Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

I took the trouble to look up the crime figures for Bedfordshire, which I know will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman; he can tell the House how he sees the correlation. Recorded crime is falling in Bedfordshire. Figures for the 12 months to September 2012 compared with the corresponding 12 months in 2011 show a total reduction in crime of 12% in just one year. Violence against the person was down by 15%, and the Government should be pleased with that record while not being complacent and trying to drive crime down further.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Official figures show that 30,000 fewer crimes were solved last year—the first time that figure has fallen in more than a decade. Does the Minister think that the 11,500 fewer police officers on the front line have anything to do with fewer criminals being caught and convicted?

[Mr Browne]

Two things make Labour MPs look really glum: unemployment falling and crime falling. Any party whose interests conflict so directly with the interests of the people it purports to serve has got political problems. The most recent figures from the crime survey for England and Wales show an 8% fall in crime, and recorded crime statistics are down 7%. The Government have got crime down to the lowest point since records began in 1981, so there are fewer crimes to detect. I hope we will carry on and get crime down even further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Of course we look at immigration policy across the whole United Kingdom. I believe that we have the right policy and that what we need to do across the United Kingdom is control immigration. Of course, the hon. Gentleman, given his desire for a separatist Scotland, will need to answer in future what Scotland would do in relation to immigration in those circumstances.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

To return to net migration, can the Home Secretary confirm that what is actually happening is that more British nationals are leaving the UK and fewer are coming back and that half the fall in immigration last year was the result of fewer students coming here, which is costing UK universities millions of pounds?

[Mrs May]

Over the past two to three years, European Union and British migration, emigration and immigration have been, roughly speaking, in balance, and the increase in net migration has come from those from outside the EU. We have seen falls in all categories in terms of the number of people coming into this country. The hon. Lady refers to the numbers of students coming into the country. We have tackled the abuse in the student visa system that grew up when the previous Government abolished one of the tiers in the point-based system and we saw a significant increase in students who were in fact people coming here not to be educated but to work. We are tackling that abuse, and it is good that we have a Government who are willing to do so.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and congratulate him on his pronunciation of the full name of this group. I shall refer to it as Ansaru.

We support the Government on issues of national security and work with them on the basis of cross-party co-operation. As the Government are acting today against a group that was identified as an independent entity only in January 2012, I commend them on their speedy action.

As the Minister has said, under section 3 of the 2000 Terrorism Act a group can be proscribed if it

“(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism, .

(b) prepares for terrorism,

(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or

(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

Obviously, the Opposition are at a disadvantage in evaluating the evidence against such groups, as we do not have access to the same intelligence data as the Government. However, based on what is in the public domain and the brief summary the Minister was able to give today, we are satisfied that the Home Secretary is justified in coming to the conclusion that Ansaru meets these criteria, and we will support the motion.

Members will be particularly concerned to hear about possible links between Ansaru and the kidnap of Chris McManus and his Italian colleague, Franco Lamolinara. The treatment of Mr McManus and Mr Lamolinara was barbaric and despicable, and it is right that the UK Government should take action against any group that commits such acts of terror against UK citizens.

Ansaru has also been linked to the long-established Boko Haram sect, which is not proscribed. I hope the Minister will commit today to keeping the status of Boko Haram under review. So far the actions of this group have been largely confined to Nigeria, but I hope the Government will act to proscribe Boko Haram if links to the UK emerge.

Finally, I remind the Minister of his party’s commitment, made repeatedly when it was in opposition, including by the now Prime Minister, to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Conservatives have now been in power for two and a half years, yet Hizb ut-Tahrir is still a legal organisation in the UK. Now that the Minister has the responsibilities of government I wonder whether, in respect of that organisation, he regrets playing politics with national security while in opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to this increasing problem, which has been raised with me at the constituency level as being a serious reason to be alarmed. We are obviously making sure that the law is adjusted to take account of the threat to society, but it is a difficult field because it is, of course, evolving very quickly. We need to make sure that we take the necessary measures to protect society. Just because a drug is legal, does not necessarily mean that it is not harmful, especially if taken in the wrong way, so members of the public need to be mindful that this is a potentially hazardous area.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Government promised swift action against legal highs and official figures show that 57 legal highs have hit the UK market just this year—nearly two a week—yet there has been only one temporary banning order in two years. These dangerous substances are killing people, so when will the Government act to protect young people in particular with timely bans and to ensure that the drug strategy promise of good-quality drugs education is delivered in our classrooms?

