Litvinenko Inquiry

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I will repeat what I have said to a number of Members who raised the issue of the Magnitsky Act. The Act excludes or stops certain individuals from coming into a country, in this case the United States. We already have powers that are at least as robust, if not more so, than the powers in the Magnitsky Act. It is on that basis that I think we have the powers we need to exclude people. I repeat the point I made earlier: if people think that introducing the Magnitsky Act will mean that those who perpetrated this heinous crime will be brought to justice, they are very wrong.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

A unilateral boycott of any sporting event in Russia by this country would be futile. There is no denying that delivering the world athletics championships, the winter Olympics and the 2020 World cup, while behaving like an international pariah, is a major propaganda coup for Putin. What does the Home Secretary think we can do to work with sympathetic nations to ensure that Putin cannot deliver these sorts of propaganda coups in future?

[Mrs May]

I recognise that a number of Members have indicated their desire for the Government to intervene in decisions taken by various sporting authorities. I have set out that a number of decisions have been taken by the Government. Sanctions have been put in place over a period of time in a number of different ways against the Russian Government. We are very clear that we maintain measures started under the Labour Government in 2007. As I have indicated, we are looking to see what further action can be taken against Lugovoy and Kovtun as a result of the report.

Home Affairs and Justice

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 28th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman made an important point at the beginning of his remarks, and I suggest that he might sometimes make it to some of his colleagues, because he is absolutely right that it is not about the number of police officers; it is about how they are deployed. That is a decision taken by the chief constable of an area, who will of course be discussing that with the police and crime commissioner. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might like to take it up with his local police and crime commissioner whom he might know quite well from his time in this House.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary just said that the Metropolitan police have managed to maintain their police numbers, but police numbers in London are down by 3,000 on 2010 figures.

[Mrs May]

The Metropolitan police were able to maintain the figures that the Mayor committed to, and indeed the force is recruiting police officers at the moment, as are a number of forces around the country.

I referred to the policing and criminal justice Bill and there are a number of measures in that that I believe will bring important reform. First, we will change pre-charge bail to prevent the injustice of people spending months or even years on bail only for no charges to be brought.

Secondly, we will amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to ensure that 17-year-olds who are detained in police custody are treated as children for all purposes under that Act.

Thirdly, we will strengthen the powers and extend the remit of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to better allow it to comment on the efficiency and effectiveness of policing as a whole.

Fourthly, we will overhaul the police disciplinary and complaints systems to increase accountability and transparency. We will enable regulations governing police conduct to be extended to cover former police officers, ensuring that misconduct cases can be taken to a conclusion even when an officer leaves that force. We will make the police complaints system more independent of the police through an expanded role for police and crime commissioners, and there will be a new system of “super-complaints” which will allow organisations such as charities and advocacy groups to lodge complaints on behalf of the public.

Fifthly, we will enshrine in legislation the revised core purpose of the Police Federation of England and Wales, and make the federation subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Sixthly, we will introduce measures to improve the police response to people with mental health issues. The Bill will therefore include provisions to cut the use of police cells for section 135 and 136 detentions, reduce the current 72-hour maximum period of detention, and allow more places, other than police cells, to fall within the definition of a “place of safety”.

Finally, subject to the outcome of a public consultation, we will provide enhanced protections for children by introducing sanctions for professionals who fail to take action on child abuse where it is a professional responsibility to do so.

Ellison Review

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right that we should never forget that there are police officers out there who do their job perfectly properly with honesty and integrity, and are bringing criminals to justice as a result of their work. We should not forget to pay tribute—he is right to do so—to those who have campaigned for many years alongside the family and in the House to ensure that those who were responsible are brought to justice and that we can get at the truth.

When the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) set up the Macpherson inquiry and when its results were received, everyone assumed that it had been able to look at all the evidence and to get to the truth. Sadly, as we now know, that was not the case, and certain matters that should have been referred to it were not.

My hon. Friend refers to a particular officer and the need to ensure that in further investigations police experience and knowledge of the case is not lost. That matter has been drawn to my attention, and I am giving proper consideration to it.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that there is to be an inquiry into the goings-on within the SDS. However, we should not be sidetracked from the core issue that initiated the Ellison investigation and review, which is that corruption was an influence over the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and that evidence and information were withheld from the Macpherson inquiry. I would like the Secretary of State to confirm that that will be addressed in part of the public inquiry where people have to come and give evidence under oath.

