EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between Dominic Raab and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

We have made it clear that it would be temporary and finite. The reassurance that I can give my right hon. Friend in advance of the publication of our proposals is that it is very difficult for the EU. From its perspective, there is a difference in the way in which customs union is described, because, for it, it would normally include free movement and the rules on that, which in the case of the backstop would not apply. There will be a lot of pressure on the EU, both legally and as a matter of policy, to end the backstop, and we will not agree to anything that does not include a clear process and steps to exit. [Interruption.] No, I am afraid that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) does not.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The idea that the sort of proposals that are floating about from the EU side and, indeed, some officials from our side in Brussels are necessary to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland is complete rubbish. There is already infrastructure on the border, and there are financial, fiscal and other differences because it is an international border. Of course it can be managed.

May I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to what the Prime Minister said in her commitments to Northern Ireland on 6 December? She said that there would be no new borders within the United Kingdom and that the whole UK, including Northern Ireland, would leave the customs union and the single market. On 17 December, she agreed that nothing would be done to create any border, constitutional, political, economic or regulatory, between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State stand by that, because he needs to understand that, as a democratic Unionist party, we will not tolerate anything that separates Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom on customs or the single market as we leave the European Union? We have been clear about that from day one. It is why we had the debacle in December—let us not repeat that mistake.

[Dominic Raab]

I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. He registered his position very clearly. We intend, as he knows, because we have been engaging on this issue, to honour all the commitments that we made in December, and we will not do anything that would be a threat to the economic or constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom.

Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning

Debate between Dominic Raab and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

We have already put forward our proposals in this regard. Through our future relationship White Paper, we have set out the proposals for the facilitated customs arrangement and the broader approach, which have the objective and goal of not just achieving frictionless trade but dealing with the issue between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. What we are not going to do is accept the EU’s proposal through the protocol, because that would effectively draw a customs border down the Irish sea. That would threaten the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK, and we will not give in to that.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I sometimes wish that people would actually travel the road from Belfast to Dublin and Dublin to Belfast because people already pass camera infrastructure on the border. As the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, said, there is already a currency, excise and other border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

The fact is that there are people in this House, the European Union and the Irish Republic who are using the issue of the Irish border—and, more despicably, the Irish peace process and political process—either to thwart Brexit or to mould it in their own way. The reality is that this House would never accept any kind of backstop that created regulatory or other differences between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom because that would constitutionally break up the United Kingdom. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that he will stick to that going forward?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is of course absolutely right in his technical remarks and also, I fear, about the fact that some—not all, but some—are trying to politicise the issue. I do think that there are legitimate issues. We have committed to giving effect to the joint report that we agreed with the EU, but it is certainly true that some are trying to use the issue as leverage, and that will not work.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Debate between Dominic Raab and Lord Dodds of Duncairn

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). I welcome the outcome of the counter-terrorism review. Ministers have been decisive in scaling back some of the more draconian aspects of the previous Government’s authoritarian legislation, such as pre-charge detention and stop-and-search powers, and by tightening regulations in relation to surveillance.

The contentious debate that we are having on control orders should not obscure this welcome sea change in the overall approach. The tide is turning, and I commend the Minister for helping to bring about that change. Likewise, I recognise that Ministers are committed to substantial reform of the control order regime. The new powers will be significantly less offensive to basic principles of British justice than what we have now, but each half-step in the right direction raises the question of why we are not scrapping them altogether.

Under the regime that we are reviewing, the Home Secretary must have “reasonable grounds to suspect” an individual’s involvement in terrorist-related activity before imposing a control order. Now the threshold will be raised to “reasonable belief”. No one can deny that that is progress, but it still allows the equivalent of a criminal penalty to be imposed without a criminal conviction. There is no getting around that. It undermines the most basic principle of our justice system: innocent until proven guilty.

The two-year limit is a welcome recognition that a person not convicted of a crime should not be subject to intrusive restrictions indefinitely, but the orders are renewable, or they will be, which in the same breath undermines this element of the reforms. The fact that under the new system an order can be renewed if someone is engaged in further, different, terrorist activity while subject to its restrictions speaks volumes about the frailty of control orders as a means of public protection. I recognise that curfews are an improvement of sorts on virtual house arrest, a feature of the current regime, but as Lord Macdonald said in his report, curfews are still “disproportionate, unnecessary and objectionable”.

Control orders are an affront to British liberty and justice, but—I make this point to the hon. Member for South Antrim—their relevance as a security measure for dealing with a threat on which we all agree is at best minimal. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) put it more eloquently. There are eight control orders in force. On the best numeric assessment, there are 4,000 terrorist suspects in this country. Use of the orders against that rising threat has halved. Overall, 15% have absconded. Between 2006 and 2009, £16 million was spent on the regime. That is without factoring in court costs or policing.

The new regime is intended to strengthen the duty to consider prosecuting controlees, but Lord Macdonald pointed out clearly and categorically that control orders are not just a poor substitute, but make prosecution more difficult. He said that the regime is

“an impediment to prosecution… controls may be imposed that precisely prevent those very activities that are apt to result in the discovery of evidence fit for prosecution, conviction and imprisonment”.

With that in mind, the House should note that the number of terrorists convicted in the past three years has not just fallen, but plummeted. The number of convictions has fallen off a cliff edge—90% in three years, according to the October statistics. Control orders cannot reverse that trend. As Lord Macdonald said, they just get in the way.

What is being done to address this pretty fundamental failing in the counter-terrorism strategy that the coalition Government, to be fair, have inherited? What is being done on plea bargaining, prosecutorial policy and intercept evidence? The Home Secretary has indicated that the review on lifting the ban on intercept will continue. Both Lord Macdonald and the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, support lifting the ban. They say that it can be made to work effectively, as in virtually every other country in the world. However, Liberty has described the Government’s efforts—I think it is a reference to official efforts—to grasp this important reform as “lethargic”. Prosecution is vital. It is not some quaint commitment to legal tradition. In relation to the home-grown threat, suspects cannot be deported, so prosecution and incarceration is the only way to protect the public.

[Mr Dodds]

I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying and his emphasis on prosecution and incarceration. He will remember that his party and the Labour party, and indeed the House, voted to release terrorist prisoners who had been duly prosecuted and imprisoned for lengthy periods of time. It was decided that they should be let out, free from the severe punishment that had been meted out to them. That was a decision of this House. Does he now regret the decision to take that course of action, given what he has said about prosecution?

[Mr Raab]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. In fairness, that was in the context of an overall conflict resolution settlement. I was not a Member of the House at the time, but I pay deference to an important and valid point.