Ukraine: Urgent Refugee Applications

Julian Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I would point to the sponsorship system that will be set up, which will be open pretty much to many and all Ukrainians, although I remind the House that the vast majority of people understandably want to remain in the region. They will want to go home after the invader has been defeated and expelled from their country. The idea that all Ukrainians are looking to move elsewhere is not correct, but the sponsorship scheme will allow a wide and generous offer and we very much look forward to seeing offers to sponsor people coming forward from across Wales.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

The Minister has talked about training new decision-makers. How many are being trained today? What discussions have taken place with retired decision-makers and caseworkers, and what discussions have happened across Government with other people who are used to making decisions on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, to assess how they could assist with this issue?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his thoughtful question. We have 50 in training today, and we are bringing the whole of UK Visas and Immigration’s quite significant resource to bear on this. In the first instance, we will take decision-makers off other immigration routes, because they will be familiar with immigration decisions and will therefore be more likely to take immigration decisions more quickly in this area. We are also talking to other Government Departments about apprentices and others who can potentially backfill other parts of the immigration system. UKVI employs thousands of decision-makers and we are looking across the piece at those with experience that we can deploy in this area and then potentially backfill other parts with those from other Departments.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Julian Smith Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am happy to respond to that point specifically. We are not suggesting that there is routine testing of suspected CHIS in all criminal groups, but there is evidence that this does occur more than infrequently, and I say that in clear terms. We are asking CHIS to put themselves in difficult positions to help the state investigate these criminal groups, and it is our judgment that we need to make sure that we can best protect them, and that means avoiding the provision of a checklist of crimes that can be tested against. I note that this risk is not just to CHIS, but to people who are not CHIS but may be suspected of being so.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the independent commissioner, established under the 2016 Act by this House, has, in the 2018 report of the analysis on MI5 and other agencies, written very positively about the processes, the applications for CHIS and the rigour that these organisations go through? It is important that the House realises that these processes are rigorous, detailed and already in place.

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. With his experience as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he knows the importance of these national security issues in the context of Northern Ireland. He is right, and this point about safeguards and oversight is precisely what I was about to come on to. It is about the rigorous and careful way in which the agencies operate and the focus that they attach to this, as shown in the response the commissioner provided in his 2018 report and equally by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal when it reflected on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If the Bill does not have those safeguards on its face as it should, it will simply be successfully challenged in our courts. It is in nobody’s interests for that position to pertain, which is why I am making this point, on which I hope we can work on a cross-party basis.

[Julian Smith]

In its legal adjudication on the third direction earlier this year, a majority on the Investigatory Powers Tribunal—the special tribunal overseeing the intelligence services—found that the oversight powers currently given to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner provided

“adequate safeguards against the risk of abuse of discretionary power”.

It is important in our debate on the Bill to recognise those comments in that judgment, which is partly the reason that the Government have introduced the Bill.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, an issue to which I will return in a moment, but what he is actually referring to is one of the instances where the Government have tried to argue that the Human Rights Act did not apply. It is precisely for that reason, and because such arguments were raised in the past, that I am raising the point that I am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I support the Bill, and I congratulate the Security Minister on bringing his practical knowledge from many years to guiding the Bill through the House. I want to make four brief points on the security services.

This Bill makes the ongoing function explicitly clear in law, but it is really important that we fully understand that there are already very clear processes in place regarding agent handling and how they interact with criminal acts. As the third direction hearing and adjudication by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal showed, no further powers were required. It was just a win—it was 3-2—but the IPT said that it was lawful. The 2018 Investigatory Powers Commissioner report, which is well worth reading, confirms that there is adequate guidance in place within MI5 regarding agent handling and that the then Prime Minister directed the commissioner to ensure that that guidance was being enforced. The report also points to the quality of applications by MI5 for the use of CHIS, noting that there are strong controls already in place.

The second point is that this Bill builds on an already rigorous oversight regime for our intelligence services. This stringent control environment has developed over many years, but the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 established a new single oversight body. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner has had a transformative impact on the level of oversight on all aspects of intelligence gathering. As IPCO’s annual reports show, the double lock on warrantry applications, for example, involves detailed interaction between the authorising Secretary of State and their officials, and IPCO and its judicial commissioners. Anybody who has been involved in the process will know that it is a very strong double lock. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which is independent of Government, provides a further independent appeal route, which is available to all at no cost.

The third point, with regard to CHIS, agents and criminality, is that this is an area of intelligence-gathering activity that is invariably difficult to manage in the same way as other intelligence gathering—for example, warrantry —is. We cannot hope to micromanage such activity from this House. The House and colleagues have to take comfort from the initiatives of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the application of the European convention on human rights to CHIS activity, and the role of independent commissioners to provide rigorous oversight. The Bill is clear that these powers do not give carte blanche to agents. The Crown Prosecution Service can still consider prosecutions for activities that fall outside those that have been authorised.

Finally, it is vital to note, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has just stated, that the Bill is not retrospective and will not impact on any historical investigation.

The women and men in our intelligence agencies, and those who supervise and work with them, work behind the scenes, are never publicly recognised. They are civil servants of the highest quality and integrity, and I believe the Bill will further strengthen their ability to do their work.

Counter-terrorism and Security Bill

Julian Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

“the Government has listened to what I have been saying, and put forward changes which should significantly improve the ability of the Independent Reviewer to do an effective job.”

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

On the point of people’s concerns about privacy, we now have a Select Committee, which has done a detailed report on Lee Rigby and has shown it is scrutinising Parliament and the intelligence services, and we now have the civil liberties board. We have tremendous oversight in this country, and is it not now time that we say we have got good control of our intelligence services and we need to let them get on and do the job?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our country has one of the strictest legal structures for dealing with these kinds of matters. We also have significant oversight through the role of the various commissioners and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and through the enhanced capabilities of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, which has, through its Woolwich report, shown how it can use those powers to scrutinise in detail what has taken place and report to the public. Our intelligence agencies do a very good job for us every day of the week, and we need to ensure they can carry on doing that job with appropriate oversight, which I think we have in place.

On the privacy and civil liberties board, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), there is further work to be done because we have to consider the responses to the recent consultation on it before bringing forward regulations to establish the board, but I trust the amendments we have made will reassure the House about the Government’s approach to these important issues.

The range and significant nature of these amendments demonstrates the approach that the Government have taken on this Bill. With the support of the official Opposition, we have agreed a timetable to ensure that it will be enacted at the earliest opportunity, but we have also ensured that our proposals have been subjected to robust analysis, and we have listened to the full range of views from all sides of both Houses. The Bill has certainly benefited from that scrutiny.

I welcome the fact that these measures have broad cross-party support, and I am grateful to all hon. Members, and particularly the Opposition Front Bench, for the constructive approach that they have taken throughout our consideration of this Bill.

As I have made clear previously, we are in the middle of a generational struggle against a deadly terrorist ideology. The first duty of Government is to keep the people of Britain safe and this Bill will help us to do so. The amendments made in the Lords will improve the provisions, and strike the right balance between our rights to privacy and security. I invite the House to agree them, so that we can enact this legislation without any further delay.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

We, too, welcome the Lords amendments. The Home Secretary was right to commence her remarks by reminding the House of the events in Paris and the ever-present threat of terrorist activity on these shores. It is for that reason that we took a constructive approach to the Bill; we believe there is a threat, and it needs to be effectively managed, and we in Her Majesty’s Opposition give the Home Secretary the support she needs for the work of the police, MI5 and others, which she has sought to give extra powers to in this Bill.

We are also keen to respond to the positive comments made last year by David Anderson, the reviewer of terrorism of legislation. We are grateful that the Home Secretary has listened to the comments made by Mr Anderson, and indeed by the other place.

The Bill was introduced into this House at the end of November. There was no pre-legislative scrutiny or public consultation on most of its provisions and it finished its Commons stages on 7 January. I understand why the Home Secretary has moved quickly on these matters, but the fact that 39 amendments were made in another place and have come to this Chamber shows that some serious issues have had to be reflected on during the passage of the Bill.

We welcome the thrust of the amendments made by the Government, because they are a series of concessions to points made not only in another place—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about that—but in this House.

[Julian Smith]

Does the right hon. Gentleman regret, as I do, that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord King that sought to bring back the draft Communications Data Bill, or all the elements of it, did not make it back to this House? Does he agree that we need to move forward with that as soon as possible?

[Mr Hanson]

We need to look at and deal with that issue. Five years ago, in my last year as a Minister in the Home Office, I was briefed as the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism on the need for such a Bill, so we do need to examine the matter. Whoever wins the election in some weeks’ time, the next Parliament will have to return to that issue. In fact, I think it would have returned to it in this Parliament had it not been for the Liberal Democrats—but let us not find division where there is none this evening.

We welcome the measures agreed to by the Home Secretary. We need strong terrorism powers and to accept that the rise of ISIL and associated groups represents an exceptional threat, but we also need to look at how we manage such powers within the confines of ensuring that we uphold the principles of democracy in this country. On the temporary exclusion orders, therefore, we welcome the principle of judicial oversight being accepted following amendments in another place. In this House on 2 December the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), rightly pointed out that there was such judicial oversight for terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and stated that we would be tabling amendments on that very principle. The Home Secretary said to me in Committee on 15 December that such oversight was not necessary and that for her to have the power to make that decision should suffice.

