Omar al-Bayoumi: Arrest and Extradition

Debate between David Davis and Dan Jarvis

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the 2001 arrest of Saudi national Omar al-Bayoumi and the failure to extradite Mr al-Bayoumi for his alleged involvement in the 11 September terror attacks.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

The attacks on 9/11 were an appalling assault on freedom. We remember the courage displayed by the American people in the aftermath and in the years since; ahead of the anniversary this week, our thoughts remain with the victims and survivors, as well as all who loved them. Almost 25 years on, there is a risk that we might forget the destructive and barbaric scale of the attacks on 9/11. I would like to remind this House that the attacks killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, injured thousands more and gave rise to substantial long-term health consequences for the victims. The 11 September attacks are the deadliest act of terrorism in human history. I would like to take this opportunity to remember every single one of the victims and their families. In addition to the huge loss of life, the attacks also caused at least $10 billion-worth of infrastructure and property damage.

It would be inappropriate to comment on an individual case, such as the one that the right hon. Gentleman raises. As he will know, it is also a long-standing Government policy—followed by successive Governments —to neither confirm nor deny an arrest for the purpose of an extradition request. The purpose of this policy is to protect the confidentiality of ongoing investigations, reciprocate international best practice, maintain trust and confidence between states, and minimise the risk of fugitives escaping justice. It is always a matter for the competent authorities in requesting territories if they wish to make a request for extradition to the UK. There is an ongoing civil legal action in the United States, and due to those ongoing legal proceedings, the Government are not able to comment further today.

The extradition process is a formal international procedure where one country requests another to return a person accused or convicted of a serious offence to stand trial or serve a sentence. The process typically begins with a formal request from one country to another. Extradition from the UK is governed by the Extradition Act 2003. For all countries outside the EU, a state-to-state system operates, whereby requests are sent between Governments, with decision-making split between Ministers and the UK courts. Whether or not formal extradition arrangements are in place with the requesting state will determine how incoming requests progress through the UK system. There are many countries where bilateral or multilateral treaties are in place. However, the UK can co-operate with any country on an ad hoc basis through the special extradition arrangements provisions in the 2003 Act.

The Home Office has an operational case working unit—the UK central authority—which exercises the Home Secretary’s responsibilities for non-EU extradition to and from the UK. For all incoming extradition requests sent to the UK from any country in the world, the 2003 Act requires a UK judge to decide whether the requested person’s extradition would be compatible with their human rights. The UK unequivocally supports the rule of law; all individuals requested for extradition are considered individually by our independent courts, complying with the provisions of the 2003 Act.

[David Davis]

Yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Times revealed that in the aftermath of 9/11 the Metropolitan police were forced to release Omar al-Bayoumi, who was believed to be a Saudi intelligence agent accused of supporting the hijackers, because the FBI withheld evidence. Arrested in Birmingham 10 days after 9/11, al-Bayoumi was taken to London to be interrogated by Met counter-terror officers. The FBI declined to provide those officers with vital evidence of al-Bayoumi’s involvement in 9/11. The evidence included a hand-drawn aircraft diagram, trajectory calculations matching the Pentagon attack, and an address book with the attackers’ code name—a code name that bin Laden himself did not disclose until a year later.

The FBI’s refusal to disclose this evidence prevented al-Bayoumi’s extradition to the United States. FBI records show that in 1999, al-Bayoumi met two officials from the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Those officials were assessed to be part of a network of individuals connected with the facilitation of two 9/11 attackers. A separate 2017 assessment by the FBI’s Arabic specialists concluded that Mr al-Bayoumi was a co-optee of the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency, which is its secret service.

A full investigation by the Intelligence and Security Committee is needed. It must investigate why the FBI clearly avoided extraditing Mr al-Bayoumi and exactly what was the involvement of the Saudi Government, in particular their Ministry of Islamic Affairs and secret service. As the Minister said, it is nearly 25 years since 9/11. In that time we have extradited many innocent people to America, but we failed to extradite someone who deserved to be sent over there. We need to get to the bottom of this, in part so that we do not see this terrible atrocity happen again.

