Salisbury Incident

Debate between Diane Abbott and Ben Wallace

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend will understand that it would be wrong for me to detail conversations between our intelligence services and the Leader of the Opposition, our Prime Minister or anyone else. I regularly give briefs, in an open manner and on Privy Council terms, to some Opposition Members, including the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and we have a full and honest discussion about things. I have never found the shadow Home Secretary wanting; she has always wanted to know and has always been engaged. I am not going to speculate about the Leader of the Opposition’s relationships with the security services or anyone else; I am simply reflecting the fact that the people in our police and intelligence services are good people and they are doing the right thing. That does not mean that we do not hold them to account, because we do. The Intelligence and Security Committee does, along with everything else. The important thing about this event is that it was not an ad hoc, amateur event; it was the state-sanctioned use of a chemical weapon on our soil that lead to the death of a British citizen and could have led to the deaths of many more. It is therefore unbelievable that we should have any doubt about calling people out when they are found. It is now in multicolour, and we can see all the presentations.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

On a point of information, I have certainly had a meeting with the head of MI5 on Privy Council terms. The Minister will not find us lacking in this debate in laying blame where blame should be laid.

[Mr Wallace]

I now give way to my right hon. Friend.

Foreign Fighters and the Death Penalty

Debate between Diane Abbott and Ben Wallace

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the Government’s policy on the rendition of UK citizens who may be subject to capital punishment.

[The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)]

The Government take their responsibility to protect the public seriously. We have been consistently clear, where there is evidence that crimes have been committed, that foreign fighters, for example, should be brought to justice in accordance with due legal process regardless of their nationality. The specific process followed will always be dependent on the individual circumstances of the case.

The case of Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh is ongoing and obviously sensitive. In handling this case, the Government and Ministers have complied with the European convention on human rights and with due process, and we must be mindful to protect the integrity of the criminal investigation. In this instance, and after carefully considered advice, the Government took the rare decision not to require assurances in this case. It would be inappropriate to comment further on that specific case. Foreign fighters detained in Syria could be released from detention without facing justice. We have been working closely with international partners to ensure that they face justice for any crimes they have committed.

I can provide little further detail to the House beyond what the Government have already outlined in previous statements, but I can reassure the House that our long-standing position on the use of the death penalty has not changed. The UK has a long-standing policy of opposing the death penalty as a matter of principle regardless of nationality and we act compatibly with the European convention on human rights. In accordance with the Government’s overseas, security and justice assistance guidance, we have taken into account human rights considerations. The OSJA provides that where there are strong reasons not to seek death penalty assurances,

“Ministers should be consulted to determine whether, given the specific circumstances of the case, we should nevertheless provide assistance.”

On Guantanamo Bay, again our position has not changed. The UK Government’s long-standing position is that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay should close. Where we share evidence with the US, it must be for the express purpose of progressing a criminal prosecution, and we have made that clear to the United States. We have planned and prepared for the risk posed by British nationals returning to the UK as Daesh is defeated in Iraq and Syria, and we are using a range of tools to disrupt and diminish that threat in order to keep the public safe. Each case is considered individually to determine which action or power is most appropriate.

I cannot say more about individual cases in this circumstance, but the Government have set out the extent to which these tools have been used in our annual transparency report. We will also be introducing new offences in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, which is being debated by parliamentary colleagues and which will strengthen our terrorism legislation to increase our ability to prosecute returning foreign fighters.

[Ms Abbott]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

The whole House is united in condemning terrorism and the work of ISIS, and anyone found guilty of terrorism should face the full force of the law, but in an increasingly dangerous and unstable world, one of our strengths as a country is our willingness to stand up unflinchingly for human rights. It is a key aspect of our soft power. The Minister will therefore understand the widespread concern that the Government seem willing to abandon their long-standing, principled opposition to the death penalty in this case.

Ministers claim that the decision in this case does not reflect a change in our policy on assistance in US death penalty cases generally or the UK Government’s stance on the global abolition of the death penalty, but I put it to Ministers that they cannot be a little bit in favour of the death penalty. Either we offer consistent opposition, or we do not. So let me remind the Minister: capital punishment is not the law of this country; we do not extradite people to countries where it is potentially a sentence for the crime; the death penalty is outlawed under the Human Rights Act 1998; and it is in breach of the European convention on human rights.

