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.

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.

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.

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.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I will not pretend to be an expert on individual technologies or on the legal framework that is needed to safeguard them. That is exactly why we need an expert review. The honest truth is that most of us here in Parliament are considerably less expert on these technologies than our children, and we therefore need technological expertise as well as legal expertise as part of the review. That is the kind of review that David Anderson needs to lead.

We have tabled an amendment to put the review on a statutory footing and to outline some of the issues that it must cover, so that the House can be reassured that a sufficiently wide-ranging review will take place. It will need to look at the practice as well as at the legislation. We will also need to have a serious public debate about David Anderson’s conclusions, through the Joint Committee of both Houses and through taking public evidence. A public consultation must form part of that process. This is about getting the balance right, but it is also about ensuring that we have public consent. We cannot have any more sticking-plaster legislation; we need a serious and sustainable framework that will command consent for years to come.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Forgive me, but I am slightly confused. It is perhaps because I am a bit thick, but will the right hon. Lady clarify the current situation for me? Do we have these rules and regulations now? If we do not pass this Bill into law, how long can the police and the security services continue to have access to these data?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Home Secretary responded to a similar question earlier. The advice that I have received is that the UK regulations are still in place, but that they are likely to be challenged and likely to fall as a result of the European directive having already been struck down. The consequence of that would be that we might risk losing some of those powers over the summer, before Parliament returns in the autumn, and we should not put the police and intelligence agencies in that position. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me argue for the wider reforms and wider debate that is needed, but in the short term we should not pull the rug from underneath the police and intelligence agencies this summer as a result of a European Court judgment.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said that the sunset clause should simply be moved to five months’ time. I understand the intention of the hon. Members who have signed the amendment, and I recognise their concern and their desire to increase the short-term scrutiny of the legislation, but I fear that if we do that, we will simply be stuck with another unsatisfactory sticking-plaster legislation process. We will not have the time to obtain the conclusions of the expert review, to consult on them, to debate, to take evidence or to draw up proper primary legislation with the more substantial reforms that I believe are needed. If we continue with repeated sticking-plaster legislation, we will undermine public consent in this process even further. That is why we must not rush things; we must do it properly. We are doing quite enough rushing this week, as it is, without trying to rush through the more substantial debate that we need within five months. That is why the longer period is needed.

Hon. Members are right that we need stronger safeguards in the short term, right now. We need more reassurance that the Bill is doing what the Home Secretary has made clear. That is why we have tabled a second amendment, and why I welcome the Home Secretary’s indication that she will accept it. It is about requiring the intercept commissioner in the mean time to report on the operation of the Bill every six months. During that period, we need to know whether the Bill is simply being used to continue the work that was being done before or whether it is being used to extend the Government’s powers against the will of Parliament. The six-monthly review will reassure the House that the Bill is being implemented in the way that Parliament intended.

We also want to see longer-term reforms, including strengthening the Intelligence and Security Committee so that it has the same powers as other Select Committees and an Opposition Chair, and we believe that an overhaul of the commissioners is needed. We currently have lots of different commissioners, and even when they do excellent reports no one notices them because the reports are not public-facing. Too often, they are limited to assessing compliance with existing legislation rather than looking at whether the legislation is still appropriate or effective.

This is a difficult debate for Parliament today. We have legislation that is urgently needed, but it is against the backdrop of us all knowing that a much wider debate is called for. So we have to make sure that that debate happens and that sustainable reforms are brought forward. Too often, this debate becomes polarised. The hawks say that we need stronger powers to protect national security, but they will not say what and why. The civil libertarians say that it is all a conspiracy; that they do not believe the scare stories; and that privacy is paramount. But most of us, and most of the British public want both—security and liberty, safety and privacy. We want to be kept safe from fraudsters stealing our identity or our money online. We want our children’s innocence kept safe from abusers, and paedophiles to be caught. We want the police and intelligence agencies to be able to track down murderers, fraudsters and terror suspects.