Not only Opposition Members but Government ones, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and others, made the point that we need to uphold democracy and the right of appeal and oversight at the same time as tackling the threat head on. The debate continued on Report and, indeed, the Opposition tabled an amendment to achieve the objectives that the Government are now accepting following amendments in another place. Both Government parties voted against the earlier Labour amendment, but now support proposals that, broadly speaking, do exactly the same thing. It is a significant U-turn by the Government, but welcome all the same. The case for judicial oversight has been clear all along, and the conditions now in place are welcome.

Her Majesty’s Opposition also fully support the Prevent strategy changes made by the Home Secretary this evening. Labour developed Prevent when in government, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) was key to that at the time. It is important for us to have a statutory basis for Prevent. The Bill introduces the obligation on public bodies to implement Prevent and to follow statutory guidance. We supported that in principle, but, again, we made it clear that we wanted to press strongly on the guidance, on the nature and drafting of which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) made some key comments. We tabled some amendments, which the Government have now accepted, on the guidance being subject to parliamentary approval. That amendment was drafted by the Labour party and supported by Universities UK. We also supported in another place specific protection for universities’ obligation to uphold freedom of belief. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend made those points, that Labour Members have made the points in another place, that the House of Lords has agreed the amendments and that the Government have now accepted them.

We support the creation of the privacy and civil liberties board, but there was significant confusion about its role as introduced in the Commons. Yet again, we raised that issue in this place and in another place, and the Government have now accepted some of the points made and have clarified, particularly, the interaction of the board and the independent reviewer. That will address some of the capacity problems faced by the independent reviewer.

It is also important that we have accepted the amendments on the authority-to- carry scheme. That is a vital power but most of the detail and how it will impact carriers has been left to secondary legislation. The Government have now accepted that these detailed regulations will need to have proper parliamentary scrutiny, and, again, that is welcome.

There was not a great deal of division between the Government and us on the principles of the Bill before it left this place, but we did want to see some strengthening, and those strengthening measures have been put in place. I wish not only to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford for raising those issues here, but to thank Lord Rosser and Baroness Smith of Basildon for raising and dealing with those issues in another place. Serious consideration has been given in the House of Lords and this Bill is the better for it. I am pleased that the Home Secretary has accepted those amendments, and she will have our support on them tonight and on the implementation of the Bill in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Smith Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

PCCs have made a range of issues a strategic priority for their forces, as the hon. Lady will know. We are clear that the impetus for dealing with modern slavery is coming from the Government and that it is a priority for the National Crime Agency. Police and crime commissioners will of course set what they believe to be the most appropriate strategic priorities for their areas. I am interested that the hon. Lady wants PCCs to be interested in this matter, because her party wants to abolish them, and if that were to happen, they could take no interest in it whatever.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

12. What progress she has made on ensuring that the Security Service is adequately equipped to tackle terrorism.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

It is vital that our security and intelligence services should have the powers and resources that they need to keep us safe. We have taken steps to maintain capabilities through the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, and we are increasing powers through the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. An additional £130 million will be available over the next two years to strengthen counter-terrorism capabilities.

[Julian Smith]

A terror suspect is arrested every day, and our intelligence services are crystal clear that they need greater oversight of internet communications. When will the Government bring the Communications Data Bill back to the House?

[James Brokenshire]

I pay tribute to the work that our police and security agencies do to keep us safe, and it is right that my hon. Friend should highlight that work in his question. Capability gaps identified during discussions on the draft Communications Data Bill have not been met, and we are clear that action needs to be taken. This issue needs to be addressed early in the next Parliament.

Child Sexual Abuse (Independent Panel Inquiry)

Julian Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

There are arrangements in place for authorities to enable people to give evidence, notwithstanding that it would break the Official Secrets Act. This issue is regularly raised, however, and I will ensure that the strongest possible arrangements are in place to ensure it can happen.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I welcome the statement and the foundations the Home Secretary has laid for the review. One local issue in north Yorkshire concerns the number of responsible bodies. I have spoken to victims, and they have a problem with the lack of co-ordination and the lack of training of the people dealing with the issue. In looking at funding and money, will she consider what help she can give to local organisations to work better and closer and in a more co-ordinated manner on child abuse and child exploitation?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises another important issue about how we deal with incidents currently taking place. I have been considering this matter along with a number of my right hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. We have focused particularly on looking at what we can do in response to the Alexis Jay report on Rotherham, and my right hon. Friend is of course about to make his own statement on the Louise Casey inspection. The Government will come forward with a number of proposals that will hit at the very issues my hon. Friend has raised. He is right that we need to look at issues around training and co-ordination in respect of bodies looking at incidents, or potential incidents, of child sexual abuse today.

Terrorist Attacks (Paris)

Julian Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I commend the hon. Gentleman’s comments. As the shadow Home Secretary pointed out, the brother of the policeman who was murdered gave a very dignified response that we can all recognise and support. It is important to recognise that the people who carry out these attacks are criminals and terrorists, and are not acting in the name of any religion. We should be very clear about the message we give.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

On intelligence data gaps, will the Home Secretary confirm that she will be inspired by the patriotism of Lord Evans and people such as the head of MI5, and avoid any consultation on such issues with the Deputy Prime Minister, who during his “Today” programme interview put party so disgracefully over national security?

[Mrs May]

It is no surprise to anyone in the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and I have a different opinion on communications data and the Communications Data Bill. I believe it is important that we maintain those capabilities, and I reiterate that the Bill is not a snoopers charter.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Julian Smith Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to this place, as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I shall wait to see what the Minister says, but I am minded to say that it is important that the right of appeal is paramount. The Minister might or might not accept the amendment and I will have to listen carefully to his argument, but if he does not accept it there will be an opportunity to test the will of the Committee should we so wish.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

The shadow Minister has already said that schedule 1 is detailed and that there is a lot to contemplate in it. Would not adding the right to appeal further complicate it? People will already get their passport back after two weeks, so why this additional complication?

[Mr Hanson]

I was coming on to those points, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. It might help if I outlined some of the circumstances. If an individual’s passport is removed, it will be because there is reasonable suspicion that he is involved in some activities that mean he should not travel abroad. That suspicion might be well founded—I am trying to be fair, and I doubt that the power would be exercised if it were not well founded—but there still might be occasions when an individual was travelling to a difficult, challenging country for a family wedding, a holiday, an employment interview, or for other perfectly legitimate reasons. The security services might wrongly identify an individual; that can occasionally happen. The individuals responsible might have challenges for a range of reasons. The information supplied to the security services—for example, by a parent whose adult child is travelling—may be wrong.

The simple point is that if that power is exercised, the individual loses their passport and their ability to travel and so might well miss a job interview, a family wedding or a holiday and might be wrongly marked out in their social circles. That could happen. I am not saying that it will, but it could. Amendment 17 is meant to ensure that if that individual feels that they have been wrongly treated, they have a right to ask for a review by a court. It is reasonable to do that under UK law.

[Julian Smith]

After two weeks, the individual will get their passport back anyway. This is a really wishy-washy way of carrying on, and we should either be confident that this is a good measure or not. They will get their passport back within two weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

Again, that demonstrates why the issue of appeals is important. Paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1 refers to

“a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom”.

I can envisage a situation in which an individual who is the citizen of and holds the passport of not, dare I say it, the Irish Republic, but another country in the European Union or even a country outside the European Union, but who is resident in or travelling from the UK, is suspected for a range of reasons of involvement in terrorism-related activity under paragraph 1(10) of schedule 1. Again, the UK would be in the difficult situation of depriving an individual from another country of their passport on the basis of a range of suspicions that may or may not prove to be factual. I am in danger of repeating myself and am being careful not to do so, but we need to examine such facts carefully. The purpose of amendment 17 is to stimulate a debate about that.

[Julian Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I am trying to wind up my remarks, but I will give way.

[Julian Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what is his mechanism for appeal? Surely the measure allows border control officers to take a passport without giving too many reasons and, after two weeks, for a judicial review to take place. How would his appeal process work? How would we avoid giving away intelligence during the appeal that could jeopardise the United Kingdom’s security?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations and for reminding me that I have form on police bail as a Minister in the last Government. He will be pleased to know that although I gave the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) the opportunity to make her case, we do not support it, having listened to it. We might have form on this issue, but that form is consistent with our approach to the matter.

Our amendment 29, on a sunset clause, and amendment 17, on the right of appeal, still bear merit. The Minister has not convinced me that a sunset clause would be damaging in the long term to the Bill. Neither, given the concerns of Members such as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others about appeals, am I persuaded not to press amendment 17.

[Julian Smith]

I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think carefully about pressing his amendment. What sort of message will it send to terrorists and people who threaten our country if he goes down this wishy-washy path of supporting the Bill but saying we should review it in 18 months’ time?

