Criminal Finances Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

I thank the Minister for that information, because I did go and read the final communiqué from the meeting in 2016, and while there was some mention of beneficial ownership and private registers, nothing in the communiqué mentioned any journey from private to public registers—the point I made a little earlier. I do welcome the progress that has been made, but, as I will go on to suggest, unless we link the efforts being made on private registers to the endgame of public registers, I fear that we will still have some of the problems that so many people on both sides of the House and outside it have been worried about for some years.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister has just told us that he did raise the issue of making the register of ownership public. If he was prepared to raise that issue two weeks ago, and if he is prepared to adopt that role of encouragement, would it not be better for him if he was supported in future by this Parliament through the very new clause we are debating?

[Caroline Flint]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Part of having this debate, and part of looking at ways to rephrase the original amendment, is about strengthening the arm of Ministers to say, “Look, we welcome the efforts on central registers, private registers and the automatic exchange of information, but we are on a journey. This is not the endgame; this is part of a journey to where we want to get to.” It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what the reaction was to the discussion of public registers at the meeting he mentioned.

The issue of central registers is important because, while there may be private registers, information may be held in different places. Private central registers are important because it helps to make things clearer, even in the private situation, if those who ask for information are able to get it. Also, if we do not have central registers, it will be even harder to make that journey to public registers if we want to do that in the future.

So how many of our overseas territories will provide central registers? Will the British Virgin Islands register be central? Not all of the overseas territories have indicated that this is the route they want to go down. That is why Ministers should be talking to them now about the journey to public registers. This is about the journey we are on. The way the private registers are put together, how they are held and how easy it is to access them for those who are going to have to ask for access are all pertinent to a future where public registers are available.

When the Minister responds to the new clause, I expect him to say how complicated this all is constitutionally. None of us who has signed the new clause wants the Orders in Council to be used. They are there as a backstop if the Government are unsuccessful in persuading the overseas territories to publish their registers. As I have said before, the new clause gives the overseas territories until the end of 2019 to act on their own.

However, the fact is that we cannot remove the possibility of using Orders in Council if we want to see more progress on the transparency agenda. The constitutional position on the overseas territories is very clear. A 2012 Government White Paper said:

“As a matter of constitutional law the UK Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for the Territories.”

There are multiple examples of the UK legislating for its overseas territories. In 2009, the UK imposed direct rule in the Turks and Caicos Islands, following allegations of corruption. In 2000, the UK Government decriminalised homosexual acts in the overseas territories using Orders in Council. In 1991, the UK Government, by Order in Council, abolished capital punishment for the crime of murder in Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, and the Turks and Caicos Islands. The exception was Bermuda, which is generally considered the most autonomous overseas territory, but the UK Government threatened to impose change, which had the desired effect of ensuring changes in domestic legislation.

On Second Reading and in Committee, the Minister was very clear that he wanted to see public registers in the overseas territories and was working to get them, so why has he scaled back on his ambitions in recent weeks? Undoubtedly, the UK Government need to work closely with our overseas territories to help them to diversify their economies away from a unique selling point of secrecy, and that will require a great deal of support.

As we look ahead to a global, post-Brexit Britain, let us seek to lead the world rather than just follow. Let us ensure that transparency is increased. Let us ensure a fair playing field for businesses and individuals across the world. Let us ensure that tax cheats, corrupt individuals, terrorists and organised criminals have nowhere to hide. For the benefit of UK taxpayers, for people in the developing world, and for the UK’s reputation and that of our overseas territories, let us not miss this opportunity. For all these reasons, I urge the House to support new clause 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

The first commitment is for the central register to be in place by June this year. Where overseas territories have trouble fulfilling that—for example, they just do not have the capacity to do it—we have offered help to allow them to do so. Hopefully that means that we will keep on target. As for setting a date for the public register, we first have to complete our own, and get it up and running. Once we know what challenges are involved in doing that and seeing how it works, we can have a grown-up discussion with our G20 partners about when they will do that. We should not just focus on the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Major economies, including our own, are guilty of allowing people to hide illicit funds, which is why we introduced this Bill. I suspect we will find many funds laundered not in those small overseas territories, but in some major economies in the G20. That is important.

[Mark Durkan]

A number of the Minister’s hon. Friends used the argument of competitive disadvantage when speaking against new clause 6. That is not an argument that the Minister has addressed at the Dispatch Box. Will he assure us that he is not saying that, when the time might be right in the future, and as long as any of the territories cite concerns about competitive disadvantage, the British Government would just back off?