[Mr Browne]

On the hon. Lady’s second point, I think there is an awareness and knowledge, particularly among young people, of the harms that drugs can cause. I see that among 11 to 15-year-olds there has been a quite marked decline in drug consumption over the periods for which surveys have been carried out. Of course legal highs are a new threat—not just to young people, but to the population as a whole—which is why we have to consider how best to respond to them. This is an increasing threat, but I repeat the point that overall, drug consumption in this country is falling.

Child Sexual Exploitation

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and for Stourbridge (Margot James) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this debate on child sexual exploitation. However, I have to say at the outset that, like the Chair of the Education Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), and the former Children’s Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I am disappointed that the present children’s Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), has not been on the Treasury Bench throughout the debate. I appreciate that he has been here for the past hour.

I was also surprised to be told that I would be responding to the debate as shadow Minister on behalf of the Opposition, as the lead on this matter is obviously with the Department for Education. However, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to listen to the whole debate and to the contributions from Members on both sides of the House on this important subject. I also recognise the special role of Back-Bench debates.

This is a timely debate, and I am pleased that it has consistently focused on the victims of exploitation, on what we can and should do to support them and on what needs to be done to learn from current cases to prevent abuse in the future. As we have heard today, sexual exploitation takes many forms and needs to be understood within the wider context of physical and sexual abuse. It is important to recognise the different situations in which children are exploited, because abuse is often not recognised for what it is.

This has been a good debate, and I want to respond to some of the contributions that have been made. The experience and knowledge that Members have demonstrated has been first class. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport spoke about her long engagement with these issues. The ex-Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, brought his experience of the past few years to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) spoke of his experience in Nottingham, and of the need for a cultural change.

The Chair of the Select Committee and my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, went through some of the recommendations in his Committee’s report. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prostitution and the global sex trade. He provided the House with his particular focus on the matter. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) described his experience of working with the police. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) told the House of his first-hand experience of being in care.

Many Members described constituency issues, including the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who talked about issues in Wales and about the power that insurance companies have commanded in recent inquiries. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) spoke powerfully on behalf of his constituents, and talked about some of the shocking revelations in his constituency. The hon. Members for Stourbridge, for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) also described what was happening in their constituencies.

I want to comment on the contributions of other Members who brought their specialist knowledge to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) talked about her work with incest survivors and paid tribute to those who were strong enough to get their voices heard. We should of course thank them for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) talked about her experience as a prosecutor of sexual offences, while my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) talked about what was happening in Birmingham.

We have encountered a great wealth of experience in the many hours of our discussion this afternoon. We need to remember that neither perpetrators nor victims are easily defined, although we know that certain groups are particularly vulnerable and that the reality is that young women from all different social groups are exposed to sexual violence and are vulnerable to exploitation. It is equally unwise to generalise about the perpetrators. In the media—the hon. Member for Keighley raised the issue, too—much has been made of the prevalence of grooming within certain Asian communities, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East said, in reporting what the Children’s Commissioner had said, sexual exploitation extends far beyond any particular community or ethnicity. By trying to identify typical perpetrators, we risk missing many others.

Indeed, we need to remember that most child sexual exploitation is done either by a child’s peer or by a young adult. A National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children study found that 65% of sexual abuse was conducted by the under-18s, while a Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre sample of 1,200 known perpetrators found that where the age was known, over half were under 24.