[Mr Hanson]

Having been counter-terrorism and policing Minister in the last Government, I know the extent of the threats we face, perhaps even more so than the hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that anybody has ever accused me of being wishy-washy on these matters—in fact, I have often been accused of being a little too harsh. However, it is right and proper, when we give powers to remove passports from individuals, that the House of Commons at least commits to reviewing those powers in two years—possibly to see whether we need to make them stronger; it might not mean we want to make them weaker. If he had his passport taken off him at Heathrow or Dover on spurious grounds, he would wish to have an appeal process in place. It is one of the basic tenets of this House of Commons.

So, not being wishy-washy, but being committed to tackling terrorism at its core and taking firm and effective action to reduce the threat to this country, I still believe we need to review the Bill in two years’ time and give people the right to argue their case, should they so wish, and question the grounds on which their passport has been taken from them. On that basis, I would like to press amendment 29 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, which touches on one reason why we are presenting alternative, parallel models. I am not saying that the provisions in new clause 4 would be appropriate in every circumstance, but I do not believe—if the Home Secretary can convince me otherwise, we will look at that—that provision is in place for a formal managed return, as under our proposals; we simply have the Home Secretary’s proposals for a request to come back or for detention at a foreign port of entry to prevent someone from returning. We are seeking to give her a menu of options, and our approach could be a better way of managing individuals. Judgments will be made by Ministers and the security services as to how this could be managed, but the concerns expressed by David Anderson QC and by Liberty, which I thank for its assistance in helping us to table these provisions, give rise to a potential alternative that could be examined.

[Julian Smith]

How would the right hon. Gentleman get around the Home Secretary’s comments about the security implications of his model—giving out data to carriers that could compromise British national security?

[Mr Hanson]

We would be looking to do that in a number of circumstances anyway; data are already given to carriers about individuals. Under the Government’s model, information would also be provided to the carrier that the individual was of interest to the UK Government.

--- Later in debate ---

The language used in new clauses 9, 10 and 11 and new schedule 1 mirrors precisely—almost too precisely—that used in the Government’s own TPIM legislation. I hope that the Government can accept—if not today, perhaps during the passage of the Bill—that the procedure to go through to award a temporary exclusion order under our clause would be sound, fair and efficient in the same way that TPIMs can be on the same legislative basis.

[Julian Smith]

The rights being removed under the exclusion orders are nowhere near the same as those being removed under TPIMs, so the need for executive dynamism and an ability to move quickly should trump the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making.

[Mr Hanson]

It is still a big deal to refuse a British passport holder access to the United Kingdom. It is a very big step to take. I am not saying that it is the wrong step to take, but it is a big step. The powers under current TPIMs and, potentially, under the revised TPIMs, involve restrictions on movement and contact. The Bill as proposed could involve detention in a foreign country, pending return to the United Kingdom under a managed process. Charges may not have been made. A person could be held simply on the basis of evidence that has been gathered by the security services. Although those measures are not the same, an element of judicial oversight is something to which we should aspire. As a fair man, I am tabling these issues so that the Home Secretary can reflect on them because I am aware of the concerns that exist outside and inside this House. Undoubtedly, there will be heavy scrutiny of these sections of the Bill and their implications when the Bill reaches the House of Lords. It is important that we flag them up here to say that we should have in place a mechanism whereby the Home Secretary has to make her case to a relatively small cohort of individuals in order to progress the matter. I do not want to have the Home Secretary tied into a long-winded or unresponsive channel for application. I do not want the Home Secretary to have a slower processing ability that means she cannot enable counter-terrorism activity to take place in a speedy and effective manner.

However, if the Government believe that the TPIM regime is not unduly cumbersome when trying to control terror suspects in this country, there seems little reason why it should not be appropriate for use on individuals in other countries, particularly as the Home Secretary will often know who they are and have a close interest in them. The current stipulation is that the Home Secretary simply has to reasonably consider whether someone is involved in terror-related activity. That is a very low bar, and one that I think should be subject to judicial oversight.

In conclusion, I think that the Government should at least look at the alternative model set out in new clause 4, which has widespread support. I would also genuinely like to hear from the Home Secretary why she feels—she has already indicated as much—that the arrangements for TPIMs are not appropriate for what is still a severe restriction on liberty, which might be the right thing to do, under the proposed TEO notice. I look forward to hearing other Members’ contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I had not intended to speak today, but I have been sitting here getting rather more uncomfortable about some aspects of the proposal. I do not propose to go into the complex practical issues, which were well laid out by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who gave thoughtful input, as ever, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). They outlined the issues and complexities very well and I suspect that those complexities will best be addressed by negotiation between those on the two Front Benches, which is not something I often recommend.

What concerns me today is the issue of the Home Secretary herself exercising the power. I am concerned that it comes about without prior judicial approval or, indeed, without being a power of the court, which would be my preference. Over time, I have become progressively concerned about the accretion of fairly absolute power to the state in counter-terrorism policy. Absolute power is pretty important. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) suggested that these measures did not impinge on people’s liberties in the same way as TPIMs might, but I am afraid that the impingement is pretty sizeable. I do not necessarily disapprove of it at all, but it should be exercised with a degree of judicial care.

These accretions of power have come about since the late 1980s and the 1990s when we avowed the various security services that had up until then not been recognised in public policy, or that were at least not in the public domain. At the time, it seemed quite reasonable for the Crown prerogative to be used as a method of giving warrants and of enacting the state’s will to protect the public. I took the 1994 Bill on the Secret Intelligence Service through the House. We did not foresee the level of use—the number of warrants used and the level of power being exercised—that is now necessary to deal with the Islamist terrorist threat.

What is more, we did not give much thought to how such power might be abused—not that it is at the moment, but it might be in the future—or how many errors might occur, which does happen. We had at the back of our mind a model of accountability that, frankly, does not work. The Minister for Security and Immigration will be familiar with the number of times on which he and I have had exchanges that amount to my asking him a question and his writing back something like, “I never comment on security matters.” That is not a particularly good form of accountability for any mechanism.

My concern is that along with progressive secrecy, secret courts and all the other things we now have, the weak accountability—

[Julian Smith]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Davis]

If my hon. Friend will permit me, I am coming to the end of my speech.

The level of secrecy, the low level of accountability and the power accruing to the Government, which is enormous when we think about our historic liberties in this country—this is in no way a criticism of the Home Secretary, as I would say the same of any Home Secretary, any Foreign Secretary or any Secretary of State—are why I am attracted by new clause 11. I do not know whether it will be pressed to a vote tonight, or whether it will come back on Report, but I ask the Government closely to consider the TPIM model. It is very sensible and those on the Opposition Front Bench have made a good case for it.

--- Later in debate ---

If somebody does have the means to apply for a permit to allow them to return, they will have to attend an interview. Failure to do so, either because they are unable to do so or are prevented from doing so, could result in their being refused the right to return.

[Julian Smith]

I am trying to keep up with the hon. Lady. What are the circumstances that will make it impossible for people to apply to the consulate or somewhere else to come back to the UK? She is making a number of assertions that she is not backing up.

[Caroline Lucas]

I do not think that I am making assertions. I am asking questions about whether it will be possible for people in all circumstances to go through very formal processes at a time when they may well be living in a culture of fear and when, by definition, severe conflict is going on. Such people might already have been fingered as someone who is trying to leave and be at particular risk of attack from others. I am describing a rather more complex situation than someone simply using the postal system, knowing what they have to do next and then marching down to the consulate and doing it. The reality on the ground is likely to be far more complex than the hon. Gentleman suggests.

If someone does complete the process successfully, the Home Secretary will have what is defined as “reasonable time” to let them come home. I am concerned that, as far as I can see, there is no indication of what that time would be. The period of enforced temporary residence in another country could effectively trap British citizens in countries where jihadi groups have a strong presence, such as Sudan, Somalia, Turkey, Syria and Iraq. As the human rights group Liberty states:

“Those who are equivocal are more likely to be pushed towards terrorist factions by the imposition of executive led punishments and enforced periods in close proximity to such groups.”

If the primary purpose of counter-terrorism policy is to make us safer, why would we take steps to alienate individuals by condemning them to exile when some of them—I quite understand that this does not apply to all of them—may simply have made a terrible mistake? They may have been horrified by the bloodshed and barbarism that they have seen and want to find a way to come home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as well as the intelligence issue, the British people want the state to act in a nimble and dynamic way, as long as measures are proportionate, against one of the biggest threats to our security in decades? I suspect he acknowledges that broader point given his role on the Intelligence and Security Committee.

[Mr Howarth]

I was coming on to talk about the sorts of cases that we might be confronted with. If my remarks answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, so be it. If not, I am sure he will intervene again.

Temporary exclusion orders and the managed return process, as the Home Secretary described it, is seen as the alternative to a judicial process that for various practical reasons would either be not very just, or at least closed or partly closed. It would therefore be impractical and difficult to judge whether proceedings were fair or otherwise for anyone who was not involved, and even for some of those who were. In principle the provisions in clause 2(1) are probably acceptable, but I have a couple of issues—this goes directly to the point made by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith)—about how they will work in practice. Perhaps one way of looking at it would be to give examples of the kinds of cases that we are likely to see with people returning from Syria or Iraq. For convenience, I have bracketed them under three headings. They are not mutually exclusive and it is possible that in some cases all three will apply, and in others just one.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Julian Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

While there is considerable and fully understandable public concern about the extent of data storage, the Opposition broadly accept the need for this extra category of data. It has always been the case that phone companies have kept records of phone calls made. People understand and generally accept that their phone company keeps a record of these calls and that they may be used by the police. We feel that the same principle should apply to electronic communication, and that this amendment is broadly in line with this principle.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Will the shadow Minister explain a bit more of her party’s thoughts on making further changes in communications data and retention, because as she knows we need to do much more in this area and this is only the start?