In July 2006, there was a programme on TV called “The Boys Who Killed Stephen Lawrence”. Deputy Commissioner John Yates went on that programme and said that Detective Sergeant John Davidson was a corrupt officer. I contacted the IPCC and the Metropolitan police and asked to know in what way his activities affected the inquiry. In a meeting with the Metropolitan police, I was told categorically that his corruption had nothing whatsoever to do with the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. We now know from the Ellison inquiry that the evidence on that was destroyed, so on what basis did the Metropolitan police tell me that? I also asked the IPCC to investigate what other crimes Detective Sergeant Davidson had been involved in that may have been corrupted by his illegal activities, and answer got I none.

All this information needs to be investigated thoroughly in a full public inquiry. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the public inquiry will not just focus on the SDS but take in those wider issues, because nothing short of that will be satisfactory to the public or the family of Stephen Lawrence?

[Mrs May]

I recognise the role that the hon. Gentleman has played in relation to this matter, the concern that he has expressed over the years, and the efforts that he has made, as he has just evidenced to us, to ensure that the truth will be found in relation to the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

On the public inquiry, as I indicated earlier, we will be looking at the terms of reference once it is clearer that Mark Ellison has been able to do his work in relation to the question of the SDS in general and miscarriages of justice. It is specifically in respect of the SDS and the Peter Francis allegations that Mark Ellison identifies that a public inquiry might be better placed to make definitive findings, and that is the background against which we will look at the inquiry’s terms of reference. In relation to some of the other aspects that he investigated, he has not highlighted the potential for a public inquiry to find further evidence and get to the truth behind certain allegations. As I said, the inquiry will look at undercover policing and the SDS, in particular, but we will set the terms of reference in due course when Mark Ellison has had an opportunity to conduct the further review that has been proposed in his report and that I have accepted as a recommendation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

We have regular meetings with various organisations. The ownership of clubs is obviously an interesting matter, and there is a place for all different types of ownership. I am going to meet some of the supporters groups in the new year, and I am sure that they will raise the issue of ownership with me. I remain open-minded about this. I know that clubs that are owned by supporters work very well indeed, and that the supporters have the best interests of the game at heart.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The 2009 Parry report on sports betting recommended strengthening the law on cheating, as defined in the Gambling Act 2005. Jacques Rogge has described cheating in gambling as being

“as dangerous as doping for the credibility of sport.”

The Secretary of State called a summit this week, presumably to explain to sports governing bodies why the Government alone have failed to meet the recommendations of the Parry report. She rejected all our amendments to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill on match-fixing. Following the recent allegations in football, will she now reconsider her position?

[Mrs Grant]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the law is working. It is in place, and we have seen recent arrests and the good work of the National Crime Agency. We have criminal offences of bribery, corruption and fraud, and there is an offence under section 42 of the 2005 Act. The law is in place and it is being used. Of course, we must keep it under review, and I will do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We intend to publish our action plan early in the new year. As well as looking at the issue of the threshold, it is important that we bring the two regulators closer together. It is also important to note that Ofcom is undertaking a review of the telephone preference service to check what changes can be made to make it more effective.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Active People survey figures that were published as we walked into the Chamber this morning show that they were down on last year. When the last set of figures was published, the Government blamed the weather. Will they do so again today? The time for excuses has passed. Even more damning, the figures for 16 to 25-year-olds are down by 51,000. There was no better golden legacy left to this Government than the one in sport. Just what will the Government do about this terrible situation?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is being so negative. I have seen that report. More people, including women and people with disabilities, are participating in sport in this country than ever before, which should be celebrated. Of course there is more to do, and we will do it. We are focusing action on 14 to 25-year-olds, who have competing demands on their time. We expect the sports bodies to focus on this. If they do not, there will be consequences. They receive a large amount of public money, and if they cannot produce the goods, we will get other people involved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I will be very happy indeed to have that meeting.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The horse racing industry is not just part of British culture; it is also essential to our rural economies. However, we have an offshore betting industry that largely does not contribute anything, through a levy, to the industry. It is therefore important that the Minister reviews the Government legal advice on the betting levy in the light of the European Commission ruling in July of this year that allows a levy to be imposed. Will she review that in time for amendments to be tabled to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill?

[Mrs Grant]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a certain extent, because the levy was created 50 years ago and does not completely deal with modern betting and racing practices, so, as I have previously said, I will consult. We will take evidence and look at the situation very carefully indeed, and try to find a modern, sustainable and enforceable legal solution.

Undercover Policing

Clive Efford Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment about police officers. It should be said in this House that the vast majority of police officers in this country are honest and act with integrity to keep the public safe, reduce crime and catch criminals. They will be as concerned as we are by the allegations that have appeared in the media over the past 24 hours.