[Dan Jarvis]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman applies a huge weight of judgment and consideration to these matters, so I completely understand why he sought to bring this matter to the House’s attention. I hope, though, that he understands that I am very limited in what I can say by way of response.

The right hon. Gentleman will remember—I do not think he will mind my saying that he has been around for quite a long time—that in 2001 we were operating under the Extradition Act 1989. As he has mentioned, The Sunday Times has reported that key documents were not considered in 2001 when Mr Omar al-Bayoumi was subject to investigation in respect of the 9/11 bombings in the United States of America. The Sunday Times article suggests that the US did not pursue extradition in 2001. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are legal proceedings ongoing in the United States, and that means that I am not able to say any more at this point. I hope that he and the House will understand the reasons for that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Dan Jarvis

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s comments about 7/7. I remember that day too well, and we supported the Government then, too. In more recent times, there have been a number of major cyber-attacks, ransomware attacks and associated blackmail of major companies. It has come to my attention that one such company paid a very large sum to its blackmailer recently. I will share the name with the Home Secretary afterwards; it would not be appropriate to share it in the Chamber. Will she update the House on the progress of the Government’s actions to ensure that blackmailers of this sort do not succeed in future?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, and will happily meet him to discuss it. The Home Office recently closed a consultation on a world-leading package of legislative proposals to counter ransomware. A public response will be published shortly.

Iranian State Threats

Debate between David Davis and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; there was quite a lot in his question. With regard to proscription, I hope I have given him a sense of the importance we attach to the work that the Home Secretary has commissioned. It is entirely reasonable for the Government to say that we have looked at the existing legislative framework and decided that we need an independent reviewer and some independent advice to guide us about whether proscription is most appropriate for the state threats that we undoubtedly face. I think that is the right way to proceed. I hope he understands that no Government would ever get into a running commentary about proscription, because that is not helpful and undermines the deterrent effect of that tool.

The hon. Gentleman made an important point about ensuring that, as a Government, we do everything we possibly can to protect Iranians who are currently residing in the UK. I can give him those assurances. Hopefully he heard my words earlier about the work the defending democracy taskforce is progressing and about the transnational repression review, which is an important piece of work. The process has taken some time, but it should provide the mechanisms by which Government can most effectively ensure that people in this country are protected from the kind of threats that we have been discussing today.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I know I bore the Minister incessantly with my repetitive calls for the proscription of the IRGC, so I welcome what he has to say today, particularly about the independent adviser’s review, which I hope will be rapidly available for him to take action. May I pick up the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) about the need for a whole of Government response? That does not mean just the Foreign Office as well as the Home Office; it is wider than that. I could give the Minister a single example or a number of examples. Successive British Governments have stood aside while British universities have done military research in conjunction with Iranian researchers on battlefield armour, range-finding lasers, drones and fighter jets. Will he ensure that the whole of Whitehall brings the focus to this that is required?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman has never bored me—[Interruption.] I sense, Madam Deputy Speaker, that not everybody in the Chamber would be able to say precisely those same words, but I can say them and look the right hon. Gentleman in the eye. He is right to mention Jonathan Hall’s work. He will know that Jonathan Hall is not an individual who sits on his hands; he will work at pace. We need to get a move on with this, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will and that work will progress at rapid pace.

The right hon. Gentleman’s point about wider Government is exactly right. There is an important role for the Department for Education. The defending democracy taskforce that was set up by the previous Government, which I now chair, brings together virtually all the Departments, as well as a number of other operational partners, so that fulcrum point across Government that looks at these matters very much has that wider approach, which he is right to raise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Dan Jarvis

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

When last year the now Home Secretary called on the then Conservative Government to use counter-terror legislation to proscribe organisations such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, she will remember that I supported her publicly. Since then, Iran and the IRGC have got even more dangerous. Has she changed her mind, and if so, why?