However, we also want to know that, unless we are suspected of a crime or terrorism, we have a right to protection of our information and privacy. We want to know that people will not be listening to our calls, reading our e-mails or checking out where we have been surfing on the web; to know that there are fair, up-to-date laws governing what Government agencies, the police and private companies can do; and to know that there are safeguards, checks and balances in place to make sure that those laws are upheld.

Yes, we need to pass this Bill today, because the powers that it retains are too important to the protection of public safety to lose carelessly one summer. But we also need a proper debate about the balance of privacy and safety, and how we maintain both liberty and security in an internet age, because both are essential to our democracy. Today must be the start, and not the end, of that debate.

Communications Data and Interception

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, the hon. and gallant Gentleman Bob Stewart.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe we have a duty to pass this fast-track legislation quickly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless we do so, the police and the security services will not have the powers that may stop innocent citizens of this country dying?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right. I have been clear in my responses that I fear that, if we do not ensure that we maintain these capabilities, not only will we see criminals going about their business without the police being able to deal with them appropriately and bring them to justice, but we could see innocent lives being lost.

The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

Again, I think the hon. Gentleman perhaps has more in common with other parties than his own on that issue. Some of the changes that have taken place—in technology, free movement, cybercrime, new forms of crime, child prostitution, trafficking and drugs—demand a Europe-wide solution, and I think the Home Secretary has accepted that. They are international crimes that know no borders and they need international solutions. Each crime is creating new victims. I believe it is the duty of this House to ensure that we work with our European partners to reduce that crime, bringing criminals to justice and, yes, co-operating to do so.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, therefore, what exactly the organisation called Interpol does, which is supposed to be worldwide?

[Mr Hanson]

As the former Minister for policing and counter-terrorism in the last Government, I could spend the next 25 minutes giving the hon. Gentleman a whole lecture about what Interpol does. The key issue is that there is a range of measures. I believe that if he went back to south London this evening and asked his constituents whether they wanted effective co-operation to tackle drug abuse, child trafficking, prostitution and international terrorism, the answer would be a resounding yes. It is something the Home Secretary believes is right; it is something we believe is right.

Modern Slavery Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), and indeed all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken so well in this important debate. It is truly shocking that more than 200 years after William Wilberforce abolished both the slave trade and slavery throughout the British empire, we are back in the House of Commons having to enact a Modern Slavery Bill, because not only has the job not been done, but slavery around the world is worse today than it has ever been. The issue is at one and the same time completely global and very local. We have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) talk about a shocking case in his constituency, and I will describe an example of modern slavery in my constituency later in my remarks.

When we consider how modern slavery is allowed to happen, we need to keep two words at the front of our minds: violence and fear. Wherever there is modern slavery, forced labour, domestic servitude or people caught in the sex trade, we find violence and fear. That is how the slave traders maintain their hold over their victims, often for many years and sometimes for many decades.

If we look at the global nature of this issue, we will see that, in the 400 years or so that the slave trade was in operation, some 11 million slaves were taken from Africa to be traded across the north Atlantic and elsewhere. Today there are a number of different estimates, but, given the nature of the issue, it is impossible to get accurate figures. In his book “The Locust Effect”, which was published this year, Gary Haugen, who heads up the International Justice Mission, estimates that some 27 million people are in slavery today around the world. That is well over twice the number of slaves taken out of Africa over a 400-year period. On the money made from this evil business, looking at forced labour alone, Mr Haugen estimates a profit of some £7 billion accruing to the slave traders.

We need to think about where slavery is most prevalent in our world, in order to get an idea of its scale not only in the United Kingdom, which is the focus of this Bill, but in a global context. “The Global Slavery Index 2013”, published by the Walk Free Foundation, which is well thought of by President Clinton and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others, estimates that there are 14 million slaves in India—by far the biggest figure—and 7 million in Pakistan, with 1 million in the brick factories of Pakistan alone. It names China and Nigeria in third and fourth positions respectively. Other countries are mentioned, including Mauritania, which is the country with the highest proportion of its population—about 4%—in slavery. That gives a bit of context.