Successive Governments have always sought assurances that those who face justice in other countries will not face the death penalty. Extradition is expressly prohibited where the subject could face the death penalty under the Extradition Act 2003. The UK is a signatory to the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and extraordinary rendition is unlawful under this convention, but in his letter to the US Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, of 22 June, the Home Secretary reportedly wrote:

“I am of the view that there are strong reasons for not requiring a death penalty assurance in this specific case, so no such assurances will be sought.”

Can the Minister explain why the Home Secretary did not come to Parliament to disclose this change of policy, what his strong reasons are, what advice he has taken, whether the Law Officers have been consulted, what assessment has been made of the impact of extradition arrangements with third countries where capital punishment is outlawed and what steps he has taken to ensure there has been no torture in this case, unlike in the more than 200 cases of abuse of detainees identified by the Intelligence and Security Committee in its report of 28 June?

The Minister will be aware that the mother of one of the cell’s victims has said that she is “very against” the use of the death penalty. Diane Foley said:

“I think that you just make them martyrs in their twisted ideology…I would like them held accountable by being sent to prison for the rest of their lives. That would be my preference.”

This decision to abandon our principled opposition to the death penalty is abhorrent and shameful, and I call on Ministers, even at this late stage, to reverse the decision.

[Mr Wallace]

I have listened carefully to the right hon. Lady’s statement, and I agree with much of what she said. It is not a matter of extradition, as she will know if she has read the news reports; it is a matter of whether we were going to accept a request by the United States to share evidence on individuals not within the United Kingdom and not within the European Union, but abroad. No one is extraditing anyone in this country, and we are not talking about UK citizens, so the premise of her question in the first place is, I am afraid, skewed.

However, I will try to answer the questions the right hon. Lady has put to the House. First, she asked why the Home Secretary did not come to the House to announce a change in policy. That is because he has not changed the policy of the United Kingdom Government. The overseas security and justice assistance guidance clearly states

“that there will be cases where, as an exception to the general policy and taking into account the specific circumstances, Ministers can lawfully decide that assistance should be provided in the absence of adequate assurances”.

That has been the policy for many, many years. All Ministers have done is consider, in response to a request from one of our allies to seek evidence on individuals detained elsewhere, whether we should share that evidence and whether we should seek assurances in doing so.

I notice that the right hon. Lady mentioned Mrs Foley. I heard that interview this morning, too, and Mrs Foley also said that she thought it was right that these people face justice in US courts. Who are we to deny that to those victims in the United States, if the United Kingdom holds some of the evidence that may make it possible? The United States has the rule of law and due process, as do we in this country. In our many mutual legal assistance requests—there are more than 8,000 a year among countries and police forces around the world—we do it on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the law. Throughout the process, other Ministers and I consulted lawyers. We constantly checked with existing guidance and the policy.

We should not forget that the crimes we are talking about involve the beheading, and videoing of the beheading, of dozens of innocent people by one of the most abhorrent organisations walking this earth. It would be bizarre to say that if we were unable to prosecute them in this country, we should simply let them be free to roam around the United Kingdom so as not to upset the right hon. Lady. Not to share our evidence with the United States would be simply bizarre and would not be justice for the victims.

BAME Communities: Stop and Search

Debate between Diane Abbott and Ben Wallace

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for bringing this debate before us and for her contribution. Stop-and-search is a vital policing tool, and I welcome the fact that everyone who has spoken in this debate has recognised that it has a place in policing. I believe, however, that if that power is misused, it is counterproductive, has a negative impact on police-community relations, and is a waste of police time.

I patrolled some of the most hostile community areas in my early life. I patrolled the Turf Lodge in west Belfast, Northern Ireland and carried out stop-and-search there. At the time, that community was far more hostile than any on the mainland of the United Kingdom. I was also an intelligence officer two years later.

The nub of the issue is that stop-and-search is a tool that is often tactical rather than strategic. As the Minister responsible for security in the United Kingdom, I have the strategic responsibility of trying to keep people safe. That is what I am here to do. I will empower our police, intelligence services and communities to use whatever tools they can to do that. Sometimes we have to balance tactical and strategic needs.

I agree with Opposition Members that what really stops crime is gathering good intelligence, when communities speak to police and community representatives and tell them, as they would say in Lancashire, who’s a wrong’un. As a Lancashire MP stuck between two Yorkshire MPs from either side of the House, I felt in a somewhat difficult position in this debate. What stops crime in the long term is when the community is on the side of the police and gives them information. That can be casual information or well-sourced information, and it could come from police working hand in hand with community groups to deliver the knowledge needed to use targeted searches. Sometimes that will mean doing less stop-and-search, if it means that there is a longer-term investment in communities to ensure a better flow of intelligence.