Over the last year, we have seen a number of high-profile cases of abuse and exploitation. Obviously, there has been the Jimmy Savile case, and also the fresh allegations of abuse at the north Wales care homes. We have seen the practice of grooming and sexual exploitation occurring in several towns, most notably Rochdale and Derby, where vulnerable young women were abused by networks of men and then used to recruit new victims. These cases are themselves shocking and the public interest that they have provoked is entirely understandable. However, it is important that this debate goes beyond these high-profile examples.

The really shocking truth is that child abuse and exploitation is far too common. We have already heard in this debate the comments of the Deputy Children’s Commissioner that

“sexual exploitation of children is happening all over the country.”

The NSPCC’s 2009 survey on the prevalence and impact of child maltreatment found that 5% of under-16s reported coerced sexual acts. That is one in 20 of our young people. A YouGov poll commissioned by the End Violence Against Women coalition found that 29% of 16 to 18-year-old girls have experienced unwanted sexual touching at school.

We know that a number of inquiries and pieces of research have either already been conducted or are now under way. There are the investigations into Jimmy Savile’s conduct at the BBC and other institutions, and the inquiry into the Waterhouse inquiry, while the Deputy Children’s Commissioner is in the process of conducting an inquiry into the culture of grooming. The Home Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into localised grooming, and the Education Committee has just completed an inquiry into child protection. The NSPCC has conducted a number of excellent pieces of research. I would also like to acknowledge two pieces of research from Barnardo’s: “Puppet on a String” and “Cutting them free: How is the UK progressing in protecting its children from sexual exploitation?” Then there is the excellent work done by CEOP, “Out of Sight, Out of Mind”, which has already been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport referred to the joint inquiry of all-party parliamentary group for runaway and missing children and adults and the all-party parliamentary group for looked-after children and care leavers. A joint report into children who go missing from care has been produced under my hon. Friend’s able chairing.

Now that we actually have both Ministers in their places on the Front Bench—they have seen half the debate each—perhaps I could ask the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), even though he has already spoken, to provide a response in writing to the following issues. First, in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Department for Education claimed to have accepted all 11 recommendations contained in the Children’s Commissioner’s preliminary report, so it would be helpful to know how far the Government have got in implementing those recommendations.

Secondly, support and treatment for victims is a key issue, which the hon. Member for Strangford raised. The NSPCC has identified an estimated shortfall in the provision of therapeutic services of between 51,000 and 88,000. Is either Minister aware of that shortfall, and can either of them tell us what is being done to deal with it?

Thirdly, given that the NHS is currently being reorganised, can either Minister tell us which organisation will be responsible for giving care and support to abused children within the new structures? Where will statutory responsibility for child protection lie following the demise of the primary care trusts?

Fourthly, local safeguarding children boards are key structures, and when they fail children are left particularly vulnerable. The CEOP inquiry, to which Members have referred today, found that

“Most LSCBs do not fulfil the pivotal role prescribed for them in statutory guidance in respect of child sexual exploitation.”

Can one of the Ministers explain what the Government have done to improve the performance of those boards? Thursday’s elections for police and crime commissioners have been mentioned; how will the role of the new PCCs support the boards, and what work has been done to encourage PCCs to promote and engage with them?

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Diana Johnson]

No. I am very short of time.

Although children’s services are another key component of the process of keeping our children safe, many councils are being forced to slash the budgets of those services. In my home city of Hull, the council’s budget has been cut by 20% during the current Parliament. What assessment have the Government made of the effects of those cuts on the performance of local safeguarding children boards?

The Government have scaled down the child protection regime to what they call a common-sense level, although organisations such as the NSPCC and experts including Lord Bichard challenged them on some of their plans. I hope that Ministers will take a moment to consider the number of children who have not been protected by common sense in some of the cases that have been discussed today. I hope that they will also have a look at the changes in the criminal records regime, which will restrict information sharing.

[Mr Stuart]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

No. I am going to continue my speech.