Around the world—in India and elsewhere—very few investigations and prosecutions are taking place, which is what happens when a country does not have a properly functioning criminal justice and law enforcement system. We must never take such matters for granted in our country, and I do not think our own international development work will be successful unless we put more effort into helping those countries to which we are sending UK aid to develop their own criminal justice and law enforcement systems.

To return to the United Kingdom—as I know you want me to do, Mr Deputy Speaker—I welcome the Bill and commend the Home Secretary and the Minister for introducing it. The new prevention orders, the establishment of the anti-slavery commissioner and the protective measure of a statutory defence for victims of slavery or trafficking are all welcome, and the child trafficking advocates are also an important addition to our armoury.

I know that the Government will reflect in a mature and sensible way on what is said in Committee. In their response to the pre-legislative scrutiny, the Government said on the issue of supply chains:

“We intend to build on the existing legislative framework, and work with business to establish what more can be done…and develop an evidence base on best practice.”

That is an open and excellent attitude to take.

In my own constituency early one September morning in 2011, 200 police officers from Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire turned up at a Traveller site just south of Leighton Buzzard and liberated 24 people who had been kept in slavery. Some of them had been there for 15 years or more. The youngest—one of my constituents—was only 17; I think that the oldest was 57. Of those 24, 18 were British citizens.

The victims had been picked up in the most appalling and callous ways imaginable. Many of them had been in homeless shelters or soup kitchens, and one had been about to commit suicide. They were promised friendship, work, accommodation and food, but of course none of those things materialised. The regime was very brutal. When they arrived, their heads were shaved, just as happened in the concentration camps. They were made to get up at 5 am every morning, and they worked all day on block paving and other manual and construction work. Indeed, some of them were trafficked from the United Kingdom to work in Scandinavia.

I commend Bedfordshire police for the effort they put in—they assembled 200 officers on a Sunday morning, which no police force does lightly—but the effort was more than justified, and what it managed to achieve was excellent.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

After Bedfordshire police acted to take those people into safety, did they ensure that they had someone they could trust to look after them carefully, with their best interests in mind, because that is the real spirit of the Bill? Once we identify people in slavery, we have a real duty to look after them properly, care about them and put them back into society balanced and happy.

[Andrew Selous]

My hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. I can reassure him that the victims were placed in the very capable hands of the Salvation Army in Bedford, and they were very well looked after. I have since met several of the victims. Indeed, some of them came to this House and saw the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall organised by Anthony Steen and others. There are some good news stories, in that some of the victims are very well integrated back into society, and are free from the terrible experiences that they went through.

On the issue of reparation, which has been talked about today, I am pleased that the Government said in their response to the pre-legislative scrutiny report that they are committed to quicker and easier reparation. I want such reparations to go to the victims of crime, but I ask the Government to think about how we can get some of the money to the police forces that have undertaken major operations. It is not cheap to send in 200 police officers early on a Sunday morning, given the overtime costs involved. If we made sure that the police gained from slave traders’ illicit profits, that would encourage more chief constables and perhaps more police and crime commissioners to be more willing to commit significant numbers of officers to stamp out the appalling crime that we are all trying to get rid of.

Within Bedfordshire, we have Bedfordshire Against Modern Slavery, which was set up by an excellent councillor, Kristy Adams. I suggest that hon. Members try to encourage some form of grass-roots movement in their areas to combat modern slavery, working alongside the police, the courts, the local authority and central Government. We all have to be involved in this issue together, and the public need to be the eyes and ears of the police. For 15 years or so in my constituency, people worked openly in the community, block paving people’s drives. Did none of the customers of the block paving firm using these slaves think that something was wrong? I think that if people had been slightly more aware and had reported their suspicions to the police, we could have broken this evil slave ring much earlier. The public therefore have a role.

