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.

In October 2008, the Crown Prosecution Service authorised charges against all the officers. Neil Brown was suspended and Steven White, Simon Prout and Giles Kitchener were put on restricted duties. Mark Jones was charged with racially aggravated common assault and a racially aggravated section 4 public order offence, as well as two charges of misconduct in public office; Neil Brown, having been suspended, was charged with a racially aggravated section 4 public order offence, using threatening words and behaviour, and two charges of misconduct in public office; and Bill Wilson, Steven White, Simon Prout and Giles Kitchener were charged with a single count of misconduct in public office. All those charges were hugely damaging to the officers’ careers and reputations.

A plea and case-management hearing was set for 6 April 2009, and a full criminal trial was scheduled for 5 October 2009 at Kingston-upon-Thames Crown court. For 28 months, these officers—and their families—lived with the knowledge that if they, as police officers, were found guilty of racist crimes, they would face prison sentences of three years, minimum. In November 2009, after a four-week trial, the six TSG officers were all unanimously acquitted of all charges at Kingston Crown court.

I should like to return to some of the events that occurred during the 28 months between the charges being laid and the criminal trial taking place. The Metropolitan Police Service concealed and withheld material and substantial closed circuit television evidence from the officers and their lawyers. There were numerous formal requests from solicitors and orders from the court to reveal any CCTV evidence held by the police. The defence team was checking a dusty property store log two days before the criminal trial began. The six TSG officers discovered that directorate of professional standards officers—the police who investigate the police—had seized vital CCTV tapes 28 months earlier, just two days after the incident, and had hidden the evidence. Had the TSG officers not found this log and presented it to the Crown Prosecution Service, the DPS officers would not have admitted their seizure of the CCTV tapes and would never have handed them over.

It was not until the night before the Crown court trial that the DPS handed over 13 CCTV tapes, which held 2,000 hours’ worth of footage, that it had seized about two years before. This evidence was critical in proving the officers’ innocence. The CCTV footage at Paddington Green police station originated from 29 different cameras that covered the relevant time, from 5.30 pm on 1 June 2007 through to 12 noon or thereabouts on the following day.

The DPS officers had seized and viewed those 13 CCTV tapes, as proved by the entry in the DPS log. It is believed that the log was disclosed by mistake. Additionally, there was a CCTV tape from the Boots chemist on Edgware road—the arrests took place directly outside. The DPS officers seized and viewed that tape. The entry in the DPS log states: “viewed, not helpful”. That CCTV tape has not been provided, despite numerous requests, and those present at Kingston Crown court were not told of its existence. The MPS has refused to provide any account of the tape’s whereabouts.

The MPS compounded the problems by producing for the court a false and grossly misleading engineer’s report, which stated that the CCTV cameras were not working and were broken on the evening of 1 June 2007. In fact, the engineer concerned was reporting on a completely different system, rather than the system relating to the officers’ case. The MPS knew that its so-called evidence was false, as officers had already viewed the relevant CCTV footage at that point.

PC Onwugbonu’s initial allegations were numerous and very serious. He told the court that he had not visited the cells of the two claimants, Khan and Hegazy. He was asked about that in court on two separate occasions. He was then shown CCTV evidence that, of course, had only just been disclosed. The officers were watching CCTV tapes at night, once the court case had finished for the day; they were trying to catch up throughout the four weeks of the court trial. The evidence shows him visiting the cells and photocopying custody records. Clearly, there is a data protection issue there, because custody records hold data about people being held in the police station, including their address, phone numbers and other personal information.

PC Onwugbonu told the court that PC Mark Jones had been walking on Hegazy’s back, that he saw Neil Brown offering to fight Hegazy, and that Basil Khan was beaten by Mark Jones in the carrier while it was in the station yard. A specific allegation, later supported by Basil Khan, was made that Mark Jones had attacked Basil Khan with

“in excess of 40 full blown punches and kicks”.

Mark Jones is a muscular man, and one would expect Basil Khan to have been seriously injured; the only injury Basil Khan had was a 4 mm bruise behind his left ear, which may or may not have been a result of his arrest. It defies logic that those allegations were accepted without corroborating medical evidence. The CCTV shows Mark Jones exiting the carrier and entering the police station, rather than remaining in the carrier and beating Basil Khan.