We should be slightly cautious about that, because every community is different. I joke about west Yorkshire, but it is different from Lancashire. Our communities behave differently and our ethnic communities often behave differently among themselves, so we have to be acutely aware of individual sensitivities at a local policing level. In my view, one of the most important decisions a chief constable can make is the right appointment of the chief superintendents in the divisions that they police, because at that rank of the police force people hold in their hands the relations with the community. If they get it right there is a massive decline in crime, but there can sometimes be a rise just across divisional borders when they get it wrong.

After being spat at, abused or petrol-bombed, or after one of my soldiers had been murdered, it used to be tempting for me to walk down the street in west Belfast and abuse back. That would be tempting and understandable for any human being who had seen people killed who they owed a duty of care to, who they valued and, sometimes, who they loved. But it does not fix the problem in the long run. In the long run, the problem is solved when the community realises that the police are its help and saviour, not its enemy. That is why we have to get the balance right on stop-and-search, and why the Government started that process by introducing a reform package in 2014.

I make the point to the Opposition that if we are to be less tactical and more intelligence-led, it is important to give our police and intelligence services the power to gather that intelligence. It is no good saying on the one hand that we want less indiscriminate or blanket targeting, but on the other that we oppose Prevent or some of the investigatory powers measures that allow us to gather that intelligence, to be more targeted at people committing or planning wrongdoing and to ensure that we can leave the population alone to live their lives free of interference. That is an important point.

Good intelligence gathering and good intelligence measures and powers are how we can allow our police to leave people alone to carry on their daily business freely, and how we can ensure that we do not end up with such a disparity that we get into the circular debate that I have heard today about whether we go after more people from certain groups because those groups commit more crimes, or vice versa. I urge the Opposition to reflect on that in discussions about Prevent and other issues.

[Ms Abbott]

The Minister has raised the issue of Prevent. I certainly have called for a review of it, but the concern is not that we do not need that type of strategy, but that the current Prevent operation has done what I have argued that stop-and-search has done: it has not helped to heal relationships or promote better relationships between certain communities and the state. We want a Prevent-type strategy, but we want one that works. The problem with Prevent is that in many communities—not all, but many—it has become a tainted brand.

[Mr Wallace]

I have published the figures, and I would venture that Prevent is working. It allows people who have set off on a path of violent extremism to be diverted from that path and to re-engage in society, and in doing so, it protects many of us on the streets. The figures show that hundreds of people who had been a serious concern are not in prison—we did not cut corners and lock them up without trial, or that sort of thing—but back in their communities, and some of them, hopefully, are back in the mainstream.

We all have a job of recognising and communicating that Prevent is about safeguarding. When we do, and when I speak to communities up and down the United Kingdom, we find that although some in the communities are worried about it or do not like it, a growing number of people realise that it is a safeguarding tool that works.

We have had many debates about Prevent before, but it is about allowing communities, alongside local police, to engage, and about seeing what we can do to make people desist, disengage and turn around. In some communities it works, but I know that, as the right hon. Lady says, we have more work to do in other areas. Whenever I say, “Please give me an example of your version of Prevent,” every single person just describes Prevent. They do not usually come up with anything different, because at the end of the day it is effectively a safeguarding measure.

I need to press on to the heart of the debate about stop-and-search. In 2014, when we started work on a major public consultation on the use of the power, troubling evidence came to light that it was not being used fairly, effectively or, in some cases, lawfully. For example, figures showed that of 1.2 million stop-and-searches carried out in 2010-11, only 9% led to an arrest. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, as it was known at the time, found that potentially more than a quarter of stops carried out by the police were without sufficient legal grounds, and it also found poor knowledge of the law on stop-and-search among officers and their supervisors.

Statistics also showed that if someone was black, they were seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than if they were white, and three times more likely if they were Asian. That was a cause for considerable concern, and still is. It is not that we have forgotten about it, and I would not like the Opposition to venture that that was the case.

As a result of extensive public consultation and community engagement, and of working closely with the police and other partners, the Government introduced several measures, such as clarifying “reasonable grounds for suspicion” in PACE code A, which governs the use of stop-and-search powers, and publishing stop-and-search data on police.uk, which offers local transparency to understand how the police serve their communities.