Businesses also have a role, and all decent businesses will of course want to make sure that their supply chains are free of any slave-traded products. The courts and the local authorities have a role to play. We have not heard much about police and crime commissioners, but they are key people up and down our country who have an important influence on how the police spend their time and what they prioritise. Perhaps the sad truth is that police and crime commissioners perceive that there may not be many votes in targeting resources at the issue. Perhaps organisations such as Bedfordshire Against Modern Slavery have a role in ensuring that police and crime commissioners know that the public, as well as Members of Parliament, care about the issue. We want the police to be fully involved.

I pay tribute to the many organisations outside the House that do amazing work to keep the subject on the agenda. The International Justice Mission does that amazing work around the world in mounting prosecutions in many countries where law enforcement is frankly not up to the mark. It has been responsible for liberating many people. Its UK chairman, Raj Parker, and Terry Tennens, its chief executive, deserve credit. Members of Hope for Justice were in the Palace of Westminster only last night, briefing MPs. They estimate that we have 10,000 victims of modern slavery here in the UK. Of course, it is incredibly difficult to get accurate figures—we simply do not know—but that is a shockingly large number, even though it is much smaller than in other countries. Finally, there is the Human Trafficking Foundation and Anthony Steen, who has been mentioned. To me, he is a modern, mini Wilberforce. Many of us are grateful to him for his continued efforts in this campaign, in which we are all united.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is the done thing when one rises to speak to say that the previous speakers have been excellent. However, that is true of today’s debate. It is always difficult to single people out, but I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) in the previous Session. She had worked for the Children’s Society and is obviously knowledgeable and passionate. During an event at the Labour party conference she introduced me to some children who were in a vulnerable position, and I know just how much she cares about the issue. The Home Office should listen to what she has to say from that front-line perspective of working with children who have been affected by such issues.

As the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, it is shocking that we are discussing this measure so many years after the House debated the abolition of the slave trade and then the abolition of slavery. I represent one of the seats in Bristol, which of course has a historical connection with the slave trade. I was recently at a memorial for Tony Benn in the John Wesley chapel, the oldest Methodist building in the world, in the city centre. We were told that when John Wesley preached in the pulpit against slavery, riots were instigated by congregations of the other churches, which had been built by the slave traders, and very much supported the slave trade. As I said in my maiden speech, the church of St Mary Redcliffe rang the bells when the first attempts in Parliament to abolish the slave trade failed because the congregation thought that it was a good thing for the city.

Although we are very aware of the legacy, many people in Bristol would be unaware of the extent to which slavery still exists in this country. There was a horrifying case in the Bristol papers last month, when we found that people had been victims of modern slavery on our doorstep. Avon and Somerset police secured the conviction of a woman, who was sentenced for only three years, which is probably on the lenient side, for human trafficking and forced labour. She had lured 11 known victims from Lithuania to work for a pittance in Bristol. We were not sure whether they were told that they would have to pay for their travel, but the cost was deducted from their wages, which were much lower than the minimum wage, and their rent was deducted. They were not quite kept captive, but they were locked in the building without keys and could come and go only through windows. Their job was to collect those charity bags that are often delivered through doors and people are asked to leave them out filled with clothes. They were definitely exploited. They were not paid at all. If they asked for the wages they had been promised, they were threatened with eviction. As I said, the woman responsible has just been given a soft sentence of just three years. Only last week, we heard that four men were arrested in Cardiff and Bristol as part of another long-running police investigation into forced labour.

The Lithuanian case came to light after social services contacted the police. I congratulate the local agencies on bringing that case and securing the conviction. Some of the victims are being helped by the Salvation Army, as the victims were in the case highlighted by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire. The local police and crime commissioner has told me that Avon and Somerset police are focusing on increasing their intelligence picture and training staff to improve the response to human trafficking. They are working with Unseen UK. Many Members who have taken an interest in the debate will be aware of that charity—it is a national charity but is Bristol-based. The founder visited an orphanage in Ukraine. When he asked what would happen to the children when they left the orphanage, he was shocked to hear that many would be trafficked into the sex trade—some would be trafficked into forced labour, but most were trafficked into the sex trade. Unseen has done an incredibly good job, particularly in working with the victims of sex trafficking in Bristol and elsewhere.