The MPS has chosen to rely on the youths’ complaints because they are similar to those made by PC Onwugbonu. It should be noted, however, that the youths concerned made no complaints until at least six hours after arriving in custody on 1 June 2007. Additionally, they were asked about their welfare by a police doctor, two police sergeants, a police inspector and two independent charity lay visitors. The claimants made allegations only after Detective Inspector Belej from the DPS telephoned custody and spoke to their solicitor at approximately midnight. That call was never logged. DI Belej had received PC Onwugbonu’s allegations by that time. The six TSG officers only discovered that that highly suspicious call had taken place because of the CCTV. The youths’ solicitor was cross-examined at the Crown court trial and told the court that DI Belej

“told me what the case was about”.

After the call, the solicitor was seen to return to Mr Hegazy and spend 90 minutes in consultation. It was after that consultation that the youths’ allegations were first raised.

I now return to the general course of events. In early 2010, Bill Wilson retired from the MPS. It is standard practice for the police to investigate after any officer has been involved in a criminal trial. That investigation involved the DPS. Following the DPS investigation, the six officers were informed in March 2010 that no disciplinary action would be taken against them. In early 2010, however, the six TSG officers made a formal complaint to the MPS about the conduct of the investigation and PC Onwugbonu’s statements, which had been disproven during the trial. Simultaneously, the friends and families of the six TSG officers complained to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, as is their right.

The officers were told that there would be an internal review of the case. In March 2010, Mick Johnson, the chief superintendent of the TSG, told the six officers individually that they were being removed from the TSG and forcibly returned to front-line borough policing, despite their skills and qualifications. The six TSG officers appealed against the decision to remove them. Commander Bob Broadhurst, who headed territorial policing at the MPS, ruled that the officers were to be removed before the appeal was even heard, so that is what happened.

After Bill Wilson retired, the five remaining TSG officers invoked the “fairness at work” process and completed the necessary paperwork. The officers filed their application with the employment tribunal on the grounds of race discrimination in March 2010. Mark Jones and Neil Brown went on sick leave from April 2010. To comply with the MPS employment dispute process, a fairness at work adviser-investigator—a senior civilian member of staff who headed the “fairness at work” department—was appointed. The first adviser-investigator reported that the decision to remove the officers from the TSG would stand but offered some recognition that the process had been handled poorly. The TSG officers appealed on the basis that the finding was unsound because they had evidence that the decision to remove them from the TSG predated their appeal.



A new adviser-investigator, Superintendent Victor Olisa, was appointed. In late 2010 he provided a draft of his final report, which referred to the fact that he could not rule out racism, but the final report did not contain that reference. During the final meeting, he told Neil Brown, Simon Prout and Giles Kitchener that he had had meetings a short while previously with his mentor, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Mark Simmons, and the directorate of legal services, during which he was informed—and he was just passing on the information—that if the officers did not drop their employment tribunal proceedings, the MPS would look to join the defendants into the civil proceedings being taken by the youths. This is known as making the officers part 20 defendants, which makes each individual liable for his actions as a police officer while under the direction of his employer, the MPS. Normally, a police officer acting within the remit of police duties would expect the commissioner to cover the liability for those actions. It is effectively their insurance at work. I understand that this is the first time officers have been joined in as part 20 defendants. MPS officers will be required to defend their actions while on duty and under the direction of their superiors in court. Should that situation continue, there is probably a case for ensuring that every police officer in the UK is made aware that his or her actions might need individual personal insurance cover. It also has implications for discipline. Police officers are required to carry out commands, not negotiate the risks of future court action as a result of any ordered action by a superior officer.

What happened to the complaints of the friends and families of the TSG officers? Following the discovery the day before the criminal trial was due to start on 1 October 2009 that substantial evidence had been withheld by the MPS for two years and four months, the families of all six TSG officers raised complaints about the handling of the investigation by the DPS. Complaints were made that evidence had been withheld from the Crown Prosecution Service, the lawyers, the prosecution and the defence teams. Complaints were also made about the racially biased investigation by the DPS officers in favour of the prosecution team and about the evidence of PC Onwugbonu. The complaints were dealt with in two parts: the IPCC in Cardiff handled the discrete issue of failure to disclose CCTV evidence to the CPS and others, and the DPS handled its own internal investigation into the remainder of the complaints about the investigation, particularly, for example, the contamination of witness statements.