I take the point of the hon. Member for Bradford West, who asked how there could be oversight. She made a point about police and crime commissioners that I was disappointed with, and if what she said is the case, we should all do more to ensure that it is not. They should have a role in that regard, and they should have it further up their agenda. They have the power to hold chief constables to account. I do not know what the response from her local chief constable is, but if something is troubling the local community, that is the point of our PCCs. They should be communicating, taking those things on board and seeing what steps they can take to ensure that such things are not happening.

Serious Violence Strategy

Debate between Diane Abbott and Ben Wallace

Tuesday 22nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

I have heard of that initiative, and it is certainly worth trying. Dealing with violent crime is not just a question of policing and arresting. The initiatives used in Glasgow are well worth looking at. Anybody who thinks that we can simply arrest or stop-and-search our way out of this crisis is deluding themselves.

A senior commander at the Met told me recently that an entire gang operating in one part of London was put away for lengthy sentences for drug crime. The result was not that the level of drug crime and the level of violence dropped, but that violent crime in the area actually surged, as competing gangs moved into the vacant territory. We need an integrated, joined-up approach. Seizures, arrests and sentencing will all play a part, but we also need the right level of resources, and those can only ever be a part of a much broader strategy involving schools, hospitals, local communities, social workers, resources for youth centres and recreation and much more. Of course, all those things have been cut as a result of this Government’s austerity, and we are now living with the consequences. We cannot keep people, and our young people, safe on the cheap.

I try to visit the families of every young person who is stabbed or a victim of homicide in my constituency. I remember visiting a family recently. They were broken, and the mother could not stop crying. In my closing remarks, I want to say to the House as a whole that we need to remember that, whatever the circumstances, violent crime is a tragedy for the protagonist, a tragedy for the family, and traumatising for entire communities. That is why the Opposition believe that the Government must give the issue their continued attention and the right level of resources. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), the Minister said that if five people in his constituency died, he, too, would be very upset. Communities want Ministers to behave as though five people in their constituencies had died. Our constituents want the Government to pay more than lip service to the issue and to learn from strategies that have succeeded, whether in America or in Glasgow.

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Lady can question our policies or our funding, but to question our motives or suggest that we do not care is just insulting. Glasgow has done a fantastic job in reducing knife crime to zero—[Interruption.] Police Scotland has done that; it is a devolved matter. According to Police Scotland, the number of police in Glasgow in 2015 was 5,544. In 2017, when knife crime had been reduced to zero, the number was 5,530. Therefore, on the numbers, police in Glasgow managed a reduction, but they used broader shoulders to solve the crimes and the problem, and they should be rewarded for that. If there is an example to show that it is not all about police numbers, that is it.

[Ms Abbott]

I said earlier that I am not arguing that this is all about police numbers, and I touched on some of the other issues, such as education, youth services and community services, that are also part of the answer.

I have always believed that part of my role in this Parliament is to be a voice for the people who would not otherwise have one. In my community and in others that I have visited, there is serious concern about how much the Government are prepared to do about this issue. We want Ministers to act as though they believe that every young person’s life has a value. We want Ministers not just to talk the talk, but to put resources, police officers and support into strategies that can relieve our communities of the burden of constant reports of death and killing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diane Abbott and Ben Wallace

Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If he writes to me with the details of that case, I will be happy to look into it for him. I am particularly concerned because where something is hacked, it is usually called a “cyber-enabled” crime, which often gets a reimbursement from financial institutions. In general, we have invested in the National Cyber Security Centre in order to stop that type of fraud. It is out there, busy advising many organisations, voluntary and large scale, about what they can do to make themselves safer online. It is also why we are investing in technology to try and counter it.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Cyber-crime is one of the fastest-growing forms of crime, but after we have left the EU, the European Commission will still issue directives that relate to tackling cyber-crime; Europol will still continue to operate to apprehend criminals; and the European Court of Justice will still issue rulings. What steps is the Home Office taking to ensure the continued alignment of UK laws and regulations in this field—