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, and we will obviously disagree on what I have just said.

Our view, agreed with by most of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, is that the data required to link an IP address to a device is one such category of data that is required and therefore we welcome what in principle clause 17 seeks to achieve. I say “in principle” because we do have some concerns about the drafting of clause 17, which is why we have tabled amendment 5.

[Julian Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Diana Johnson]

I will give way, but, as I have said, I do want to get on to the substantive issues.

[Julian Smith]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. Will she just clarify briefly the further categories that she sees becoming more important, and where the Government and coalition can expect Labour’s support as they seek to put more of these areas on to the statute book?

[Diana Johnson]

What I will come on to say about some of the concerns we have might help the hon. Gentleman, but his question obviously leads into a debate that goes wider than this particular grouping, which is specifically on clause 17, and in the Committee stage of the Bill. I will therefore continue with my points on this grouping, because I am sure I would be in trouble if I did not do that.

To repeat, although in principle we support clause 17, we have some concerns about its drafting, which is why we have tabled amendment 5. Because of the broad label “relevant internet data”, we want to put it beyond doubt that the category of data to be retained under clause 17 does not extend beyond what is strictly necessary to link an IP address to a user.

In the Bill, the definition of “relevant internet data” is data which

“relates to an internet access service or an internet communications service”

and

“may be used to identify, or assist in identifying, which internet protocol address…belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.

While this appears to include a whole host of other traffic data, including web logs, clause 17 also states that “relevant internet data” is not “communications data” as defined by the schedule to the Data Retention Regulations 2014 or information as defined in clause 17(3)(c), which is supposed to exclude web logs from this provision. We have concerns about the accuracy with which subsection (3)(c) captures the nature of web logs, which is why we have tabled amendment 5. I hope the regulations this clause will enable will be clearer than this primary clause in the legislation. It is disappointing that, unlike with the DRIP Bill, the draft regulations have not yet been published alongside the Bill. This has caused problems for Parliament’s ability to provide proper scrutiny of this clause.

As well as accepting our amendment 5, which I hope the Minister will be able to do, I urge him to go back and look again at the drafting of clause 17 before Report. In order to increase public confidence in the use of retained communications data we need to be clear about what is retained and I believe clause 17 and the accompanying explanatory notes could be better in this regard.

[Julian Smith]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Diana Johnson]

I will one more time.

[Julian Smith]

The hon. Lady talks about web logs. Will she clarify the Opposition’s long-term position on that issue, and what she sees will happen in the future, when on many sides of the security spectrum there seems to be a consensus that there is a need to bring these areas in eventually?

[Diana Johnson]

I will just reiterate that we are dealing with clause 17, and we are very mindful that we want to ensure that web logs are not included under this clause. My focus is on getting clarity on that from the Minister. What might happen in the long term is perhaps a debate for another time. I am concerned that we get the drafting of this clause as accurate as we can.

I was talking about making sure the public are confident about what we are trying to do through clause 17, and what is included and what is not included. The data at the heart of clause 17 appear to be what is commonly referred to as “IP resolution data”, but this term does not appear in the text of the explanatory notes, and I hope the Minister will be able to explain whether they do refer to the same thing, as there is some confusion here.

As I explained, clause 17 is meant to plug a gap within the current framework for data retention, but when we compare the language of the Bill with the text of the current regulations, the gap is not immediately obvious. Clause 17 refers to data which

“relates to an internet access service or an internet communications service”

and

“may be used to identify, or assist in identifying, which internet protocol address…belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.

However, part 3, paragraph 11 of the schedule to the existing regulations refers to the subscriber information

“to whom an Internet Protocol (IP) address, user ID or telephone number was allocated at the time of the communication.”

I ask the Minister to look at this and see whether he cannot amend the language to make clear on the face of the Bill the exact data category that will be provided for in the regulations.

I am also concerned about the degree to which clause 17 relies on definitions provided from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I am sure the Minister is aware of the findings of the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill that the definitions used in RIPA were out of date and needed to be replaced. Given this, it is surprising to see both the definition of “communication” and section (3)(c) of the clause rely so heavily on RIPA definitions.

I would also like the Minister look again at the definition of “identifier.” According to clause 17

“‘identifier’ means an identifier used to facilitate the transmission of a communication”.

This is at least partly circular, and again adds to the confusion around this clause. Finally, in subsection (2)(b) will the Minister confirm that he does indeed mean “paragraph (a)” rather than subsection (a)?

In addition to the five questions above regarding the drafting, I have 10 questions about the implementation that I hope the Minister will be able to address in his comments. First, will he tell the House whether he expects to introduce new retention regulations under DRIPA section 1, or will the Government be seeking to amend the Data Retention Regulations 2014? Secondly, and on a similar note, will he update the House on when he expects to publish these draft regulations and when he hopes they will be in force? Thirdly, when the data covered under clause 17 is traffic data, while the relevant authority wants to reveal the subscriber information behind this, will this be covered under a single request under RIPA, or could clause 17 data simply lead to a disclosure which requires a further RIPA request to be made? Fourthly—this is particularly relevant to amendment 5—will he assure the House that the retention by the Crown Prosecution Service of this relevant internet data can be done in such a way that does not require deep package inspections of the type that would be considered intrusive surveillance? Fifthly—and again relating to amendment 5—will the Minister explain in practice how the regulations will separate out communications going to a device, which could be a web log, such as access to an app, which would be considered a website, and communications going to a device which enables a communication, such as an app which facilitates web e-mail storage?

Sixthly, will the Minister confirm that the extra reporting requirements imposed on the interception of communications commissioner by the DRIP Act will extend to the data retained and subsequently requested under clause 17? Will the Minister be providing additional resources to the commissioner to meet those additional requirements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) is right to seek clarification to satisfy herself and her colleagues that clause 17 achieves its intended purpose and no more. Its intended purpose is reasonable: to keep up with the technological changes that lead evildoers to move from one technology to another, and become more difficult to track as they do so.

[Julian Smith]

On that point—

[Sir Alan Beith]

Goodness me, I have barely started, but I will give way.

[Julian Smith]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this provision does not keep up with the technology, and that much more has to happen and will happen? Will he clarify his party’s position on the changes that will have to come?

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman has a strange desire, which he has expressed during a previous speech, to extend the debate beyond the bounds of clause 17 and the amendments to it. I do not think we should be drawn into that at the moment, except to make the general point that all processes involving intrusion into people’s private communications should have high levels of justification before they are used at all, and protections should be provided by various safeguards and authorisations. Finding the right balance for different levels of communication is a difficult task, and I expect a great deal of work will need to be done. Most of us in this House, and certainly most in my party, do not want, either by design or accidental discovery, a great deal of personal information about people to get in the hands of the state and its employees without any reasonable justification. On a matter that will be raised when the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) speaks, nor do we want the processes of investigation by journalists to be impaired by a fear that sources will be compromised from the beginning. There are very good reasons for extreme caution in this area, but I believe the Government have exercised that caution and sought to devise a process to deal with a particular and recognisable difficulty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr George Howarth]

I wish to begin by providing some context. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report in February 2013 referred to the Home Office’s assessment that there was a

“25% shortfall in the communications data that public authorities would wish to access and what they are currently able to access.”

That is, of course, an estimate, as it is not possible to be precise about what is unknowable, but the existence of a shortfall is a legitimate cause for concern. The report goes on to suggest that

“left unchecked, this gap will increase.”

Perhaps the Minister will be able to say whether it has increased and, if so, whether by an appreciable amount. It would be interesting to know that, and I suspect it has increased.

It is worth spending a little more time examining what we know about both the scale and the sources of interceptions that take place. In his annual report for 2013, the interception of communications commissioner, Sir Anthony May, noted that the total number of authorisations for interception of communications data under part 1 of RIPA stood at 514,608, down from 570,135 in 2012. He pointed out that these figures do not represent sole individuals, because

“public authorities often make multiple requests for communications data in the course of a single investigation but also make multiple requests for communications data in relation to the same individual.”

The figures give some indication of the scale of this, rather than the number of individuals who are covered. Under the same process, Sir Anthony notes that 87.7% of authorisations were at the request of the police and law enforcement agencies, 11.5% were from the intelligence agencies, and the rest were from local and other public bodies.

Worldwide, the scale of online communications is daunting. About 3 billion people have access to the internet, and during the time I have been speaking more than 200 million e-mails will have been sent, 2 million Google searches will have been made and there will have been 6 million Facebook views. So why is it considered important that the police, intelligence agencies and other bodies have access to some of the data records of these online communications? Overwhelmingly, internet traffic is benign; it is people using the various platforms for perfectly legitimate and legal purposes. However, a small proportion—I estimate it to be no more than a tiny fraction of 1%—is used for illegal purposes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) referred to some other purposes that are cause for concern.