The terms of reference for the IPCC Cardiff investigation were that DPS officers had failed to review crucial CCTV evidence and had subsequently withheld a number of CCTV tapes from the Crown court, the CPS and the defence and prosecution teams. The DPS officers involved were Detective Inspector Belej, Detective Sergeant McQueen and Detective Sergeant Fraser, who is now retired. The IPCC specifically looked at whether the officers failed—and, if so, whether that failure was deliberate—to disclose the internal CCTV evidence of the custody suite and the external view and whether the prosecution and, subsequently, the defence counsel might have been misled by any failure to include the evidence on the used and unused schedules. It also looked at who obtained the CCTV evidence around the Paddington Green police station and when, as well as the subsequent continuity of that evidence. It also looked at any policy decisions, lines of inquiry or communication on the recovery of CCTV evidence and the review, use and disclosure of potential evidence. It considered and reported on whether any criminal or disciplinary offences were committed by any police officer or member of the police staff involved in the incident.

In September 2011, the IPCC in Cardiff concluded that the conduct of the DPS officers in this case gave such serious cause for concern that

“DI Belej and DS McQueen should both have a case to answer for Gross Misconduct in respect of their conduct set out in the Report”.

The IPCC has no remit to rule on the conduct of a retired officer. DS Fraser retired from the MPS during the process and before the IPCC published its report. The MPS initially refused to hold a discipline board, but MPS Commander Julian Bennett put pressure on the IPCC not to go ahead with the hearing and to allow the DPS officers to plead guilty to misconduct only. He said that the view of the panel was that the events in question were misconduct “at best”. If the hearing proceeded, he said that there might be a finding of no misconduct at all. In March 2013, a disciplinary board scheduled to last two weeks was deemed to be over after two days. The IPCC, despite its statutory direction to hold the gross misconduct board, is powerless to insist that the board proceeds to hear the case. A disciplinary board can be organised and listed at the direction of the IPCC, but can be dismissed by the MPS at any stage.

The IPCC directed the MPS to comply. Statute requires the MPS to comply with IPCC directions, but that statute is powerless once the gross misconduct board begins. In this case, Commander Julian Bennett allowed the DPS officers to plead guilty to plain misconduct on day two and passed down a written warning as a sanction for hiding and denying the existence of 13 CCTV tapes and producing a false engineer’s report to the Crown, the prosecution and the defence. The six TSG officers’ solicitor, Lynne Burns, wrote to the Metropolitan Police Service on 30 April 2013, claiming that the decision to allow the DPS officers to plead guilty to misconduct only was irrational and unfair. She stated:

“Just to put this into context, the failure to disclose and knowing concealment of CCTV evidence does not represent one or two requests but numerous letters where questions relating to CCTV were ignored or answered falsely, Advocates Questionnaires, Joint Requests for Disclosure, Orders of the court ordering disclosure all either ignored or responded to in a knowingly false or misleading manner”.

On the DPS investigation, the six TSG officers accused in 2007 were investigated by three officers from the DPS. From that point onwards, the six officers were subjected to a racially biased, dishonest investigation, involving blatant, deliberately withheld and concealed material evidence, lies, cover-ups and falsified evidence submitted to the Crown court as the MPS attempted to secure a conviction against the officers at all costs, even though the legitimate evidence did not support its case. In 2012, the DPS investigated the matter. Officers Detective Chief Inspector Neligan and Detective Sergeant Morley returned a report that indicated that there was no case for the officers—DI Belej and DS McQueen—to answer.

The DPS report was appealed by the six TSG officers to the IPCC in Manchester. In May 2013, that appeal was upheld. The IPCC’s appeal report was damning and highly critical of how the DPS investigation had been conducted. It held that, among many other points, the original investigation by the DPS officers was conducted in a biased manner in favour of the prosecution and in favour of one black police officer over six white police officers, stating:

“On balance the significant catalogue of errors made by the DPS Officers shows a bias in the investigation often dismissing evidence which would have supported the Defence”.

The IPCC indicated that consideration must be given to further disciplinary action against the DPS officers and PC Onwugbuno, and that consideration must be given to potential criminal prosecutions. The IPCC held that the investigation showed bias against the six TSG officers and that the black police officer’s failure to tell the truth on 25 occasions at Kingston Crown court could not be put down to “stress”, as accepted by the original investigating officers. The IPCC referred the case back to the Metropolitan Police Service for re-investigation.