Let us take the example of a schoolteacher who has been barred from working with children by the Independent Safeguarding Authority following a series of corroborated allegations at different schools, none of which has been reported to the police. Let us imagine that that man volunteers to help with drama at another school in a different local authority area, where he works with the same group of children each week under the day-to-day supervision of a teacher. As he is under day-to-day supervision, he will no longer be considered to be in regulated activity. Will a Minister confirm that the school will no longer be required to obtain a CRB check, and that even if it obtains an enhanced CRB check, it will still be explicitly forbidden to be told about the man’s barred status, as he will not be taking part in regulated activity? Would not most parents be horrified to learn about that? I hope that Ministers will reflect on it.

I also hope that the Government will think again about their reluctance to allow a single inquiry to collate information from the many inquiries that I have already mentioned. We have 11 recommendations from the Children’s Commissioner, five from CEOP, 40 from the Education Committee and 31 from the joint APPG inquiry, and a host of inquiries are yet to report. I hope that as the Government receive that further series of reports in the coming months, they will be prepared to consider the Opposition’s call for a single overarching report. Today the Care Leavers’ Association called for a comprehensive national investigation of past abuse in the care system, adding its voice to many others.

In the meantime, there are real questions to be answered about what mechanisms exist to co-ordinate cross-departmental work and understanding of child exploitation. The confusion over who would be on the Government Front Bench today probably highlighted that. Cross-departmental work is never more important than when it challenges the culture that allows abuse and sexual exploitation to go unrecognised, unchallenged and unreported.

Grooming and sexual exploitation are facilitated by a culture in which sexual violence is normalised. The YouGov poll that I mentioned earlier found that 71% of young people regularly witnessed sexualised name-calling, and the findings of studies have suggested that up to 40% have been exposed to sexual content on phones, known as “sexting”. We need to appreciate the link between the prevalence of that sexual culture and an acceptance of abuse. An NSPCC study found that one in three girls and 16% of boys had reported some form of sexual partner violence.

The cases referred to ChildLine showed that time and again young people did not realise they were in an abusive relationship, and when they did, they blamed themselves for the situation. Good work is being done to support young people in making good choices and empowered decisions about their relationships, but we need to do more. I commend to the children’s Minister, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the excellent work of the End Violence Against Women coalition campaign project, Schools Safe 4 Girls. I hope the Minister will think about meeting that group to discuss the excellent work it is doing. I know that there are individual Government programmes, and I applaud them, but there is no sense of this work being brought together. We need to look at the issue of personal, social, health and economic education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport mentioned. It is a vital issue that needs to be addressed in schools.

Finally, will the children’s Minister confirm today that the Department for Education has disbanded its expert working group on sexual exploitation and has no lead person on violence against women and girls?

Intercept Evidence

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on an excellent speech. He was, as usual, a very powerful advocate for his constituents and his constituency, and for open justice, which is very important. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), a near neighbour of mine, made his usual compelling case for open justice and cogently set out the key issues in this case.

The debate overall has been of an extremely high quality, with excellent contributions from across the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) made a very good speech based on his own practical experience and knowledge in a number of roles. It was telling that he said that this is not an easy matter and that we need to keep on looking very hard at the use of intercept evidence. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) set out a strong case for the motion and drew on his experience in the US. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) asked exactly the right questions, drawn from his practical experience with the police, about why we are not doing this and how we can move it forward. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) spoke briefly about civil liberties and, in particular, control orders. I want to return to his comments later.

Over recent years, successive Governments, and particularly Home Secretaries, have grappled with the problems of trying to get intercept evidence into courts, and it has also been considered by the Privy Council review, so it is absolutely right that Parliament is debating the matter. We have heard at length about the benefits that might reasonably be expected to result from the use of intercept evidence in courts and inquests as regards, for example, increases in the number of successful prosecutions in serious organised crime and terrorism cases. However, the debate must cover not only the benefits but the difficulties involved, including the risks, such as exposure of interception capabilities and techniques, the resource implications of any changes in the law, and the implications of new communications technology. While the United Kingdom continues to struggle to find a way of accommodating intercept evidence in court, other countries, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, allow such evidence, and it is important for us to see what we can learn from those jurisdictions.