On whether something similar could happen today, the special demonstration squad was disbanded more than a decade ago after operating for about 40 years. Since it was disbanded, there have been a number of changes to the way in which undercover and covert operations are undertaken. We are determined to look constantly at whether further changes are needed to enhance the oversight of undercover operations and the procedures under which such operations take place. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made the announcement last week about the Office of Surveillance Commissioners.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is worth reminding ourselves that the Macpherson inquiry was instigated by failures in the initial investigation by the Metropolitan police. It was effectively an investigation into the Metropolitan police, so the idea that it was hiding information from the inquiry beggars belief. Sir Paul Condon, who was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time, said that he knew nothing about the SDS in the Metropolitan police, which I believe was funded by the Home Office. Someone in the Metropolitan police decided not to provide this information to the Macpherson inquiry. Can we be clear: people are not satisfied with the police investigating the police? The public will be satisfied only by a fully independent, publicly held inquiry with oversight of all these matters, including the suggestions of corruption and the smearing of the family of Stephen Lawrence.

[Mrs May]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s level of concern. He is right that the Macpherson inquiry was an investigation into the way in which the Metropolitan police had handled itself. It went wider and looked at the Metropolitan police as a whole, including its attitudes in such cases. No information should have been hidden from the Macpherson inquiry and the allegation that it was is shocking. I set up the Mark Ellison review last year with the support of and after full discussions with Doreen Lawrence and the Lawrence family. I asked Mark Ellison to look specifically at whether information had been withheld from the Macpherson inquiry, so that is already part of his remit. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Mark Ellison is independent in the work that he is doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

The hon. Lady needs to be careful with her figures. If she is arguing that the participation rates have fallen, that is only for the winter. I was told that rugby league, which is big in her part of the world, had a week in which 96% of all its fixtures were cancelled. That explains the drop-off in participation. [Interruption.] Well yes; because when there is snow on the ground you can’t play rugby league. I would have thought that as the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) could have probably worked that out. The fact is that participation rates are above the national average in the part of the world the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) represents. I encourage local authorities to make use of both the Olympic effect and the many sports fixtures coming to her part of the world this year to drive up rates.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

At best, the active people figure for West Lancashire has flatlined, and participation rates in the north-west have gone down. Overall, the country has seen a reduction of 200,000. It is less than a year since the Olympic games and what have we got? Some 68% of school sports organisers tell us that fewer children are doing sport and that they are spending less time doing it. While the rest of us looked forward to an Olympic legacy, the Government were wrecking school sports partnerships. Now they are blaming the weather for adult figures going down. Rather than riding on the back of fluctuations in the climate, will the Minister get to the Dispatch Box and tell us what he is going to do to deliver a sustainable Olympic legacy?

[Hugh Robertson]

The first thing is that the hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong. The second is that anybody with an iota of common sense would accept that if there is snow on the ground rugby league cannot be played, and that if there is ice on the road people are unlikely take their bicycles out. In the period since 2005 when we won the bid, up to the moment when, across two Governments, we delivered the games, London was the first host city to deliver a sustained increase—of 1.4 million—in participation. I pay tribute to the policy devised by James Purnell and carried through by the right hon. Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) when they were Secretaries of State. We should celebrate the fact that this country has achieved what no other country in the history of the Olympic games has ever achieved. Ranting and carping is pretty stupid.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Today’s report by Ofsted on sport in schools calls on the Government to devise

“a new national strategy for PE and school sport that builds on the successes of school sport partnerships”.

Those partnerships have been totally undermined by this Government. It is unacceptable that six months after the Olympics, we are still waiting for the Government to deliver a coherent sports strategy. If they continue to delay, they will fail the generation that we should be inspiring. How many more damning reports need to be published before the Minister gets it and the Government deliver the sporting legacy that our children deserve?

[Hugh Robertson]

First, the Opposition spokesman should not conflate sport legacy with a school sport policy. He is well aware that the sport legacy is going extraordinarily well. He tends never to mention that 1.75 million people are now playing sport who were not playing sport at the time of the bid. There is also a range of international events, and around the globe 14 million extra children have been touched by sport.

If the hon. Gentleman is going to criticise sport provision on the back of the Ofsted report, he should wake up to the fact that it covers 2008 to 2012—throughout the period in which the school sport partnerships were operating. If he wishes to see them reintroduced, he has to explain to the House and others how they would be funded, about which we have heard not a jot from the Opposition since the election.

Stephen Lawrence

Clive Efford Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on whether she will establish a public inquiry into recent allegations that corruption within the Metropolitan police force interfered with the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

May I first apologise to the House for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who is overseas on Government business?

It is a matter of deep regret that it took 19 years to achieve convictions for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. In the years since he was murdered, the Lawrence family fought tirelessly for justice and, without their efforts, it is unlikely that either Gary Dobson or David Norris would have been convicted. I hope that the verdicts in January will finally have delivered some comfort to the Lawrence family.