I will now move on to the second investigation. The Metropolitan Police Service referred the investigation back to the same DPS officers—DCI Neligan and DS Morley—who carried out the original, flawed investigation into DI Belej and DS McQueen, who were their own DPS colleagues. The investigation is ongoing. It is worth noting that the DPS officers concerned have, as I understand it, remained in operational posts. DI Belej is a supervising inspector in counter-terrorism and border control at Heathrow, and DS McQueen remains in the DPS, investigating misconduct.

The six TSG officers have been threatened on two occasions that they should withdraw their employment tribunal proceedings or face being joined into the civil action. I have already mentioned one occasion, namely when Superintendent Victor Olisa passed on the message, but in January 2011 the now-retired MPS Police Federation general secretary, Dave Bennett, passed on the same threat allegedly from the DPS commander Peter Spindler.

On the civil, or part 20 proceedings, when the six TSG officers did not withdraw their employment tribunal proceedings against the MPS, the MPS joined four of the six TSG officers—Mark Jones, Neil Brown, Steve White and Bill Wilson—into civil proceedings brought against the commander of the MPS by Basil Khan, Ahmed Hegazy and Omar Mahidin. Such a move might suggest that the TSG officers were being victimised for having the temerity to challenge the MPS’s decisions and to issue proceedings against it. The youths brought their civil claim with the assistance of Bhatt Murphy, a firm of solicitors that specialises in actions against the police. The youths submitted their claims in 2007 and all are funded by the taxpayer through legal aid.

The MPS has presented its civil defence so as to justify joining the officers in part 20 proceedings. The MPS has told the High Court that this civil case is highly unusual, because, in the opinion of the six TSG officers, the black officer—PC Onwugbonu—contradicts the white officers’ evidence. The MPS has effectively delegated responsibility for proving innocence a second time to those six TSG officers—bearing in mind that they already won their case in the Kingston Crown court—rather than acting on the court’s findings and defending them. That was DAC Mark Simmons’s justification for his decision to bring the officers in as part 20 defendants. The MPS, through the director of legal services, has suggested that it should not disclose the IPCC report, which is highly critical of the original DPS investigation, to the youths in the civil proceedings. There is, however, a legal obligation to comply with the disclosure rules and it must be of concern that the MPS has suggested that such a crucial document should not be disclosed.

DAC Mark Simmons, who was commander of the DPS at the time, is the senior client and has instructed the MPS legal team to use statements to the High Court that they know to be incorrect. Two examples are as follows. Statement one says:

“The Defendants’ (the MPS’) DPS investigation was carried out appropriately and in good faith in the circumstances.”

The MPS, and DAC Mark Simmons in particular—he was the DPS commander at the time—knew that the DPS officers did not act appropriately or in good faith. DI Belej and DS McQueen had concealed and withheld over 2,000 hours of CCTV footage, a fact which was established at the trial at Kingston Crown court and by two independent IPCC investigations. Furthermore, the officers had pleaded guilty at the misconduct hearing in March 2013.

False statement two reads:

“PC Onwugbonu has, since the day in question, supported the allegations made about officers by the claimant”—

the claimant being the youths. That is untrue. The MPS heard PC Onwugbonu admitting that he had been mistaken or had lied on at least 25 occasions during his evidence to the Kingston Crown court trial, and his evidence was totally discredited. Judge Southwell’s direction to the jury before summing up said:

“My direction is that you will have to be careful in examining PC Onwugbonu’s evidence, important as it plainly is to the issues which you have to decide in the case of each of these five men, before you declare yourself sure that he was honest and reliable in respect of what he said.”

There is therefore no justification for the MPS to make such a statement in its defence to the High Court.

The MPS also tampered with personnel or staff records to produce false records for the six TSG officers. In 2013, as part of disclosure in part 20 proceedings, it came to the six TSG officers’ attention that their staff records had been tampered with. In March 2010, following their acquittal by unanimous verdict at the trial at Kingston Crown court, they were told that no internal disciplinary sanctions or actions were to be brought against any of them. They have discovered, some six years later, that a false account has been created for each of them on their personnel records, illustrating that a finding of guilt was made against each of them, that “words of advice” were given to each of them in 2009 and that the complaint was substantiated. Someone within the MPS or the DPS has manufactured a totally false set of personnel records for each of the officers. It is deeply concerning that formal records have been tampered with just in order to support the MPS’s case. The six TSG officers have tried to discover who was responsible, but the MPS alleges that it is unable to find out.