The local police now form part of a multi-agency response through the greater Bristol anti-trafficking partnership, and are improving their early response for victims by training 100 first-response officers. As my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Wigan and others have mentioned, one obstacle is the time limit on funding for intensive support under the national referral mechanism. Many victims require much longer support than the 45-day recovery and reflection period. The Salvation Army does a wonderful job, but we cannot continue to rely on such organisations stepping in on a voluntary level. We need to ensure that those mechanisms exist. It should not depend on whether the places where the victims are freed from slavery happen to have an effective Salvation Army operation.

[Bob Stewart]

Some charities suggest that everyone who is rescued should have a guardian to ensure that they are properly looked after. Does the hon. Lady agree that it should not just be the Salvation Army, but a state-run system?

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is a valid point. The problem with leaving things to the voluntary sector is that provision can be piecemeal and ad hoc. In some cases, voluntary organisations will provide a brilliant service, which is exactly what is needed, but unless we put things on another footing, we can never be sure that people are not slipping through the net, particularly children—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan made strongly in her speech.

We must also look overseas to see the other end of the chain. In my capacity as a shadow Foreign Office Minister, I recently met the Pacific Links Foundation, a charity that works to combat trafficking in Vietnam and helps victims with reintegration services if they return there. The foundation gave harrowing accounts of boys trafficked to the UK to work in cannabis farms. Girls were trafficked for forced marriages or to work in brothels or illegal nail bars—sometimes, the illegal nail bars were also brothels. Protecting such vulnerable children requires international co-operation. We must also consider the poverty, and lack of education and opportunity, that leaves people vulnerable to trafficking in the first place. They can also leave people vulnerable to having their children trafficked—people can end up working with traffickers and allowing their children to be taken abroad. Pacific Links highlighted to me why it is so important accurately to identify trafficking victims as vulnerable people in need of support. Children returned to Vietnam without any support systems risk being trafficked again. They or their families could be liable for a perceived debt to the traffickers, or they could be rejected by their communities if they are known to have worked in the sex trade.

In the light of the information that Pacific Links gave me, I encourage the Home Secretary to respond constructively to the criticism that the Bill does not go far enough on specific protections for children, as my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan, for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Slough, and others, have mentioned. It is not a matter of having a specific provision relating to trafficked children in the Bill. We should also guarantee independent legal guardians, and ensure that children are not liable for prosecution so that they do not have to invoke a statutory defence.

While I welcome the general thrust of the Bill, the omission of any provisions to legislate against slavery in supply chains is noticeable. There has been a groundswell of support for robust action and increasing recognition that voluntary agreements are insufficient. I was contacted by many constituents, both in the run-up to this debate and before the Queen’s Speech, supporting the campaign to legislate against slavery in the supply chain. They point out that many businesses back the Joint Committee’s recommendation for such legislation.

Since then, The Guardian has published its six-month investigation into the Thai fishing industry, which has been mentioned, with evidence that slaves have been forced to work for no pay and under threat of extreme violence, to produce goods sold in UK, US and European supermarkets. In 2012, the EU imported more than $1 billion-worth of seafood from Thailand. The paper reports that the workers were bought and sold like animals and held against their will on fishing boats. They included migrant workers from Burma and Cambodia. Other reports, such as the Environmental Justice Foundation’s “Sold to the Sea” report, provide similar accounts. A report by Finnwatch into Thai factories made allegations of forced and child labour, illegally low wages, excessive working hours, abuse by managers and unsafe working hours. A British man, Andy Hall, is currently facing prosecution in Thailand for his efforts to expose those matters.