My hon. Friend’s new clause 2 would, if agreed, require the Home Secretary to review the time taken by communications service providers to disclose information linking an individual to an internet protocol address. That is important for two reasons. The first is that, as we tragically discovered with Fusilier Lee Rigby’s murder, CSPs will, on occasion, receive information that in some cases could crucially be the catalyst for a warrant to enable greater surveillance measures on an individual to take place. In turn that can, in some cases, prevent a terrorist attack.

IP addresses are the key to unlocking who is contacting whom, and that can be critical. But they are not straightforward. Typically, a communications service provider with, say, 10 million to 15 million customers would have allocated to it 100,000 IP addresses. For the larger commercial bodies or public bodies, a series of static IP addresses will be allocated. But for the vast majority of users, IP addresses are dynamic. In practice, a range of numbers is allocated randomly to customers, which is why the former head of GCHQ used the analogy of finding a needle in a haystack.

Secondly, the range of platforms is constantly changing, with new ones entering the market all the time. A good example of that is WhatsApp, which was recently acquired by Facebook for $22 billion. On 1 April, that platform, which is adaptable and easy to use, handled, over a 24-hour period, 64 billion messages, 20 billion of which were sent and 44 billion of which were received. In such a dynamic sphere of activity, it is vital that procedures are in place and properly monitored to ensure that, when the security and intelligence services need to locate a needle in a haystack, the haystack is still in place, and that is what this section of the Bill seeks to ensure. It means that urgent inquiries of either a historical or planned terrorist or criminal activity can be located.

[Julian Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case for us to go further. What would he do now? He has made it clear that there are many technologies that need much more scrutiny and oversight. What would he do if he were in charge?

[Mr Howarth]

Had the hon. Gentleman waited a while longer, I was about to say what more could be done. It is right that we have a statutory provision, and, subject to the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North highlighted being satisfied, the provisions contained in the Bill are appropriate. However, there is a problem that we cannot resolve within the context of our own domestic legislation. Many of the communications service providers are not based in the UK; they are based mostly in the United States. Increasingly, the Republic of Ireland is seen as a location of choice for some companies. Google and perhaps one other CSP have already relocated there. It is increasingly clear that whatever legislation we put in place, it will not, of itself, be enough to resolve the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Exactly. I was not arguing for preferential status for journalists—God forbid that I do that here. I was coming on to that point: this is about the ability to make sure a source is protected—as we all know, sources are often whistleblowers, blowing the whistle on abuses by public authorities and others—but it is also relevant to the protection of journalists themselves. We have seen across the world how, when the confidentiality of journalists’ sources is undermined, journalists become just as much a target as their sources, and in recent years large numbers of journalists in various countries have died as a result of persecution. What I am trying to say is that it is critical that we protect the role journalists play and enable them to undertake their work.

We have legislated in accordance with that principle—in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, for example. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) that it is always difficult to find the mechanism, but the mechanism under PACE was the ability of the court to determine whether a production order should be made. We gave it over to the courts to determine that. What was important about that is that the journalist was notified of the application and could contest it before the court, and a decision would then be made that commanded the confidence of all those involved. The classic case since then is when the police failed to get an order under PACE and then used RIPA to obtain an order against a journalist to get information relating to articles that were being written, including the sources of that information. I think it was generally felt in the House that that was not what we intended when we passed PACE and was not in the spirit of RIPA. We have for some time consistently tried to get Government and this House—the responsibility falls on the shoulders of us all—to do exactly as my right hon. Friend said and to find an appropriate mechanism.

I tabled new clause 1 because I cannot find an effective mechanism other than the use of the courts at some stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked whether it is a mechanism to enable the court to determine whether due process has been followed or the merits of a case. I have left that open for now because I welcome the discussion, but in my view, it is both.

[Julian Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to ask me a detailed question about my long-term future policy.

[Julian Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a mechanism is already in place, because David Anderson is conducting a review of the rules and regulations? In tabling the amendments, the hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun. Surely we have to wait for David Anderson’s report.

[John McDonnell]

That is a valid point. I tabled the amendments to say that there is a sense of urgency. Something needs to be done now; some steps need to be taken immediately—before the Anderson review, to be frank.

I have raised this matter previously and engaged in dialogue with the Minister. I have a clutch of papers here, because I wanted to be sure of the accuracy of my remarks. I raised it way back on 22 July, in the debate on regulations made under DRIPA. The Minister responded in a letter received on 28 July:

“The Government…intend to bring forward amendments to the Acquisition and Disclosure Code of Practice to make this clear”.

What he was making clear was, I think, the importance of some form of understanding of the role of journalists and their sources, and therefore sensitivity in the approach taken. That becomes even more important now that in this legislation we are extending the range of the data to be collected. I take the point that this does not identify individuals, but on the information provided by Big Brother Watch and contained in the House of Commons research paper, the definitions have been narrowed. Big Brother Watch is concerned about

“the possibility of more personal information being accessed than first implied. … This means that the identity of an individual has the potential to be fully revealed by these powers.”

There is thus some uncertainty about how the powers could be used to drill down into the information to identify an individual and therefore a source and put everyone at risk.

I do not believe that the code has yet been published. I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to tell me.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise that in certain circumstances that might be appropriate, but the challenge in this case is the fast-paced nature of technology, which means we would always be playing catch-up. The original RIPA legislation was therefore intended to be technology-neutral so that, if the technology moved on, it was still able to capture that, just as our criminal law is intended to cover all forms of communications. I think that might be a better way of seeking to achieve that. However, that is part and parcel of David Anderson’s review of RIPA, and therefore the existing legislation and a number of the themes that have been touched on by right hon. and hon. Members in this debate, and also the continuing utility of these provisions.

[Julian Smith]

It will be almost two years since the Liberal Democrats and one or two other Members scuppered the Communications Data Bill. What is the Minister’s assessment of the risk of waiting until next year, because my concern is that the enemy is not going away?

[James Brokenshire]

This issue is not going away, and we need to make further changes. I can see the eroding capability of our law enforcement and security agencies. While this plugs an element, there is still more to be done to ensure that our police and security services are able to protect us, and that there is evidence that can be presented in court. On these issues relating to communications data, we are talking about evidence, not merely intelligence. These are hard pieces of information that can be presented in court to secure prosecutions. This is really essential because of the underpinning that it provides to our prosecutorial system.

The Bill does not incorporate provisions on weblogs, but apps and weblogs can be directly instructive in this respect, and the House will need to confront that in, I hope, an informed way. The reviews that the Intelligence and Security Committee and David Anderson are undertaking will inform that debate rather than its being completely informed by belief or emotion, important as those elements are to ensure that it is properly reflective of the view of our communities and the public. We must ensure that the facts are there as we examine the picture, in order to provide the basis for a rational debate when the House considers the legislation it will need to pass before December 2016.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

We are all aware that Eurotunnel is expanding its services, with more train services going to the continent. Will the Minister confirm that the provisions will apply to those services?

[James Brokenshire]

Under existing regulations and requirements, existing Eurostar and freight services through the channel tunnel are already obliged to meet security requirements on screening and other steps. The intent behind the provisions in the Bill is to look to a future where we have open access, and ensure we have the ability to impose similar controls, assurances and protections in relation to security. It is precisely for that future-proofing that we are introducing the provisions. I hope that explanation is helpful to the Committee.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Julian Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

As the Home Secretary said, it is the responsibility of Government to protect the liberty and the security of our people, to protect our communities from extremism and terror threats, and to protect our liberty and our democratic values so that the terrorists and extremists do not win. At a time when the terror threat has grown, more action is needed to make sure that the police, the security agencies and other organisations have the powers that they need to protect us, but also to make sure that we have sensible safeguards in place—the right kinds of checks and balances to prevent abuse.

We will support this Bill because it responds to new and changing threats and also corrects some past mistakes, but we believe that amendments are needed in some areas to make the measures more effective or to ensure that sufficient checks and balances are in place to prevent powers from being abused and discredited, thus undermining the fight against extremism.

Last week’s Intelligence and Security Committee report on the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby provided stark evidence of the serious challenges that our security services and police face in keeping us safe. It is a 24 hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year job, and every decision is loaded with doubt. Today we should pay tribute to their quiet stoicism and heroism. This year alone, the Metropolitan police has made 270 arrests following counter-terrorism investigations. Along with our agencies, it has disrupted several attack plots, including plots against those whose very job it is to protect our communities.

That job of protecting us all from terrorism has become increasingly difficult in the face of the growth of ISIL and its barbarous brand of terror. As the Home Secretary said, the Government believe that about 500 people have travelled to Syria, with about half having already returned to the UK. However, this problem is not unique to Britain. The United Nations estimates that foreign fighters from 80 countries may be in the region, mainly fighting for ISIL. France estimates that 900 French nationals are fighting in the region. Belgium, Sweden, Denmark and Finland have all seen significant numbers of their citizens go to fight. Many countries across Europe are introducing new policies and legislation to address the problem and we should work with them as they do so. We have also seen, through the awful propaganda videos, what people have become involved in, including beheadings, kidnaps and brutalising whole communities in Syria and Iraq.