This is a very unusual issue. Successive Governments, the Privy Council and leading lawyers have long supported the principle of allowing intercept evidence, but none has been able to come up with a satisfactory model for the admission of such evidence without compromising national security. Labour has long supported the principle of allowing intercept evidence into courts. Indeed, the current push to find a way of doing this was started by my former right hon. Friend and Home Secretary, John Reid, the then Member for Airdrie and Shotts, in 2007, and that commitment was reiterated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) when he was Home Secretary. In opposition, my right hon. Friends the Members for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) have reiterated Labour’s desire to see intercept evidence in court and to work with the Government in a constructive manner to achieve that. I restate that commitment.

It is clear that there would be significant benefits in allowing intercept evidence to be admissible in a wider range of courts than is the case at present. In particular, it would be desirable to allow the use of intercept evidence in criminal proceedings and inquests.

I am sure that we all sympathise with the Duggan family, who, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham has said, have unanswered questions. Understandably, they and the community in Tottenham want answers as to how Mr Duggan died, but without an inquest those answers cannot be provided. The Government have proposed secret inquests in which intercept evidence would be admissible, but that would not solve the problem—not only do we need justice to be done, but we need it to be seen to be done. I hope that the Minister will update us on the progress that he has made on this particular issue and I look forward to hearing his comments.

Allowing intercept evidence would seem to support two fundamental principles of British justice. The first is that courts should always have the best evidence available to them, and the second is that all crimes should be dealt with by the same legal system and guided by the same principles. We should, wherever possible, ensure that our legal system is able to protect national security and uphold standards of justice.

We would also like the use of intercept evidence to lead to practical outcomes, such as more prosecutions, particularly for serious crimes and terrorism. It is generally accepted that allowing intercept evidence would have a significant impact on some trials, facilitating some prosecutions and making others more likely. Indeed, the Crown Prosecution Service thinks that allowing intercept evidence would result in more prosecutions and more convictions, and it foresees time and money being saved as a result of more guilty pleas. We would particularly like to see the prosecution of cases that could not otherwise be tried, including those in which intercept evidence has led to a prosecution, but not necessarily for the most serious crime committed. It is often cited that allowing intercept evidence would reduce the need for other measures aimed at countering terrorism, namely pre-charge detention and terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or control orders as they were formerly known.

We should not, however, overstate the practical benefits of allowing intercept evidence. I now want to turn to the point that the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made about control orders, or TPIMs as they are now known. The noble Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, was unequivocal in saying that he felt that intercept evidence would not have made control orders obsolete. That was backed up by a report by an independent counsel commissioned by the Home Office. It concluded that allowing the use of intercept evidence would not be enough to facilitate trials in any of the cases of the nine people who were subject to control orders at the time. Indeed, the Privy Council concluded:

“We have not seen any evidence that the introduction of intercept as evidence would enable prosecutions in cases currently dealt with through Control Orders.”

[Mr David Davis]

I will put to one side one of the weaknesses of the Privy Council report, namely its assessment of the effectiveness of intercept in prosecutions, and take up the issue of control orders. When we eventually allowed the use of control orders, our presumption when in opposition was that they would allow the control of people who could not be prosecuted in the courts because the available evidence—in other words, intercept evidence—could not be used there. Now we are being told that such people are having their freedom removed on the basis of, in essence, suspicion, because there is nothing beyond intercept other than suspicion. Members on both Front Benches are in a Catch-22 situation: either intercept is effective in dealing with control orders, or control orders are being imposed on the basis of suspicion alone.

[Diana Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue that could be debated for many hours. I think that his first point—that evidence was available—is the correct one. However, a review has taken place and the view of the independent counsel, who was commissioned by the Home Office, is that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is not correct. I have only limited time left, so I will move on. We will have to differ on that.