Allegations of corruption in the murder investigation have been looked at on two previous occasions. They were examined by the Macpherson inquiry, which concluded that

“no collusion or corruption is proved to have infected the investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder.”

The allegations were also looked at by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2006, which again was unable to find any corruption in the original murder investigation. Following the convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris, further allegations of corruption have come to light. As a result, the solicitor acting on behalf of Mrs Lawrence has written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary asking her to set up a public inquiry.

Allegations of police corruption must always be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. It is essential that we ensure that the actions and behaviours of any corrupt police officers do not undermine public confidence in the police’s ability to respond to, investigate and fight crime. The Metropolitan police are currently carrying out an internal review into these corruption allegations and we await their findings. I would like to reassure Members of the House that my right hon. Friend is treating these issues with the utmost seriousness. She is currently considering her decision and has offered to meet Doreen Lawrence to discuss the issues further. My right hon. Friend will keep the House updated.

[Clive Efford]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, as far as it goes. The murder of Stephen Lawrence, and his family’s campaign for justice, led to the Macpherson inquiry, which was a landmark for policing in this country. One of Macpherson’s conclusions that remains in doubt relates to whether police corruption hampered the inquiry into Stephen’s murder. We have now seen fresh evidence that might call that conclusion into question.

Over the past two months, I have tabled questions on two occasions but have been fobbed off with holding answers. Yesterday, however, reports in the press that had clearly been sanctioned by the Home Office suggested that the Home Secretary had told the Lawrence family that she shared their concerns. If that is the case, can we take it that the Minister accepts that there is evidence of police corruption that is worthy of further inquiry?

There is also speculation that one of the Secretary of State’s reasons for not setting up an inquiry is cost, and it has been stated that there could be swifter and cheaper ways of dealing with the matter. According to reports, the police have taken six weeks and still cannot confirm whether all the relevant documents relating to Operation Russell were sent to the inquiry. In the light of that, will the Minister tell us what constitutes “swift” in the context of an inquiry? We cannot have any more bluster and delay. There has been far too much since the moment Stephen Lawrence was murdered.

Stephen’s family are asking for an inquiry into this matter. Will the Minister now answer my questions? Does he accept that only an independent, public inquiry will satisfy public concerns over the new allegations? Does he also accept that, as there has already been too much delay, such an inquiry should be expedited as quickly as possible, either by reconvening the Macpherson inquiry or by setting up a new inquiry team to follow on with its work?

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and underline the seriousness we attach to the current allegations. The Home Secretary is looking very closely at this matter, but wishes the Metropolitan police’s internal review into the current allegations to conclude to inform her determination of what next steps are appropriate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those investigations should be carried out by the Metropolitan police swiftly in order to inform further consideration of whether a public inquiry is or is not appropriate.

I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that this matter will be looked at speedily and closely by the Home Secretary, who will continue to have discussions with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. It is essential to have trust and confidence in the policing provided within London and in the rest of the country. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Home Office has not sought in any way to brief this out, and that any decisions made by the Home Secretary should be reported to this House first. I can assure him that this matter will be dealt with entirely appropriately to provide the necessary reassurance on this significant matter—to him, to his constituents and to the Lawrence family.

Abu Qatada

Clive Efford Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is quite right. I fully appreciate that the public will be concerned by the delaying tactic that is being employed. I warned the House earlier this week—and, indeed, warned people more generally—that the process of deportation could take many months and that legal avenues were open to Abu Qatada to pursue, and that is of course what has happened. In response to my hon. Friend’s first point, the Government’s case is strong. It is educational to look at what happened on Tuesday. At the beginning of the SIAC hearing, Abu Qatada’s lawyers indicated that they were going to take the matter through the UK courts. It was only after they heard our case and the judgment that was brought down on Abu Qatada by Justice Mitting that they decided to attempt this referral.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Journalists are reporting today that they have checked with the European Court, and that it was the Court’s opinion that the three-month period started to be measured from the day after the domestic decision, which was the 17th. That was reported to the Home Office. Was it brought to the attention of the Secretary of State? Did her officials ever put before her the decision whether to go forward on 17 April or 18 April? This is an important question: did her officials ever give her the option of delaying for 24 hours in order to be safe according to the European Court’s position?

[Mrs May]

The position of the Government has always been absolutely clear—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] The position that we have been working on is that the deadline was Monday 16 April. The hon. Gentleman’s question is based on an incorrect premise, and if he had listened to the answers that I gave earlier, he would realise that. His claim is that, had the action been delayed by a day, no referral could have been made by Abu Qatada. I have made it clear, however, that it is a matter for the discretion of the panel of judges of the Grand Chamber whether to accept a referral within the deadline or outside it.