[Mr Wallace]

We do have to recognise that there is a difference between secrecy and privacy; we have to respect that and to understand when privacy is an advantage and when it is being used secretly, to create a disadvantage or to avoid detection. So the difference between secrecy and privacy is not as straightforward as it would seem. In our lives, we all deserve some element of privacy. Shareholdings in some very major private companies, for example, are not listed—they have to be declared—and that has been established for many years.

[Mark Durkan]

Just to clarify the point, some of the Minister’s hon. Friends said that their grounds for not supporting new clause 6 were that these territories would be put at a competitive disadvantage if they had to move to public registers. Is that the Government’s case, or is that argument being made by his hon. Friends, but not from the Dispatch Box?

[Mr Wallace]

The United Kingdom Government do not think they are at a competitive disadvantage, and that is why we are progressing with a public register ourselves. However, we will lead by example and by peer-group pressure; we will not lead by imposition. That is fundamentally the difference between the Government and some Members of the House. That is how we are going to get there.

Unaccompanied Child Refugees

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend makes a helpful point. We want to make sure that the refugees who arrive here—children, families and adults—are looked after in the best tradition of the UK. I am delighted to hear of his personal involvement. I have heard fantastic stories about local churches and local charities stepping up and ensuring that these frightened families are really well looked after. We sometimes see the real best of British values.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

We are told that the scheme is not closed; it will just be capped and discontinued. Hearts seem to be closed—that is the message that is going out. The Home Secretary attributes a lot of calculation to those desperate, lonely children who are making their way back to the camps. Is it not the case that what we are being treated to is calculated indifference dressed up as a measured commitment? Will the Government do more in respect of both Dubs and Dublin?

[Amber Rudd]

It is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman clearly has not heard a word of what I have been saying about the efforts that the UK is going to, the generosity of local authorities, and the commitment from the international aid budget. Those are all strong pieces of evidence to show that this country and this Government are stepping up to their responsibilities.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

There are also funerals of men who have died. I am sure that that is just as uncomfortable an experience for their children. I am very sad that the hon. Lady does not recognise that, when a father dies, it is just as upsetting for the children as when a mother dies. I take issue with that premise.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

When the hon. Gentleman gives that crime statistic, is he trying to say that all those men have been made victims of crime because they are men? This Bill is about combating violence against women that is committed precisely because they are women and girls. That is not the case with the vast majority of crimes that he is talking about in those statistics.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is going down an interesting route, as he is basically saying that, no matter the injuries a person sustains in a violent attack, all we should be concerned about is the motivation. If the motivation is not what the hon. Gentleman thinks—[Interruption.] That is fair enough. It seems to me, though, that if somebody comes up to a person because they hate them and beats them to a pulp, the nuance of why they hate that person is less important than the scale of the injuries they suffer and the need for the person who perpetrated the crime to be punished. The hon. Gentleman clearly has a different opinion on that. I am more interested in the violence and the punishment of the perpetrator.

Orgreave

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The point that the Home Secretary was making, and that I have made today, is that we have looked at a whole range of factors. The comparison has been made with Hillsborough, but unlike at Hillsborough, there were no deaths or wrongful convictions as a result of Orgreave. Also, policing has changed dramatically in the years since then. That is why the Home Secretary’s decision, which had to be made in the wider public interest, is the right one, despite the fact that there is disagreement on it.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Today’s exchanges show that what the Minister has described as the Home Secretary’s “difficult decision” is hardly going to be received as an independent consideration. He has said a lot today about the public interest. Will he tell us which public interest would be compromised or undermined by a demonstrably independent and cost-effective review of these signal events?

[Brandon Lewis]

That is a very good question. This reminds me of a question I asked when I met the campaigners. I asked what they were hoping an inquiry would achieve. There were no wrongful convictions to correct, and there were no deaths to investigate. There was, however, a question about police behaviour. We can learn the lessons of the past and look at the behaviour, performance, structures and working of the police for the future. Things have changed dramatically in the past three decades, from the reforms in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 right through to the ones that we are introducing today. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to support us in our work on continuing with these important reforms.