The number of criminal cases in which intercept evidence might be used is limited. An independent survey conducted in 2004 concluded that allowing intercept evidence would secure no more than 20 to 30 additional convictions a year.

Under the current arrangements, intercept evidence is of significant use for the protection of national security and the detection of serious crime. The Privy Council’s report into intercept evidence gives an excellent summary of the importance of wiretapping to UK law enforcement agencies. Under the current arrangements, the UK is able to benefit from intelligence gleaned from wiretapping, without compromising intelligence capabilities. Wiretapping often facilitates the collection of other admissible forms of evidence.

The Serious Organised Crime Agency has stated that

“interception, together with communications data, is the single most powerful tool for responding to serious and organised crime.”

It is because the current regime is so successful that the Metropolitan police currently secure a conviction in 88% of cases where they have employed intercept evidence. It estimates that that would rise only to 92% if intercept evidence were to become admissible. The more sophisticated criminals become, the greater the need for more advanced detection techniques and the greater the need to protect those intelligence techniques.

Of course, we cannot discuss individual cases or the evidence involved in them in Parliament, but it is clear from independent studies that law enforcement and Security Service agencies have provided numerous examples of intercept evidence having been used to apprehend wanted criminals, seize drugs or stolen property, or alert law enforcement agencies of planned criminal activities, enabling them to gather the admissible evidence that they require. We must recognise the important role that wiretapping already plays in the fight against crime and terrorism, and the importance of not jeopardising that success. The Privy Council stressed its belief that:

“The overriding objective should be to promote national security.”

That has been the position of successive Governments, and is the position of the Opposition.

If there was an easy solution to this problem, it would have been produced, but there is not. I will touch on a few of the issues that have prevented previous Governments from allowing wire-tap evidence in court. I hope that the Minister will update the House on what progress has been made on each issue. How can we allow the use of intercept evidence in courts, while protecting the most sensitive information which, if made public, would reveal a particular intelligence technique or source, and while upholding the principle of the equality of arms, under which the defence must have access to and be able to present all the relevant information?

The central desire is to protect the work of the security services and the techniques that they use. Proponents of the use of intercept evidence often counter that by saying that criminals are already aware of the intelligence services’ ability to intercept calls. However, the Privy Council rejected that point and said that criminals’ knowledge is currently conjecture based on rumour and that, while a few of their presumptions may be right, the evidence is that most of them are wrong.

Partnership is important. Earlier, I set out some of the successes of the current regime. Those are based on partnership between law enforcement agencies and the security services, between the UK and our international allies, and between state agencies and communication service providers. There is concern that any attempt to allow intercept evidence in court would jeopardise those successful partnerships. Indeed, some communication service providers have indicated that it would make them much less willing to co-operate. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points.

Much has been said about other jurisdictions. I would appreciate it if the Minister again set out clearly the unique position of the United Kingdom’s legal system, which is very different from that of some of the other countries that have been cited, such as France and Spain.

In conclusion, we all want to have intercept evidence in court. We want answers for the families of those who have died in controversial circumstances, where an inquest cannot take place. However, we have to acknowledge that this is a complex process and that at stake is a system that has delivered a lot towards the protection of our national security and in tackling international crime. It is not clear that any other country uses intercept-gained evidence as effectively as the United Kingdom.