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I gently point out that he is asking the Government to do something that the previous Government did not do in 14 years. I can say to him that we are leading work on countering Iranian state threats, making use of the full breadth and expertise of our intelligence services and law enforcement agencies. We keep the list of proscribed organisations under very close review. I can assure him that work continues apace to identify further ways to tackle the threat.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Dan Jarvis

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

T4. In December 2023 a plot was exposed in which members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps planned to assassinate two journalists working for Iran International on UK soil. Since January 2022 there have been about 15 such incidents in Britain. Is it not now time to ban the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Dan Jarvis)]

The right hon. Gentleman, who has a long-standing interest in these matters, knows that we do not comment on whether an organisation is being considered for proscription. What is clear is that Iran’s malign activities, including the activities of the IRGC, are completely unacceptable. I can give him an assurance that we keep these matters under very close review.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment)Bill [Lords]

Debate between David Davis and Dan Jarvis

Report stage
Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend has made an important point, and one with which I suspect the overwhelming majority of Members would agree.

[Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I was the Minister who took through the House the Bill that created the ISC. At the time, the intention was that it would evolve to become a very powerful Committee, but it did not absolve the entire House from some responsibility. Two elements are involved here. One has just been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—the Prime Minister’s appearance before the Committee—and the other is minimal redaction of the reports that the Committee creates. One of the problems we have encountered in recent years is excessive redaction of those reports. Has the hon. Gentleman any views on that?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman has made two important points, both of which I agree with, about redaction and about the attendance of the Prime Minister. I do not think it unreasonable to expect that once a year the Prime Minister should seek to meet what is a very important cross-party Committee of this House. I should be happy to give way to the Minister should he wish to add his own views on this matter, but given the basis of my sense of where the House is and given previous debates, I think most Members will agree that it is not unreasonable to ask the Prime Minister to turn up once a year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarification on the response to new clause 2. He understands that we have tabled it because we genuinely think that it is a mechanism that—let us be honest about it—would not be particularly onerous for the Government, and would be helpful in focusing minds across Government. I completely agree with the point he made about his civil servants, who have been excellent throughout the passage of the Bill. We just happen to differ on this issue, because the Opposition think that the new clause would provide a useful forum for the Government to consider the challenges. He is absolutely right about the rapid evolution of technology, and we think it would be no bad thing to condense Government thinking into a report that would be issued on an annual basis.

[Sir David Davis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. May I address the iterative issue that the Minister and he both raised? It is not just the development of technology that is important here; it is also about the development of other countries’ security systems. For example, the Germans are putting in place laws that require end-to-end encryption—the very thing that we were worried about—so we will have to manoeuvre over the course of the coming years to make sure that what we do fits not just with the technology companies, but with what our allies are doing.

[Dan Jarvis]

That is a very important point, and I completely agree. These are complex and difficult matters of public policy, and I completely understand that none of this is easy from the Minister’s perspective. However, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, his point strengthens the case for new clause 2, because we think it would provide a useful mechanism for the Government to track the development of these important matters, but also provide a mechanism for Members of this House to hold the Government to account on them. I am very grateful for the points he has made.

Before turning to amendment 24 on BPDs, which stands in my name, I would be very grateful if the Minister could say whether any progress has been made on arrangements to notify the Investigatory Powers Commissioner when adding new BPDs to existing category authorisations. It might not be in the Bill, but we think that even a reference to it in the IPC’s annual inspection would be helpful progress on this matter. The Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and I have discussed that, and I would be grateful if the Minister could said something about it.

I acknowledge the amendments on BPDs that were tabled by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). Both of our parties have concerns about the definition of “low or no expectation of privacy” for BPDs, which we debated in a pretty constructive fashion on Second Reading and in Committee. However, Labour does not oppose the concept of “low or no expectation of privacy” for BPDs, which is why we will not support amendment 7, which was tabled by the SNP spokesman. Instead, amendment 24, which stands in my name, seeks further clarification on how “low or no expectation of privacy” will be applied to BPDs, with the aim that the parameters must be as clear as possible for the House to understand.