Such are the extreme lengths that the MPS and the DPS will go to demonstrate how tough and politically correct they are on alleged racism within the ranks that they will accept the word of one black officer over six white officers and then conceal material evidence that contradicts the black officer. The officers strongly believe that this is a case of reverse race discrimination and political correctness gone completely mad. To use layman’s terms, the DPS had tried to fit them up for crimes that they did not commit and knew that everything it had massively undermined the prosecution case. The decisions by the IPCC in Cardiff and the IPCC in Manchester should have triggered a response from the Metropolitan Police Service to admit finally that their DPS officers had acted in an inappropriate and racially biased manner.

Finally, I want to touch on what the officers—and I, having got enraged about this situation—might want. They want some sort of admission of wrongdoing, including an open acknowledgement of how the officers were treated, an acknowledgment that the investigation and referral to Kingston Crown court was seriously flawed and racially biased, and an acknowledgement that the three DPS officers—McQueen, Belej and Fraser— acted dishonestly in their handling of the investigation. They want an acceptance of blame that personnel records have been tampered with, an acknowledgement of further victimisation and an apology for these actions. They want some sort of compensation and settlement of the employment tribunal proceedings, which are still ongoing, for the loss of earnings, damage to reputation by substantive adverse press coverage, and damage to career and stress since 2007—seven years ago. They want the MPS to support its officers fully in the civil actions brought by Hegazy, Khan and Mohidin, and not to insist that they be separate defendants under part 20. In those proceedings, they want the MPS to make the court aware of the serious independent rulings against the DPS officers and PC Onwugbonu. That will help to create a level playing field.

I have written to Commissioner Hogan-Howe. I had a reply from Commander Allan Gibson, which was pretty dismissive. I wrote again to Commander Gibson and I do not think that anything is moving forward particularly. I know that one of my colleagues in the other place has raised the matter and his concerns. He was assured that the whole business would be looked into, but as of the end of January the investigation had not been carried out by a senior officer.

The Metropolitan Police Service must have spent between £2 million and £3 million defending itself in the situations I have recounted. It was trying to secure a conviction against the six TSG officers, but it wasted public funds defending its actions. It refuses to admit any wrongdoing. The MPS refuses to settle the case, preferring to spend substantial amounts of public money defending the actions of those whom the IPCC has found guilty of bias, and whom it has also directed should face gross misconduct proceedings and possible criminal proceedings.

I should be grateful if the Minister would apply herself to the question whether it is sensible and advisable to take police officers into part 20 proceedings when they are acting as police officers under the direction of their superior officers. It seems mad that we must then move to something pretty similar to the American system, where police officers may well have to take out personal insurance for anything they may do on duty, as well as off duty. It would be helpful if the Minister would consider at some point—not today—how the IPCC can have no remit to rule on the conduct of a retired officer. Retirement does not absolve a person from blame, but the IPCC cannot take any action in that case. Will she also comment on the whole charade over disciplinary boards, and the fact that the IPCC can organise, list and give direction on what should happen, but that can be dismissed by the MPS at any stage?

I know that several colleagues want to join in the discussion, but I reserve the right to rise and say something else.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Order. I commend the hon. Lady for bringing such a serious matter before the House. We must give time for the Front-Bench spokesmen to respond, and their speeches will start at 10.40 am. I remind hon. Members that we cannot debate matters in which there are active criminal proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) on bringing these serious allegations to the attention of the House. I will not comment on the substantive allegations, but will focus on wider issues that arise from her powerful speech. I make one other preliminary point: like all hon. Members present, I have seen at first hand some of the outstanding work done by the Metropolitan police, often in the most difficult circumstances. My experience of the Metropolitan police is that overwhelmingly they are honest, decent men and women trying to do a good job for Londoners. Having said that, there are clearly profound problems that need to be dealt with properly.