Of course, a foreign policy response is required to defeat ISIL in the region and to strengthen the Governments who will have to fight them. A humanitarian response is also needed to try to save the lives of communities in the path—or, worse, the wake—of ISIL’s advance. The Home Secretary’s policy of taking only 90 of the most vulnerable refugees from Syria, in parallel with the UN programme, is shameful. Other countries are doing far more, and she was urged to do far more as well. She has the opportunity at next week’s Geneva conference to change her approach, and I urge her to do so.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Does not the right hon. Lady accept that Britain is one of the leading donors to the provision of humanitarian relief to Syria, and will she not celebrate that fact?

[Yvette Cooper]

The Government have rightly provided a very strong response in the region and support for those who are fleeing the conflict. Members on both sides of the House have supported the Government in doing so and call on them to continue to do so. Twelve months ago, however, Members on both sides of the House also called on the Government to do more to help the most vulnerable Syrian refugees who struggle to cope in the camps, and I do not believe that the Government are doing what they undertook to do 12 months ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and by the time the Bill gets to Committee, the House needs to know whether there have been discussions with other countries, how those countries will respond, and what the level of co-operation will be.

My second question concerns what happens if the Home Secretary wants someone to return and be required to co-operate with the Channel programme, but does not want to delay their return. At the moment it appears that the order must be served and a permit applied for, and then the Home Secretary has to issue a permit, potentially introducing delays during which someone might abscond again. Is there any way to place requirements on someone once they return, without having to go through that further bureaucratic process at the airport? It appears from the Bill as though the Home Secretary cannot compel people to go to appointments at the police station or to comply with the Channel programme unless she also introduces bureaucratic delays with the application for a permit at the foreign airport. It would be helpful to know whether she has the power to allow someone to swiftly board the plane and also to introduce those powers.

Thirdly, what are the safeguards to prevent abuse? At the moment, temporary exclusion orders can be imposed by the Home Secretary on the basis of reasonable suspicion. That could include ongoing requirements for someone to attend regular appointments, or perhaps even to report daily to the police for two years after their return. There is no ability to appeal when someone returns—for instance, if they have been involved in humanitarian work in the region—and if the orders are breached, the penalty is the same as for breaching a TPIM. I think the Home Secretary should consider that further, because for TPIMs a judicial process rightly has to be satisfied. For a temporary exclusion order there is no judicial oversight, yet penalties for breach are the same. We believe that the powers need to be debated in detail in Committee to ensure they are effective, cannot be abused, and involve appropriate oversight. In response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), we will be tabling amendments on judicial oversight.

Finally, I wish to raise an issue familiar to the House which was included in the original Communications Data Bill. That Bill was far too widely drawn, but there was wide consensus on the need for action on IP addresses, which had the support of the Joint Committee that considered the Bill. IP addresses are created and assigned automatically. Some companies retain those data, but some do not or routinely allocate multiple IP addresses to lots of people. That means that if an abusive image of a child has been sent from a particular IP address, agencies can struggle to discover who that address belongs to or where the child may be being abused. The Opposition support the principle behind that change, although I am sure it will need detailed scrutiny to ensure that the legislation does what is intended. We must be clear that simply having the technical and legal capability to do things is not sufficient as long as, for example, there are huge delays in the National Crime Agency investigating child abuse cases and passing them on to local forces.

[Julian Smith]

I may have interrupted the right hon. Lady at the wrong point, but I would be grateful if she could outline Labour’s view on communications data more generally, and say what measures she would support as we introduce further changes.

[Yvette Cooper]

We said some time ago that we would support measures on IP addresses, and that the whole area needs to be looked at by the independent reviewer. That is why we called for an overall review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by David Anderson, and insisted on that being included in the Bill. It is right to allow him to provide expert evidence on the way that the police and agencies are having difficulty keeping up with changing technology, and on the scale of the additional safeguards needed. In all those areas, strong powers may be needed in some cases, but we also need strong checks and balances and proper oversight. I think there are areas where sufficient checks and balances are not currently in place.

More action is needed to deal with the serious threats resulting from the conflict in Syria and the rise of ISIL. That means preventing radicalisation and dealing with people who pose a threat. It means having the right foreign policy and action in the region, but it also means ensuring that our laws at home are effective and proportionate, and that they cannot be abused, so that we do not let extremists threaten our democratic values, the protection of our historical liberties and our security.

At the beginning of this Parliament, the Home Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister were inclined to make grand, sweeping statements attacking previous Labour Governments, and to make strong party political claims about our counter-terror policy, be they about the Prevent strategy or control orders. The Opposition warned the Home Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister that that was not wise, because counter-terror policy is not easy; it requires care and thought. All Governments will get things wrong, and all parties will get things wrong. The Opposition will therefore work with the Home Secretary. We agree with her on some things, but we do not think she has got it right yet on others, and amendments are needed. Parliament as a whole must be thoughtful and responsible, because our liberty and security depend on each other. We need both in a democracy to keep us safe.

Historical Child Sex Abuse

Julian Smith Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Danczuk]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which has shone some light on the questions that need to be answered.

For every person who commits child abuse, very many people are complicit in that abuse or know information that could help, and it is absolutely vital that those people—they could be civil servants, cab drivers or even neighbours—come forward. More significantly, a large number of police officers, both retired and serving, have information to give. We simply need to get the full picture, and to get those people to speak at the inquiry. The Home Secretary must ensure that there is a full amnesty for any officer, so that they are not worried about the Official Secrets Act or their pensions.

We must make sure that we create the best possible conditions in which survivors can come forward and speak to the inquiry. I know how hard that will be for many of them. I have spoken to many survivors who have been silent for decades, and they are struggling to come to terms with what happened to them. That can be a hugely painful and traumatic experience. We need to provide full support and access to therapies that might be required by those people. We have failed them once, and we must not do so again.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the start of the hon. Gentleman’s speech.

On the issue of support, what is the hon. Gentleman’s view of the financial implications of what he is saying? It seems to me that there is a need for money to support counselling services across this whole area. Will he say what money might be needed for the survivors in relation to the inquiry?

[Simon Danczuk]

I have made no calculation of what the cost might be of therapies or support for the survivors, but it is minuscule in comparison with the damage done to them. I have no doubt that the Home Office will consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Another group of people should come forward to the inquiry—the perpetrators of child abuse. To those people, I would say: “I urge you to think about the people you have abused, and to think about your victims. Damaged as children, they continue to suffer now, well into their adult lives. You have inflicted untold misery on them and their families. In many cases, what you did has made it impossible for them to live normal lives. Now they must suffer again by coming forward and speaking about what you did to them. They will have tried desperately to bury the memories of abuse, but they will now have to drag them back into the light. They will have to relive that trauma. But you can spare them some of that suffering. You can come forward and admit your guilt. If you admit what you have done, some of that pain can be saved, and some people can begin to rebuild their lives. So I say again: as a perpetrator of these crimes, you must come forward to the inquiry and take responsibility for what you have done. You can never undo the wrong, but you can at least prevent further agony.”

So far, my speech has focused on the historical aspects of child abuse, but the grim reality is that child abuse is a fact of life for hundreds of children in modern Britain. In places such as Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford and Telford, children are still being abused. This is not a thing of the past; this is happening to our children in our towns now.

We know from the Jay report on Rotherham that there were more than 1,400 victims over a six-year period in just one town. The Communities and Local Government Committee, on which I sit, conducted an inquiry into Rotherham, and our findings were worrying. The same failures and bad practices that allowed children to be abused in Rotherham are common across local government areas. Rotherham is simply the tip of the iceberg. We are yet to discover the true horrific extent of child abuse in this country. When it is revealed, nobody will be in any doubt that this is one of the most appalling crimes of our times.

In these circumstances, it is vital that the police get to grips with the issue and that resources are made available to solve abuse cases and catch the abusers. I am not convinced that that is happening. I have spoken to serving Met police officers, and they have described in graphic detail abuse crimes that are being committed, but are being ignored. I have the same concerns with regard to Greater Manchester police, my local force.

Victims have been ignored by the police because they were poor, white, working-class kids. Police and social workers have insulted them and left them to be abused. The survivors—often as young as 11—were accused of making lifestyle choices. The attitude in one agency was so warped that when an abuser got a young victim pregnant for the second time, the social worker insisted that the rapist, who was married with a family of his own, should attend the antenatal classes. I am still struggling to believe that such a culture could exist in our public services. As a result of that culture, the police failed to arrest rapists, who moved on to new victims year in, year out, and the perpetrators’ confidence was bolstered so that they thought they were untouchable.

My own town of Rochdale has also suffered from this crime. Not only did Cyril Smith and others abuse children in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, but we had the Rochdale grooming scandal just a few years ago. It does not stop there. Yesterday, eight men were arrested across Rochdale, Oldham and Manchester, accused of grooming three children—one was 15, and two were just 13—in our town. I am glad that the police are acting and making arrests, but it is shocking that after all the town has been through, people are still out there trying to sexually abuse children on our streets. In this case, the abuse is alleged to have occurred between September and October this year, so the accusation is that at the very time we were all learning about the horrendous abuse in Rotherham, these men were still brazenly continuing their abuse. It is just sickening.