The Opposition will of course work with the Government to get intercept evidence into courts without compromising national security, and international examples, particularly from Canada and the US, give us some indication of how that might be achieved. I hope the Minister will be able to update the House on the progress that the Government have made towards that end, and particularly on what plans he has to allow inquests such as Mark Duggan’s to take place; what processes are currently under way to evaluate the practicalities involved in allowing intercept evidence; what processes are in place for the Government to take expert advice from lawyers, law enforcement agencies and the intelligence services to that end; and whether he has any plans to bring forward a Green Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, venue security is being delivered by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, G4S and the military. It is a huge operation to protect more than 100 different venues, and delivering it is a big challenge. The Home Office has put in place a number of assurance processes to ensure that we have effective and robust scrutiny of venue security planning. We have been testing our plans thoroughly and are confident that our partners will deliver a safe and secure games, but we are not complacent and will leave nothing to chance, so we will stay on the case.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has not answered the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont). First, will she confirm that she personally signed off the G4S recruitment schedule? Secondly, will these 9,000 people be recruited, trained and in place, and will they have gone through the proper security vetting, by the opening of the Olympic games?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady has missed one crucial point: the G4S contract is with LOCOG. The Home Office has a responsibility to test those plans and to provide assurance on them, which is exactly what it has been doing.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I start by thanking the Minister for his courtesy in having discussions with me about the order. Proscription is serious, and it is quite right that the decision to proscribe an organisation is not taken lightly. The consequences of proscription are very serious, not least because it potentially criminalises the group’s members. Proscription must be reserved for the most dangerous groups where there is clear evidence of terrorist activity.

Under the regulations laid out in part II of the Terrorism Act 2000, a group may be proscribed only if the Home Secretary believes that the organisation commits or participates in acts of terrorism and the Opposition are confident that there is evidence to support the Minister’s assertions and will support the proscription.

I would like to ask the Minister a few questions about the Indian Mujahideen. It is quite clear that it is a terrorist organisation. Indeed, as the Minister set out, it has been behind some of the most appalling acts of terrorism of recent years—most horrifically, the Mumbai attacks of November 2008, in which nearly 170 people were killed. The IM also shares responsibility for the general decline in the security situation on the Indian subcontinent.

It is important, however, to look at the group’s history and to understand the wider movement from which it developed. It is particularly important to recognise the strong links between the IM and the Students Islamic Movement of India—a movement first identified back in 1977. In 1986, the SIMI called for the liberation of India’s Muslims, and evolved into a militant organisation at some point in the 1990s.

The Royal United Services Institute suggests that the IM needs to be understood as a product of the SIMI. This is important because, as far as I am aware, the Government have not banned the SIMI. Will the Minister explain why the SIMI has not been included in the order? As I understand it, if an IM branch converts back to become a SIMI group, it will not be proscribed and the Government will be unable to act against its members. Is that correct? Will the Minister confirm whether he considers the SIMI group to be a terrorist organisation? We also know of concerns about links between the IM and Lashkar-e-Taiba, which has also been known to commit attacks on the Indian subcontinent and has already been proscribed.

Let me move on to other factors to which the Home Secretary has to give consideration in making a decision to proscribe. The first is to look at the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities. Will the Minister confirm whether the decision to proscribe this organisation now is a result of evidence suggesting an increase in the scale of the IM’s activities?

Secondly, the specific threat posed to British nationals overseas has to be considered. There are many British nationals in India, particularly in Mumbai. Sadly, British nationals have already been caught up in terrorist attacks in India. Does the fact that the Government are proscribing this organisation now mean that the UK Government recognise that there is an increased level of threat in India and to British nationals in particular?

The Minister has set out evidence of the targeting of UK nationals, and we know that the IM, being active in India, also has a presence in Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh. I understand that it uses the porous borders between Nepal and Bangladesh and Bangladesh and India to avoid Indian security on the Pakistan border when it acquires weapons from factions based in Pakistan. May I also ask whether there is any evidence linking that group to forces attacking UK troops operating in Afghanistan?

Thirdly, there is the issue of the extent of the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom, and the question of whether any specific threat is posed to the UK. Is there any evidence that the IM is active in the UK, or receives direct support from it? Have the Government any estimate of the number of people in the UK who might be affected by the proscription of the group?

According to a 2011 report by the Royal United Services Institute,

“SIMI's (and, thereafter, IM's) distinguishing characteristic was that it was, essentially, home-grown. Its activists and leaders are virtually all Indian.”