Turning to some of the wider lessons in this case, first, it is of course right that we hold the police to account. They must be accountable politically, and in the event of wrongdoing, that wrongdoing must be investigated properly. Secondly, it is important that police officers enjoy fair treatment and due process, including full, proper and prompt disclosure of any evidence relating to allegations against them. Thirdly, with regard to its internal procedures, and the role of the DPS in particular, it is of the highest importance that the Met conducts itself in a way that engenders public confidence, handling allegations of misconduct properly and, where appropriate, initiating disciplinary procedures. Fourthly, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) said, if the police are to command public confidence, it is of the highest importance that there is effective, independent police complaints machinery that is able to get to the heart of things that go wrong.

Turning to the next stages of action, first, I support those hon. Members who have said that serious allegations have clearly been made that require proper investigation. I hope that the Home Office will play its role, as appropriate, in ensuring that that takes place. Secondly, what we have heard today is proof positive of the need for new and much more effective independent complaints machinery. It needs to have the powers necessary to investigate, to hold to account, and to prevent obstruction from the police at any stage in the effective investigation of wrongdoing.

Thirdly, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was absolutely right: what we have heard today, not just in relation to the allegations made by the hon. Members for Wells, and for Watford (Richard Harrington), but more generally, is a sorry litany that demands a fundamental culture change in the Metropolitan police. If we have heard profoundly disturbing allegations today, what has been revealed by the Ellison process is also profoundly disturbing, as are the subsequent revelations about the destruction of evidence. To be frank, although the Met has much to be proud of, it has a lot to answer for.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was right to say that it is of the highest importance that there be confidence in the police. From the Peelian tradition onwards, in our country we have had a system of policing by consent. Confidence is key for co-operation, to divert people from crime and prevent it, and to identify wrongdoers when crimes are committed. That confidence is damaged at our peril. The case has been made powerfully today for changes in internal and external investigation, for the Met to reflect seriously on these issues, and for the Home Office to take whatever action is appropriate. Fundamental culture change is clearly necessary.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

The Minister is standing in at the last moment for a colleague, who I trust will have a speedy recovery. I call Karen Bradley.

Domestic Violence (West Essex and Harlow)

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for the opportunity to debate this serious issue. I thank him for the measured way in which he presented his remarks. These are difficult issues to discuss without emotion.

Domestic violence is unquestionably a terrible crime, and I give my absolute assurance that the Government is committed to tackling it robustly. Getting a clear picture of the prevalence of domestic abuse is always a challenge because it is so under-reported; we must deal with that problem. The crime survey for England and Wales, which measures what people tell us, rather than crime recorded by the police, estimates that 1.2 million women were victims of domestic abuse last year. That is a huge number. The police and crime plan for Essex estimates that there were 44,000 victims of domestic abuse in the county, which has a population of 1.7 million.

I am aware that in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across Essex there have been some tragic cases, and domestic abuse is often fatal. As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, six people were killed by their partners or ex-partners in Essex in the three years between 2009 and 2012. That was against a national backdrop of 76 women being killed by their partners or ex-partners last year. Although we can take some comfort in the fact that that is the lowest figure since 1998, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that anything more than zero is too many.

My hon. Friend mentioned the two particularly tragic deaths in Essex of Eystna Blunnie and Claire Parrish. Eystna was brutally murdered only days before she was due to give birth to her baby, Rose, in 2012. She was looking forward to being a mother. When she died, her profile picture on Facebook featured a recent ultrasound scan. She told friends that she “could not wait” to be a mother, and added:

“Only 17 days and counting”,

but her life was cut short when she and her unborn child were brutally murdered, as my hon. Friend described.

I want to take the opportunity to offer my sincere condolences to Eystna’s family for the loss of their daughter and granddaughter, and to the family of Claire Parrish for their sad loss. The Blunnie case was all the more tragic because there was a chance to prosecute Mr McLernon when he attempted to strangle Eystna two months before her death. Regrettably, the Crown Prosecution Service missed the opportunity to pursue the case. It has now rightly apologised for that unacceptable failing.

My hon. Friend also referred to the death of Claire Parrish, a mother of six brutally stabbed to death following a history of suffering abuse. She was a scared and vulnerable victim, again tragically let down by the agencies that should have been there to protect and support her. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and Members generally that I take such cases extremely seriously and I am determined that we all learn lessons from them, both inside Government and in the agencies involved that are on the front line to protect people.