I raised with the Home Secretary earlier the fact that the Prime Minister’s spokesman, when asked about the need to legislate against slavery in the supply chain, said that it is up to consumers to make a decision. The Home Secretary responded to me by drawing an analogy with Fairtrade. I would say that that is completely wrong. I am a great believer in consumer power, whether supporting products that are not tested on animals or supporting Fairtrade products. The difference is that we do not say that products not produced by Fairtrade means are completely unethical and immoral. I would argue that Fairtrade is the better alternative, but there is nothing horrific or criminal about the way the other products are produced. With slavery in the supply chain, it is patently obvious that there is.

Consumers simply do not know whether something is produced by slave labour. Yes, we can have public campaigns where we say, “Don’t buy Thai seafood because it might be linked to slavery in the supply chain and we think north American seafood is more trustworthy”, but most consumers will not know unless we have logos saying that something is produced by slaves or not produced by slaves. That sends out a message that something being produced by slaves is somehow all right, like going for dolphin-friendly tuna, but that is an invidious message to send. Consumer power is important in lobbying MPs, but we should first legislate against slavery in the supply chain.

Reports of labels being stitched into Primark clothes alleging sweatshop conditions have already been mentioned. The Rana Plaza tragedy has been spoken about in this House before. Labour Behind the Label, a Bristol-based national campaigning organisation, works to support garment workers around the globe. Consumer pressure is really important in highlighting these issues, but I do not think that we should leave to consumers the choice between something produced by slave labour and something not produced by slave labour. One way for the Government to step up to the mark would be by reinstating their support for the International Labour Organisation, which they withdrew when the coalition was elected.

After the report on the Thai fishing industry, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), then a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, announced that the British Retail Consortium would make recommendations to eradicate human rights abuses from the supply chain. This requires strong leadership from Ministers and for the UK to send a strong message to our trading partners around the globe. The Government response to the Joint Committee said that they would

“work collaboratively with businesses to support them to eliminate forced labour in supply chains, in a way which does not place additional burdens on them”.

I am worried that the Home Office will say that it does not want to place an additional burden on business with more red tape as a way of wriggling around this. Businesses ought to care about whether there is slavery in their supply chain. If that creates an additional burden or onus on them to investigate their supply chain, well that is something they have a moral obligation to do.

As consumers, we need transparency and accountability from companies. Amnesty International has said that legislating for supply chain due diligence along the lines of the Californian Transparency in Supply Chains Act will help create a corporate culture in the UK that will be intolerant of modern forms of slavery and enable it to be rooted out of the labour market. I agree.

Finally, I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider the decision not to protect migrant domestic workers. Each year around 15,000 migrant domestic workers visit the UK with their employers to look after their families and homes. They will come here legally with those families, and many will be completely happy in their work. But the Human Rights Watch report “Hidden Away” shows that some are exposed to abuse and exploitation with no protection from the British authorities. Some have been subjected to physical, sexual and verbal abuse, confined to their homes, isolated from any contact with their families back home and given no access to a phone. Their passports have been confiscated. They are paid far below the minimum wage and, in some cases, not paid at all.

Human Rights Watch is particularly concerned that two developments since April 2012 have left domestic workers even more vulnerable and isolated, and risk the Government neglecting their obligations to them under national and international law. The first is cuts to legal aid, which have cut off their opportunities to seek help and redress and mean that there is no longer even the threat of taking their employers to employment tribunals because they cannot afford to do so. The second is that migrant workers are now less likely to seek help due to the coalition’s tied visa rules, which prevent them from changing employers; something we have heard mentioned in the debate. The fact that they risk losing their immigration status if they leave gives the employer tremendous power over them, particularly as many migrant workers have heavy financial responsibilities at home and have no choice but to endure staying with the employer that is treating them incredibly badly.