Before I bring my remarks to a close, I want to reflect for a moment on the consequences of child abuse. It is a difficult and distressing subject. I know that it is all too easy to turn away from the distasteful headlines and harrowing stories, and to think that it is something that will never touch us. We think that this kind of abuse could never happen in our town or to anyone we know, but it affects all of us. Child abuse ruins lives, strips people of their dignity and is creating a growing underclass of people who have been abused.

We must think about the consequences of child rape: it sets people back in school and damages their life chances; it pushes people to the margins of society, where they often end up involved in crime and drugs, putting pressure on the police and other agencies; and it leaves people with terrible physical problems, often preventing them from having children of their own. It is a crime that stores up all sorts of problems that are felt across society. Like all violent, senseless crimes, its consequences are felt long after the crime is committed. The psychological damage that it causes to survivors is impossible to overestimate.

With that in mind, and considering the hurdles that we must cross to get the inquiry moving, I am hopeful that the whole House will unite and renew its efforts to bring justice to the victims of child abuse. The survivors are crying out to be heard. It is time we started listening.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am delighted that we are having this debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for helping to bring it about. He was one of the gang of seven who went to see the Home Secretary initially to impress upon her the need to have an overarching inquiry, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who are in the Chamber today.

This is a hugely important subject. As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, the permanent secretary at the Home Office agreed at the Home Affairs Committee this week that it is one of the top three priorities of the Home Office. All of us in this Chamber and our colleagues beyond have constituents who have been the victims and who are the survivors of child sexual abuse that goes back many years. People from my patch have certainly contacted me. Those of us who were at the vanguard of the call for the inquiry have received many harrowing tales from survivors up and down the country.

It is useful briefly to remind ourselves of why the inquiry is so essential. Over the past two and a quarter years, since that extraordinary ITV programme in October 2012 that started to unpeel the horrific, systematic, serial child abuse by one Jimmy Savile, the whole situation has changed and the floodgates have opened. A string of celebrities followed on from Jimmy Savile, including Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris. Investigations have been renewed, reviewed and re-uncovered with Operation Pallial on care homes, Operation Fairbank and Operation Fernbridge. There have been inquiries involving schools, such as Operation Flamborough, which is investigating alleged assaults on girls with learning difficulties at a Hampshire boarding school, and the investigations into Fort Augustus Abbey school, Carlkemp school, Kesgrave Hall school and Chetham’s school of music, where there were a series of abuses by music tutors who had the opportunity, when teaching on a one-to-one basis, to take advantage of vulnerable children.

Of course, there was the tragic suicide of Frances Andrade when all that was uncovered. We have heard about the historical abuse in our religious institutions. There have been criminal investigations into the Catholic Church, including in my diocese of Chichester, where people have ended up in jail and where other investigations are ongoing. There has been Operation Retriever and the more recent child sexual exploitation by Asian gangs and others in Rochdale and Rotherham. We have had Operation Bullfinch and Operation Chalice. It goes on and on.

We must remember that this matter has more recently, not least through the hard work of the hon. Member for Rochdale, started knocking on the door of politics and Westminster. We must not be afraid of that.

[Julian Smith]

My hon. Friend might be coming to this point, but does he agree that it is vital that we leave no stone unturned in getting to the bottom of what has happened in this place? It has to be an absolute priority for the inquiry to find out what has happened and, potentially, what is happening in the corridors of power.

[Tim Loughton]

That is entirely the point that the hon. Member for Rochdale made. It is not in the interests of any one of us who is in politics or in Parliament to stand by while suspicions and allegations of child sexual abuse involving politicians, dead or alive, are ignored. We need to root out this cancer. A child sexual abuser who happens to have been a politician is no less of a vile criminal than Jimmy Savile, a rogue priest or any other subject of the overarching inquiry. Those who think that we would want to cover up the involvement of other politicians in this abuse need to understand that this cancer tarnishes all of us and needs to be cut out. We have more incentive than many to ensure that we leave no stone unturned, however uncomfortable the findings may be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Law Officers in the present Government have chased many of these individuals, and they have a list. However, what we need is an inquiry—conducted by the Attorney-General rather than the Home Office—into the sentences imposed, compared with those that are available.

My hon. Friend spoke of 50,000 indecent images. Judging by many cases that I have looked into, 50,000 is a drop in the ocean. Some of these individuals have hundreds of thousands of images, which may run into the millions. What they do with them is beyond me, but they have them, and we have changed the law so that we can now have access to them. They may not be accessible because they have been encrypted, but another recent change in the law, which I initiated, means that these individuals can be sent to jail for failing to allow the encryption to be broken.

I did not ask Bob, the policeman, for a definition of “paedophile”. Perhaps I should have, because there are various definitions. For the purposes of the inquiry, it needs to be recognised that the vast majority of child abuse, and child sex abuse, happens in families—including extended families—and not in institutions. The inquiry should not forget, and we should not forget, that there is more going on outside institutions than inside them. Having said that, however, I should add that, historically as well as today, predatory paedophiles—both male and female—can and do use institutions in which they are in a position of trust as their field of operations.

[Julian Smith]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend saw a Channel 4 documentary entitled “The Paedophile Hunter” earlier this week. It raised some quite concerning issues relating to how we as a country have dealt with paedophiles, and referred to academic research which suggested that we should be doing more of what is being done in Germany—helping paedophiles who want to come forward and be given counselling to do so. What conclusions has my hon. Friend reached about the validity of such work?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

There was a similar programme on Channel 4 about paedophiles as neighbours. The individual in the Channel 4 programme went to Germany, but he did not need to do so. The facilities are available in this country, and have been for a considerable time. They are used in the Prison Service, for instance, and in a world-famous organisation called the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. The system works rather like Alcoholics Anonymous, and the success rate is very high. The problem with the success rate is the cherry-picking, but that does not bother me. If such organisations catch these individuals early enough and stop them, they are being proactive, and that is what we really want.

On occasion, Bob McLachlan would catch these individuals before they did anything and say, “Lad, go and get treatment. If you don’t go and get treatment, I’ll take you to court. If I catch you a second time, you’re going to court.” I have drifted a little way from what I was saying.

In debates such as today’s, Members may be tempted—we have had a bit of this—to add to the inquiry. My only addition relates to the members of the team. It does not have, as the Northern Ireland one does, a highly experienced and recently retired police officer expert in this area. No one on that team has actually looked for these people, arrested them, talked to the victims as part of the campaign and the whole programme. I hope that the Home Office will think about that.

The Northern Ireland inquiry was wise enough to take on an expert who served for many years with the Met police. He is a very recently retired Met DCI who is renowned for his success not only in catching and convicting offenders but in caring for and helping victims, introducing new systems—for example, face recognition—at the Met to find victims. The fact that his nickname in the police is Postman Pat indicates how he is able to approach both victims and offenders so successfully. I do not know how he does it. He interviews victims and they warm to him. He interviews the paedophiles and they warm to him until he reaches the point where he has to leave the room because he feels absolutely disgusted. I can say that now because he is no longer doing it.

I hope we recognise that if we have a decent report on the issue it will probably resemble the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” in volume. I also suspect that the inquiry will report in 2016 if we are lucky, 2017 possibly, but probably even later if it is to be of real value. The inquiry team has a vital role in listening to victims and unearthing currently hidden activities in institutions, as set out in the terms of reference. Merely listening to victims will enable help to be provided to them, as well as potential lines of investigation to be passed to the police. As I said earlier, people will be encouraged to go to the police of their own accord. However, we must recognise that over the past 10 to 12 years there have been huge changes in the protection of children. There have been massive changes in legislation, which I am proud to say I have had a subtle, low-profile hand in putting through. There have been massive changes in attitude and public awareness, and the number of officials, especially police, in this field has gone up enormously. CEOP has been set up, and I believe that all police forces now have paedophile units. They did not 20 years ago. The Met and Birmingham units were the only ones. The Met unit is probably more than 10 times the strength it was when I visited it on that first day of shock. In addition, the Met have their Jigsaw team throughout London, actively monitoring those on the offenders list.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) mentioned the individual who came out of prison after nine months. It is not finished for him. He will be being watched by the Jigsaw team. We can guarantee that the moment he steps out of line he will be back there.

It is probable that the inquiry will rehash lessons we have already learnt but, probably more usefully—my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham touched on this—it will show where we have the legislation and experience and we are not using it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

I have had experience in my constituency recently of working with a victim and the police were asking the victim I was trying to help for details of the conversations she had had with me. We still face a major issue with some elements in the police of interference and of a lack of understanding of the relationship between an MP and others, independent of the work that they are doing.

[Zac Goldsmith]

My hon. Friend makes the point well and puts it on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this debate, which is on the progress of the historical child abuse inquiry. I pay tribute to him for his doughty campaigning on child abuse since entering the House of Commons, and for telling the real story about Cyril Smith.