I was pleased to see that the Essex police and crime commissioner, Nick Alston, has prioritised tackling domestic abuse in his police and crime plan. I was particularly encouraged to see his focus on learning lessons from Independent Police Complaints Commission investigations of the police handling of domestic abuse cases, and his plan to tackle domestic abuse through a multi-agency approach and the joint commissioning of victim services.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on some excellent examples of local services for victims of domestic abuse in west Essex, including the charity Safer Places, which offers accommodation and support to victims of abuse. I am also aware of the innovative Essex Change programme, which is an accredited programme that works with perpetrators of domestic violence to help them break the cycle of abuse. That is a very important aspect of our work.

The Government has supported a series of reforms to the handling of domestic violence by the police. The introduction of police and crime commissioners, the increased independence of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, and the establishment of the College of Policing are reforms that are working and, I think, are helping.

Police and crime commissioners provide an impetus for reform, innovate, and deliver policing more efficiently. They bring real local scrutiny of how chief constables and their forces perform. I am encouraged by the fact that the vast majority of police and crime commissioners across England and Wales have made tackling violence against women and girls a priority in their policing plans, and we are committed to ensuring that they have all the information that they need to make good decisions on how to deliver those priorities.

Specific training on domestic violence and abuse is included in the national police training curriculum. That training was updated this year to take account of the Government’s introduction of a new definition of domestic abuse. The new definition helps to prevent the escalation of abuse, which can end in tragedy, by dispelling the belief that domestic abuse begins and ends with violence. It places coercive control at the centre of determining whether abuse is taking place, and that is absolutely right. The College of Policing has committed to updating training on domestic abuse this year for its officers.

On top of that, the Home Secretary has commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to look at the performance of police forces across England and Wales in domestic abuse cases and identify where improvements need to be made. In just a few weeks’ time, it will publish its findings. The review will shine a light on police practice in each of the 43 forces. I am sure that my hon. Friend will read the report on Essex constabulary with particular interest. We will review the national recommendations with care and ensure that they are acted on as we strive for further improvements in this area.

Also of importance is the Government’s decision in April 2011 to place domestic homicide reviews on a statutory footing. Now community safety partnerships produce a report for each domestic homicide review that they conduct, and each report is quality assured by a panel of independent and Home Office experts. Each review results in a tailored action plan that must be delivered by the area in question to make sure that we learn from each individual tragedy that occurs.

The Home Office has also published a document collating the national lessons learned from those reviews and making recommendations to local areas to drive improvements in practice. That, in particular, flagged up the critical importance of effective information sharing. I understand that a domestic homicide review has been conducted in the case of Eystna Blunnie and will be published by the local community safety partnership in the coming months, following close liaison with the family, as is right.

However, in order for a victim to access justice, it is important that a professional police force is complemented by well-trained prosecutors who progress as many domestic abuse cases as possible, so that unnecessary deaths are prevented. The Crown Prosecution Service is currently refreshing its domestic violence policy. I understand that a revised version will be published for consultation in the next few weeks. I also look forward to the outcome of work between the CPS and the police to join up training to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are provided with a consistent and collaborative response.

My hon. Friend also raised the importance of the training of front-line professionals. I welcome the recent publication by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, better known as NICE. That guidance has been published and is directed at commissioners and front-line professionals, including the NHS, the police and social services. The guidance provides information for multi-agency professionals dealing with domestic violence and abuse. It includes evidence-based interventions to be used as best practice by professionals to identify and support victims and their children, as well as enforce the law and respond to perpetrators.

It is vital that our criminal justice approach is reinforced by support services for victims. This Government has ring-fenced nearly £40 million for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services. Facilities funded with that money include 144 independent domestic violence advisers, who help victims of domestic violence get their voices heard, and 54 multi-agency risk assessment co-ordinators, who protect the interests of those who are most at risk by promoting information sharing. Up to 60% of abuse victims report no further violence following intervention by independent advisers.

However, we can and should do all we can nationally as well to reach out to those caught in cycles of abuse. The start of the national roll-out of Clare’s law, which my hon. Friend referred to, and of domestic violence protection orders is now just days away. Clare’s law, the domestic violence disclosure scheme, is a system in which anyone can seek disclosure of a partner’s violent past. Those with the legal right to know are provided with information that could well save lives, empowering them to make an informed choice about their futures.