Jamal al-Harith

Debate between Diane Abbott and Ben Wallace

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. First, as I said earlier, by introducing consolidated guidance to guide our intelligence services when they operate abroad; by introducing the 2013 Act, which allows for closed material proceedings; and by beefing up the ISC, we have put in place a much more robust and defendable structure so that we are not the victim of people coming along and trying to sue us for actions we may or may not have taken. That is the most important part of it. It is also important to point out to the House that we will act in accordance with our inherent right of self-defence. We will always put first the defence of our citizens and our nation, and we will make sure that we do that to the best of our ability.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Terrorism is the scourge of modern democracies. It has meant that the frontline of international conflict has moved from the battlefield to our homes and high streets. There will therefore be natural public concern about the case of Jamal al-Harith, who was allegedly paid £1 million in compensation by the UK Government following his incarceration in Guantanamo. There will also be natural public concern that the Minister has chosen to hide behind the notion of sensitive intelligence in order to fail to answer even the simplest factual questions about this case. I repeat: was there any payment? We do not need to know exactly how much, but was there any payment? Is there any truth in the idea that the settlement was designed to prevent al-Harith from making embarrassing revelations about our acquiescence in and enabling of the torture of a UK citizen? Given the monitoring of British detainees after their release from Guantanamo, how was he able to leave the country and travel to Syria in 2014? Will the Government review this case and refer it to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which we believe would be the appropriate, and secret, method of dealing with these very important issues?

[Mr Wallace]

I can perhaps answer the last point. Of course, the Intelligence and Security Committee now has the power, because of the 2013 Act, to properly investigate these issues. Members of that Committee will be listening to this debate and will have read the media reports, and it is entirely for them to choose what they wish to investigate. If they do choose to investigate, we will of course comply, as we are obliged to and as we would wish to. It is very important that we do that.

The right hon. Lady asks me to disclose intelligence operations concerning an individual. I cannot do that; it has never been the practice of this Government, the previous Government or the Government before that. We are not hiding behind that phrase; we are having to oblige ourselves in line with the legally binding confidentiality agreement made between Her Majesty’s Government and the parties involved. I am sure the right hon. Lady is not trying to encourage me to break the law and reveal details of the compensation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diane Abbott and Ben Wallace

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the hon. Lady, whose question bore no relation to my answer. Let me be absolutely clear: the reason we are having a consultation on Leveson is to make sure that we get this right. Of course, if journalists or anybody else have broken the law, we take that incredibly seriously. That is why I am sure the hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that all eight of Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations covering police and press are well under way to being implemented. The consultation was completed on 10 January and, after a pending court case, the Government will, of course, make their position clear.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The entire House knows that the Leveson inquiry was always meant to have two parts, but the Government seem poised to break a promise, hiding behind a completely gratuitous inquiry. The whole House knows about cases such as those of Milly Dowler and the totally innocent Christopher Jeffries in Bristol, whose photo was plastered all over the tabloids as a murder suspect, as a consequence of collusion between the police and the media. Why cannot the Minister see that it would be nothing less than a betrayal of the victims of phone hacking, such as Milly Dowler and Christopher Jeffries, if this Government block the second half of Leveson?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Lady will know that the consultation finished on 10 January and there were 140,000 responses to it. I do not know about her, but it takes time to go through them. The Government also have to deal with a current court case, which makes it much harder for us to respond to the consultation until that hearing is complete. Once it is complete, I assure her that we will be happy to meet her and discuss further the Leveson recommendations.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Diane Abbott and Ben Wallace

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making an important intervention. Nobody is trying to hold up or halt the Bill. If the Government wish to have it, all they have to do is agree to the amendments.

[Mr Wallace]

In that spirit, perhaps the hon. Lady could answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare): should the Bill not contain Baroness Hollins’s amendment, would the hon. Lady support it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

Perhaps I could pick up on some of the concerns of Liberty. We will all have had in our inboxes this morning a letter from Liberty. The concerns expressed in it are, I am afraid, simply wrong. In the third paragraph, Liberty’s policy officer says:

“Bulk powers allow for…surveillance…The much vaunted ‘double lock’ system of authorisation in fact allows the Secretary of State rather than judges to authorise warrants.”

That is incorrect; in fact, the Secretary of State and a judge will authorise a warrant. Perhaps Liberty is incorrect in some of its assertions about why it is unhappy and should look at the Bill, as amended, that has been before this House.

[Ms Abbott]

I have no doubt that stakeholders will look at the amended Bill, and if it returns to us from the Lords, there will no doubt be another opportunity to tease out some of these issues.

This Bill has all-party support and that is significant, because getting the balance right between updating legislation to deal with an internet and high-tech age and defending the civil liberties of subjects is very important, and this House is best placed to do that. We have been grateful to Ministers for being willing to listen to Members in all parts of the House in seeking to improve the Bill.