It is right to acknowledge that in his opening speech my hon. Friend set the tone for what has been a good and important debate. He started his speech by describing the experience of survivors. He talked about William and about John and the life chances that had been limited by the people who abused them. I want to use my speech this afternoon to focus on survivors in relation to the inquiry.

We have heard powerful speeches from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who brings a wealth of experience as a former children’s Minister, and the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who has introduced many changes to the law to protect children over the years. He is another doughty fighter on behalf of children and young people. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) spoke eloquently about what he knew had happened in his constituency and the Elm guest house allegations. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has spoken on many occasions about these issues.

What is powerful about all the speeches is that they were informed in the main by the stories of survivors of abuse. The House owes a huge debt to the survivors, who have shown enormous courage in coming forward, in the hope that their experience can prevent what happened to them from happening again, and that justice can, wherever possible, be done. This debate and the wider inquiry that we are discussing have to have at their heart the survivors’ voices. I want to thank all those people who have taken the time to speak to me and tell me what they want to see out of this child abuse inquiry, including Peter Saunders of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood and Andrew Kershaw of the Survivors of Forde Park, both of whom have done so much to give a voice to those abused as children.

Having listened to the debate today, the Minister can be in no doubt about the commitment of hon. Members to the success of this child abuse inquiry and to ensuring that it has the confidence of survivors. Hon. Members appreciate the scale of the task facing the inquiry panel and the need for the panel to carry out the inquiry in a timely manner, as we know that many perpetrators are growing older and must be brought to justice wherever possible.

Along with the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), many Members have been calling for the overarching inquiry for about two years, so when the Home Secretary announced that she would set it up, that was welcomed across the House. As we know, however, she appointed a chair without proper vetting or consultation. After that sorry saga, we ended up, unbelievably, in the same position with a second chair. We know that the Home Secretary apologised for that and is trying to make sure that from now on there is proper consultation and vetting of the prospective chair. I listened to what the permanent secretary at the Home Office told this place this week, when he said that the child abuse inquiry would be one of the top three issues for the Home Office. That is encouraging to hear.

In relation to the chair, perhaps the Minister will be able to help the House. I understand that about 100 nominations have been made. With due diligence checks and the pre-appointment consultation and hearings that have been scheduled, a chair is unlikely to be in place before the spring of 2015. Will the Minister comment on that timetable?

Although I have just mentioned how important it is to make sure that a chair is appointed as soon as possible, that is not nearly as important as making sure that the survivors of abuse have a voice in the inquiry and that they are involved in discussions about how the inquiry is to proceed. That has not happened enough, which is a problem. It was a fundamental mistake not to consult survivors about the panel members. Although I accept that all the panel members have a great deal to commend them, survivors tell me that they would like to have been consulted. I noted that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that MPs were asked for their opinion and for any suggestions. That is welcome, but the Government missed a trick by not making sure that survivors were also consulted about panel members. As all hon. Members will recognise, if the inquiry is to succeed, survivors must have confidence in the panel to which they will give evidence.

A number of hon. Members referred to the terms of reference. Again, I note that there was no consultation with survivors about the terms of reference for the inquiry. One issue that I would like to take up with the Minister is the cut-off date of 1970. The Home Secretary has said that if that cut-off date is a problem, she will listen to any representations in favour of taking it back further that the chair considers appropriate, but I wonder why the date of 1970 was chosen. I was told just this week that approved schools where a number of children and young people were abused closed in 1969, so they would not come within the scope of the terms of reference. The survivors feel that their experience would not automatically be considered by the panel. Will the Minister explain to the House why 1970 was the date chosen? I have heard suggestions from survivors that the terms of reference should set a cut-off date just after the second world war, which would allow any person still living who has suffered abuse to come forward and feel that their experiences could be part of the inquiry.

Most importantly, I want to talk about how survivors’ voices should be heard in the inquiry. The hon. Member for Mole Valley referred to the experience in Northern Ireland. Its historical institutional abuse inquiry commenced, as he said, with an acknowledgement forum, for the purposes of listening to those who were abused as children in those institutions. That process has taken many months and allowed anyone who has been abused in institutions to come forward and be heard. The acknowledgment forum spoke to more than 500 people. That was not the end of its process of listening to survivors, but the start, informing the next stage of the inquiry, but still hearing from survivors directly.

Australia’s child abuse inquiry has been very good about moving around the country. It reached out to survivors, and the response has been overwhelming. It has taken 17,500 telephone calls, received more than 7,800 letters and e-mails and held over 2,500 private sessions. The English and Welsh inquiry, however, seems to have had two sessions in London and plans two more outside London. They appear to be open meetings. I am very unclear about what it is proposed should happen at those events. It feels to me that they are insufficient, and it is very unclear how they will support survivors who come forward. In Australia and Northern Ireland, people were asked to contact the inquiry, and the inquiry team then worked with individuals to enable them to give evidence in the most appropriate way. They were signposted to support and advice.

I do not think there is any point in proceeding with this inquiry until a process for involving and supporting survivors is established. Existing services, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, are stretched to breaking point, including NAPAC, which faces losing its offices early next year, at a time of unprecedented demand for its support.

[Julian Smith]

On the remarks that the hon. Lady has just made about the inquiry, which I am really pleased has started its work—the panel members got started on 12 November—are she and the Labour party recommending that that work should now be paused? Will she clarify her remarks?

[Diana Johnson]

The problem is that there seems to be a lack of clarity—probably because there is no chair in place—as to how the inquiry is going forward and what the purposes of the regional meetings are. I have asked a number of people to explain to me how those meetings will be conducted. If survivors are to come forward and give evidence at those meetings—I do not know whether that is their purpose—there is a concern about the lack of clarity and the lack of an agreed process as to how that is to be handled. That is why I wanted to refer to the Northern Ireland example, as it is very clear what it was going to do in that first period: hear from survivors so that it could get to grips with the extent of the problem through the evidence before it, which would then determine how the rest of the inquiry would proceed. My purpose in referring to that inquiry was to highlight the need for clarity on how proceedings should go on.

On the point about the support available to survivors, I think that we need a very clear process—this fits in with what the hon. Gentleman has just asked—for the inquiry, whereby survivors are fully involved and supported and it has their confidence. I think that we are all looking to ensure that survivors are in that position as the inquiry moves forward.

[Julian Smith]

The hon. Lady has still not directly answered my question about the Labour party’s view, given what she has said. Does she agree that it is very problematic to ask Ministers to micro-manage this inquiry? There are some very senior people on the panel, and they must now be able to get on with their work. Has she spoken directly to the panel members about their plans for the next few months?

[Diana Johnson]

I am not trying to imply that the Minister or the Home Secretary should micro-manage. I am merely highlighting where the inquiry is not operating in a clear way, such that survivors are saying that they are not sure what the process is or what the purpose of the regional meetings is. I think the problem stems from the fact that no chair is in place directing the inquiry. As I said, the chair may not be appointed for many months. That causes me some concern. I hope that the Minister will be able to assist us on what the Home Office and Ministers may be able to do to support the panel in making the process a bit clearer so that survivors really understand what is happening during this period.

We must make sure that survivors who come forward with their evidence are fully supported afterwards. I worry that the Home Secretary has talked about the NHS being part of providing that support, given that the NHS is under such stress, particularly in terms of counselling services, where there are often long waiting lists. What additional support will be available to survivors, and particularly to third sector groups?

This inquiry must aim to investigate historical child abuse, to try to bring justice to those who have seen justice denied for too long, and to inform current practice in the field of child protection to stop children being abused in future. While it is important to investigate historical allegations, we must never forget that children are still being abused today, as a number of hon. Members said.

I want to make a suggestion to the Minister about the way forward. While the main inquiry establishes a forum for hearing from survivors, in the first instance, the other inquiries that have been set up—such as the north Wales care homes inquiry, the BBC inquiry, and the ongoing NHS inquiries—would have time to conclude and to put forward their recommendations for a response. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) mentioned the potential confusion about how those other inquiries will fit with the overarching inquiry, and that is part of the overall problem of how this is going to work. The main inquiry could then commence in the position of having heard from survivors of abuse and seen the recommendations of the other inquiries and what they have come up with.

On the legal status of the inquiry, there is a particular issue relating to documents. Lawyers have told me that because the inquiry has not been put on a statutory footing, organisations could destroy documents with no legal consequences, whereas if it were to be put on a statutory footing, there would be criminal consequences for that type of behaviour. The Home Secretary has said that the chair can decide whether to make the inquiry statutory, so that suggests that her mind is open to it. However, as we know, the chair is unlikely to be appointed for many months, and lawyers are saying that in the meantime documents could be destroyed. The hon. Member for Richmond Park also raised this point. Will the Minister comment on it?

We need to hear from the Minister how she is going to make this inquiry work with the confidence of survivors, and how she will give survivors the voice that they deserve and that the inquiry has to hear. She needs to give us an overview of how she sees survivors being consulted and to explain how they will be listened to in the inquiry. I hope that she will also address the broader question of how the inquiry will build on the other inquiries already set up and work to inform best practice. The survivors need to know that this Government and this Parliament want the inquiry to succeed. We want to give survivors whatever redress is possible and to learn lessons so that these terrible situations do not arise in future.