Domestic violence protection orders offer respite to victims in the immediate aftermath of domestic abuse. Those orders have the power to prevent a perpetrator of domestic violence from having contact with the victim for up to 28 days. That offers both the victim and the perpetrator the chance to reflect on the incident. It provides an important opportunity for the victim to determine the best course of action to end the cycle of abuse. Together, those two moves significantly improve the reality for victims.

I am also keen to do more to challenge cultural mindsets, which need to be changed to eradicate domestic abuse from our society. That is why the Home Office relaunched the “This is Abuse” campaign in December. It is particularly aimed at young people who think that violence can be okay, which is a point that my hon. Friend rightly referred to. It is aimed at stopping teenagers from becoming victims and perpetrators of abusive relationships by encouraging them to rethink their views on controlling behaviour and violence in their relationships.

We have also developed a “This is Abuse” discussion guide in partnership with voluntary sector experts, designed to help teachers, parents and youth workers lead discussions about abuse in teenage relationships. The guide has been quality assured by the Personal, Social, Health And Economic Education Association and is available to download on the gov.uk website. I welcome the work that the Department for Education is doing to establish a personal, social and health education subject expert group to ensure that teachers have the support and resources to deliver high-quality teaching and give the issues the same prominence as national curriculum subjects. The group will look at school-based programmes on domestic abuse and other key areas. I am committed to helping work with the DFE on those matters.

West Essex and Harlow have seen some extreme examples of appalling abusive behaviour in intimate relationships. The local area is to be commended for its efforts to learn lessons from individual tragedies and strive for improvements in the services offered to victims of domestic abuse. Through our violence against women and girls action plan, which will be updated and relaunched in a few days’ time, this Government has made significant strides towards a better reality for victims of domestic abuse.

We know that there is still much to do, and our refreshed action plan will capture that and outline the steps we will take to deliver further improvements. I look forward to working with local areas to ensure that actions identified by HMIC are driven forward. I will update Parliament, of course, on our continued progress in tackling domestic violence in the coming months, and I assure my hon. Friend and Parliament that this remains very much a priority for the Home Office, and for the Government as a whole.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and the Minister for the sensitive manner in which they debated this important issue of domestic violence. We now move to the debate on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs inquiry centre closures. It is a pleasure to call Ian Lavery.

Syrian Refugees

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I commend him and the other Members of the House who visited the refugee camp in Turkey, led by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). They not only talked with the refugees there, but did some constructive work to support them. He is absolutely right that the vast majority of refugees want to be able to return home to a Syria that is not in conflict. That is why our first priority must be to try to ensure that there is a political resolution and a smooth transition in the government of Syria. Our second priority must be to help those who are “in region”, which means that they will be able to return home when the time comes.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and welcome the Government’s decision to receive the most vulnerable refugees from Syria. It is also vital that the humanitarian aid that we are sending reaches those most in need. However, on the point that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) made, is it not most important that the Government strengthen their efforts to bring about a negotiated settlement that will finally end the nightmare that is happening in Syria and meet the needs of the people of Syria?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that our first focus must be on trying to ensure that we see that political transition taking place so that the refugees can return home and Syria can return to peace. That is why the efforts being made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary are so important. He has been one of the leading figures in the international community trying to secure the Geneva II negotiations and ensure that we get positive results from them.

Border Force

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comment. I had the great pleasure of visiting Tilbury with her early in my time as Immigration Minister, and was very impressed with the engagement of staff there. As she says, the report confirms making Border Force a stand-alone organisation in the Home Office was the right thing to do. It has enabled the organisation to focus on delivering on the operating mandate, and I think that under the new permanent leadership of Sir Charles Montgomery, that process will continue.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Is the substance of what is reported in the national newspapers accurate or inaccurate, and what challenges does the Minister think still remain?

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have published today in the Command Paper the explanatory memorandum, which sets out the measures we are looking to rejoin—it refers to the others as well—and explains what each is about. The debate will be about the Government’s position of opting out and then seeking to rejoin the 35 measures. That will enable us to enter into proper negotiations with the European Commission and other member states. I believe that it is right that we seek to rejoin measures that enable us to co-operate on a cross-border basis in dealing with cross-border crime and keeping people safe.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Is there strong support across the coalition Government for the Home Secretary’s proposal to opt out? If the decision to opt out is finally taken, will that apply to the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland?

[Mrs May]

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), has spoken with the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland and we have started discussions on the implications for Northern Ireland.