The then UN special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants concluded after a visit to the UK in 2009 that the right to change employer had been instrumental in facilitating the escape of migrant domestic workers from exploitative and abusive situations. Reversing the bar, and going back to the situation that applied in 2009, on changing employer is a practical step that the coalition could take to protect workers. The Human Rights Watch report suggests that the Government are not prepared to look at the issue of tied visas and I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that.

The UK in 2011 was one of only nine states not to vote for the ILO domestic workers convention, which was supported by 173 Governments. The coalition then rejected recommendations during the UK’s universal periodic review to ratify the convention. Again I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she feels there is any prospect of the UK signing up to it and joining the 173 Governments who have done so.

I do not want to end on a negative note. I am incredibly pleased and proud that the House is debating the issue and will bring it forward. I do not agree with the Home Secretary that we do not have enough time to make the Bill as good as possible. I think she was implying that we need to accept the Bill because it is at least a pretty big step in the right direction. I think we have plenty of time between now and the end of this parliamentary Session to make sure that we make the Bill as tough and strong as possible for those people who have been subjected to absolutely hideous treatment and to make sure that as few people as possible are subjected to it in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). Like other Members, she referred to horrific and harrowing cases, which are all the more persuasive because they arise from incidents that are occurring in this country today.

Benjamin Franklin said that slavery was

“an atrocious debasement of human nature”.

He said that a long time ago, and, as we know, it was a long time ago that William Wilberforce campaigned for the abolition of slavery. I think that it would surprise many of my constituents to know that it is still here, in all its grisly and awful reality. The Bill bears clear testimony to the fact that slavery, and the effects of slavery, are still to be found.

We in Plaid Cymru welcome the Bill, and strongly support it. It extends only to England and Wales, which explains the absence of my Scottish colleagues. People in my constituency probably wonder whether modern slavery exists in our area of far-flung rural north-west Wales. In fact, one of the largest cannabis factories in the United Kingdom was discovered in my constituency about 18 months ago.

We are glad that the Government have heeded some of the Joint Committee’s recommendations—although, as has already been said, only some. The Committee’s report argued in particular that the Bill could be improved by the addition of stronger provisions for the protection of victims of slavery, and specifically that the Crown Prosecution Service should be provided with guidance on the non-prosecution of victims. That point has been made again today, and I strongly agree with it.

The report also called for the Bill to provide for a system of guardianship for child victims of slavery, for a review of the visa status of overseas domestic workers and for an anti-slavery commissioner to be appointed independent from Government. I made that point earlier to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who made a persuasive speech. The report also called for the Government to look at legislation in California dedicated to tackling modern slavery in supply chains by requiring businesses to report on what steps they had taken to eradicate the practice. That matter has also been referred to by many Members.

The Committee report, published on 8 April, said that witnesses saw the draft Bill as a bit of a “cut and paste” exercise. Other Members have referred to existing offences being pasted into the Bill. The Committee argued that it would be a missed opportunity if better provisions to protect children and to eradicate modern slavery in supply chains were not included in the Bill.

The report in particular called for provisions on victim care to be given a statutory footing; for changes to be made so that victims could access compensation more expediently; for the creation of a separate offence of exploiting and trafficking a child; for the anti-slavery commissioner to be independent from Government; and for the establishment of a statutory system of advocates.

[Bob Stewart]

We have heard that the Salvation Army is a fantastic organisation. I understand that it does not actually look after victims; it sub-lets that to other organisations. I understand from Anthony Steen that it would be a very good thing if our Government, rather than spending £25,000 a year looking after a victim in this country, gave £3,000 to the victim and the Government of the country from where they came to retrain those people and look after them properly. That would be a good use of taxpayers’ money.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We have heard several times about the need to care for people who have been subjected to modern slavery. The Bill should also deal with that aspect. People are trafficked and people come to this country for non-existent jobs. They are driven by poverty and other factors, including low wages, in their own country. Equalisation of economies throughout western and eastern Europe would tackle that issue in the long term.