Does the decision to proscribe the group reflect a change in its composition? Is there now a greater IM presence outside India? In particular, have links been found between that group and groups operating in the middle east and Europe?

As I said earlier, there are strong links between IM and the Students Islamic Movement of India. Will the Minister tell us whether SIMI is known to the Home Office, and whether there has been a proper assessment of its activities in the United Kingdom? Specifically, is there any evidence that it has operated in UK universities, colleges or mosques, or within communities? Is there any evidence that the IM has forged links with other Islamic terrorist organisations operating in the UK? As I said earlier, there is evidence that Lashkar-e-Taiba has given logistical support to the IM. Is there now evidence to suggest that the IM has developed links with any other groups? In particular, is there any evidence of links between the IM and any other groups on the UK’s proscribed list, which I think now contains about 47 international terrorist organisations?

Fourthly, the Home Secretary should bear in mind the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. The Minister has said that the UK is proscribing the IM when that has already been done by some of our international allies: India, New Zealand and the United States. Why is that? Did India ask the UK to proscribe the IM? Did discussions include a discussion of the role of other groups, including SIMI? Will this have any European consequences, and have any discussions taken place with our European allies?

Today is the fifth anniversary of the first Prime Minister’s Question Time after my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) became Prime Minister. On that occasion, the then Leader of the Opposition chose proscription as his first topic, using the opportunity to attack the then Government for not proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir. He said:

“Hizb ut-Tahrir. We think it should be banned—why has it not happened?”—[Official Report, 4 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 951.]

Five years later, the Minister stated in a letter to me:

“this is an organisation about which we have significant concerns and their activities are kept under review”.

Will he explain today why Hizb ut-Tahrir still has not been banned, five years after the present Prime Minister called for such action?

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

Tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will launch the Government’s proposals to combat antisocial behaviour, strengthening the powers available to the police to deal with antisocial behaviour and giving citizens greater power to tackle repeat antisocial behaviour that they feel insufficient action is being taken to address.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary has frequently claimed that her 20% cuts to police funding will not reduce front-line policing. I am sure we all agree that 999 first responders, including traffic, CID and neighbourhood police, are, indeed, front-line officers. Will the Minister therefore confirm that recent freedom of information requests show that front-line police numbers have fallen by 5,261 since March 2010?

[Nick Herbert]

Why does the Labour party never admit that its proposed spending reductions of over £1 billion would also result in a reduction in the police work force, and why does it also never admit that it supports the two-year pay freeze, and that the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow policing Minister, supports further savings to the police budget, which means it is committed to a greater saving than we are? That is a fact, and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) should attend to the real issue, which is that there have been 25,000 police officers in backroom positions rather than on the front line. We are seeking to redress that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has consistently argued for the indefinite retention of DNA profiles. We certainly recognise the importance of DNA in solving crimes. It is rarely possible to say that convictions could not have been obtained without DNA evidence, although of course the availability of DNA evidence can frequently help to focus an investigation. We have been clear on ensuring that those convicted of crimes remain on the DNA database indefinitely, and speculative searches are undertaken on each occasion.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

May I press the Minister a little further on the high-profile rape case that collapsed due to sample cross-contamination at LGC Forensics? Also, a New Scientist survey shows that three quarters of forensic scientists expect that the coalition’s closure of the FSS will cause more miscarriages of justice. Will the Minister outline the steps that he is taking to ensure that the integrity of the criminal justice system is not undermined by a lack of confidence in the available forensic science services?

[James Brokenshire]

We have absolute confidence in the provision by forensic service providers, and I know that the hon. Lady accepts that private providers are well equipped and well able to offer services to police in future. On her specific question in respect of the individual case, I repeat that the forensic science regulator, Andrew Rennison, has launched an immediate investigation into the case. The initial investigation suggests that this is an isolated case. Although we will learn any lessons to be learned from the formal inquiry, there are no indications at this stage that it undermines the use of DNA or private providers providing services to the police.