In Committee, the Minister used the Panama papers as an example of leaked and widely republished material being defined as a BPD with a low or no expectation of privacy. I understand why the Minister chose to use that example, but most other leaked documents containing personal information do not attract anywhere near the same level of media attention. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to provide another example of information from a leak without widescale press coverage that would be suitable for the designation of a bulk personal data set with a low or no expectation of privacy.

Afghanistan

Debate between David Davis and Dan Jarvis

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), as it is the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). They all spoke with great eloquence.

Like many hon. Members, I am wracked with a profound sadness at the catastrophe that has unfolded in Afghanistan. Above all, it is an unspeakable tragedy for the people of that country, who, after generations of conflict, now live under a terrible cloud of fear and repression. Who could fail to be moved by the agonising scenes from Kabul airport just this week? How desperate must someone have to be to want to cling on to the side of a moving aircraft? These past 20 years have been a struggle for peace. We tried to break the cycle of war, and to give hope to women and girls. We tried to give the Afghans a different life—one of hope and opportunity—but the catastrophic failure of international political leadership and the brutality of the Taliban have snatched all of that away from them. The new Administration in Kabul should know that they will be judged not by their words, but by their actions. The world is watching.

I want to reflect on the service and sacrifice of our brave servicemen and women, who have showed outstanding professionalism and courage throughout. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View said just a moment ago, recent developments have hit them hard, and they are grappling with the question of whether all the effort and sacrifice was really worth it. They are again grieving for fallen comrades who did not come home. Whatever the outcome in Afghanistan, those men and women, and their families, should be proud of their service, and we must be proud of them.

Many of us who served in Afghanistan have a deep bond of affection for the Afghan people, and I had the honour of serving alongside them in Helmand. We trained together, fought together and, in some cases, died together. They were our brothers in arms. I shudder to think where those men are now. Many will be dead, and I know others now consider themselves to be dead men walking. Where were we in their hour of need? We were nowhere. That is shameful, and it will have a very long-lasting impact on Britain’s reputation right around the world.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman—a fellow litigant—is absolutely right in his description of the Afghan armed forces. Will he add that many of them are more heroic and better soldiers than they are given credit for around the world?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as always, and I completely agree with the point he made. It was particularly distasteful and dishonouring of President Biden to make reference to the lack of courage and commitment from those Afghan soldiers, who have served with such bravery and distinction.

We have to be pragmatic, and at this difficult point we must think about what our next move will be. We should understand that the character of our country is defined, for better or for worse, by moments such as this. We should also understand that we face a moral and humanitarian crisis of enormous proportions, and the response from the international community and the British Government needs to meet the magnitude of the moment. We must step up the statecraft and engage with international allies and alliances, and with regional partners. Although it is a particularly bitter pill to have to swallow, we must engage diplomatically with the new regime in Kabul. It is in our cold-headed national interest to do so, because right now our armed forces are deployed on an operation to recover UK nationals and other entitled personnel. It is in their interests that we engage to try to ensure the safe passage of those who want to leave.

We also know that many, many more will want to get out, and with our allies we need to work to establish safe routes to get them to safety. We must show compassion and genuine generosity to refugees, while accelerating and expanding the ARAP scheme to support those who supported us.

We also need to defend the hard-won progress of the past 20 years or so—girls in school and women in Parliament and the judiciary. We must ensure that Afghanistan does not slide back to where it was pre-9/11. Then, when the dust settles, we need to look at what went wrong and learn the lessons of this failure: why, despite all the effort, could we not build an Afghan state free of corruption, with the legitimacy and competence to balance the competing forces in that country, and what does that now mean for our foreign and defence policy in this country?

Regardless of all that, we must remain engaged; we must show leadership; we must use whatever influence we have to try to make things better. That is in our own national interest, it is in line with our values, and it is the right thing to do. We owe it to the people of Afghanistan and we owe it to ourselves.