I am glad that the Government have agreed to introduce child trafficking advocates, whose role needs to be strengthened, and that they have conceded that courts should have the ability to have regard to certain characteristics that victims possess— such as their age, disabilities and family relationships—in assessing whether they were more vulnerable than others would be when a crime was committed.

The Bill does fall short, unfortunately, most notably in failing to compel businesses to take steps to ensure that no slavery is involved in their supply chains, as well as in failing to amend the existing rules concerning domestic work visas. The Bill has been criticised by UNICEF for failing to include adequate measures to protect trafficked children.

Stop the Traffik has written to me this week, and I think to all other MPs, on the issue. As the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) has pointed out, according to the International Labour Organisation, forced labour generates about $150 billion every year, exploiting 21 million people. Of that huge sum, $43 billion can be attributed to non-domestic non-sexual forced labour in agriculture, construction, mining and manufacturing. We are talking about a huge amount of money.

We have heard about the case exposed in The Guardian, which uncovered the use of forced labour by the Thailand-based company Charoen Pokphand Foods, which exploited men who were made to work against their will on fishing boats. Not amending the Bill to include a responsibility on businesses to ensure that no modern slavery occurs in their supply chains would be to perpetuate a fatal flaw. In the present situation, we cannot depend on consumers or, unfortunately, on companies to ensure there is not modern slavery in their supply chains.

The Joint Committee recommended that the Government should amend section 414 of the Companies Act 2006, which at present places a duty on companies to report on “social, community and human rights issues” at the end of each financial year. It recommended that “slavery” be added to the list of issues to be reported upon. Businesses’ reports should detail what steps they have taken to verify their supply chains as well as whether they have audited their suppliers and certified goods supplied by those suppliers. The Committee was supported in this recommendation by both Primark and Tesco, but unfortunately the Government have refused to amend the 2006 Act, arguing it is too early to say whether the provisions already in place are adequate.

On domestic worker visas, changes to the immigration rules in April 2012 mean that domestic workers in private households have leave to stay in the UK for only six months, and we heard further details on this matter from other hon. Members. Kalayaan, the charity that provides advocacy for migrant domestic workers, reports an increase in the exploitation of this group since the new rules came into force, and points to a number of alarming facts. Migrant domestic workers who are tied to their employers have been twice as likely to report having been physically abused by their employers, and 71% of those subject to the new rules are reported as being effectively imprisoned in the homes where they are working. Some 53% of those on the new visa have reported working more than 16 hours a day, as opposed to 32% of those who still have the right to change employer and remain in the UK. According to internal assessments conducted by Kalayaan staff, 69% of those on the new visa were trafficked, compared with 26% of those who are not tied. The Modern Slavery Bill evidence review panel is calling on the Government to “consider reinstating the rights” of overseas domestic worker visa-holders “to change employer”, but that has been rejected, as far as I can see, with the Government steadfastly refusing to change their mind.

Groups including UNICEF have highlighted the need to improve aspects of this Bill which seek to protect children. At least 10 children are trafficked every single week in the UK. UNICEF argues that the definition of human trafficking in clause 2 of the Bill should reflect the international definition of trafficking enshrined in the UN Palermo Protocol as well as the EU trafficking directive. UNICEF also believes that the Bill should be explicit in defining a child as a person under the age of 18, so as to ensure that cases involving children are always considered in a fundamentally distinct way.

Although the new statutory defence for victims of trafficking who have been compelled by their slavery to commit an offence is welcome, it does not go as far as the non-prosecution principle recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2014.

Lastly, the enabling power to put child trafficking advocates on a statutory footing should be strengthened. UNICEF has argued that independent guardians with legal powers should be introduced for all separated migrant and trafficked children, and that the principles of guardianship should be included in this Bill, including that advocates must be independent from public authorities, and that they should have adequate legal powers and be able to instruct a solicitor on the child’s behalf.

The Bill before us today is certainly a step in the right direction, but the issues that I have highlighted, and those which have been highlighted in other speeches, must not be ignored. We owe it to victims of modern slavery to get this right.