Orgreave: Public Inquiry into Policing

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I recognise that this has been a long time in coming—the incident happened of course in 1984. The previous Home Secretary met the campaign group in July last year. Six months later, it came back with the evidence, so we have had that since the end of last year. I have decided that I will look at it over the summer—it is substantial—and will meet the campaign group in September. I will come to a decision as soon as I can after that. I hesitate to say anything firmer than that, but I reassure the hon. Lady that I will come to a decision as soon as I can.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the Home Secretary recognise that Orgreave was a scandalous episode that we will not get to the bottom of unless we get to the top of it? That is why many people are suspicious of any possible denial or deferral of a due inquiry.

[Amber Rudd]

I know about the concerns that the hon. Gentleman refers to when he says “the top of it” and that is what the IPCC is focused on. It is about looking at the connections between the Hillsborough inquiry that we have already had and Orgreave. I will not shy away from looking carefully at wherever there has been wrongdoing or wherever there are links.

EU Referendum: UK-Ireland Border

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) on securing the debate and his leadership on this important issue more widely.

Contrary to what we have just heard from the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), several serious concerns and questions have arisen since the Brexit outcome, and those have been addressed by people looking at these issues. He seems to blur and conflate the questions of a customs border, a migration border, the common travel area and the free movement of goods. Those things are distinct and should not be conflated. We had the common travel area in circumstances in which we still had customs borders and controls, and various exchange controls.

Committee B—the European affairs committee—of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which met in Malahide in the aftermath of the referendum, commissioned a report on visa systems. It is a very good report, and I commend it to the Minister, who has just taken up his post. If he wants a good understanding of the true history of the common travel area—without the false assumptions and impressions that are given, as though the area has had a singular, linear and even history, which it has not—he would do well to read that report. I pay tribute to that committee’s two current rapporteurs, Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD, who represents Sinn Féin in the Dáil, and Baroness Harris from the other House. Her predecessor as rapporteur was Lord German. The report is a very thorough investigation of the issues.

In case other hon. Members care to know this, the committee is chaired by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who was not in the alarmist camp in relation to the leave prospectus. The report states that

“as already noted, the Committee is not currently in a position to draw clear conclusions or make recommendation on the implications for the CTA of the UK leaving the EU. The Committee therefore hopes to explore this issue in more detail as part of any future inquiries it holds on the wider implications for British-Irish relations of the UK’s vote to leave the EU.”

Committee B will not be the only committee of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly to look at those issues, but it would be wrong of anybody to pretend that there are not issues or that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South is trying to conjure up or exaggerate some of these problems.

[Tom Elliott]

I hear an acceptance, at least, from both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) that the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union will be implemented. We are now talking about how that will be done and the mechanisms for doing that.

[Mark Durkan]

We are talking about the implications of the referendum result—a referendum, remember, that we were told at the time was constitutionally advisory. Let us be very clear that the people of Northern Ireland voted clearly to remain in the EU. They did so when they voted in the referendum, and they did so previously when they voted for the Good Friday agreement, which took the UK and Ireland’s common membership of the EU as a given. That is written into the fabric of the agreement between the two Governments; it is there in the preamble and it is there in strand 1, strand 2 and strand 3. That agreement itself depended on the principle of consent—the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, as well as the consent of the people of the south—and that consent was binding. It is a bit much for people to say that the rest of us should take it as a matter of passing lightness that Northern Ireland could be taken out of the EU against the clear wishes of its people and with potential damage to the Good Friday agreement.

Remember that, as well as the European Union being written into the Good Friday agreement, so too was the European convention on human rights, and we know that there are people in Government who want to dispose of that as well. Those are not mere stud walls to be knocked through but supporting walls of the institutions that we have and the Good Friday agreement, which was given democratic legitimacy—it is a democratic high-water mark—by the unique and overwhelming endorsement that it received from the people of Ireland, north and south, in 1998. No one has dared to contest that since. Those are not matters that we should in any way take as given.

Those who are now grinning like horses chewing thistles because they have got the leave result that they wanted cannot pretend that there are not issues and complications. The rest of us want to minimise and mitigate those, and ensure that people in Northern Ireland are in the best position. It is clear from what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South said that that is what we are doing. We are looking for flexibility and a space that allows us to maintain access to the EU and its benefits, which a majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to retain.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am not sure if you spent the weekend waiting for the phone to ring from No. 10, but the Government’s loss is this Chamber’s gain.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) on securing a debate on this important matter and I thank him for his kind words. Like him, I was on the remain side, but as the Prime Minister said, “Brexit means Brexit”. I spoke with the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland only this week. As my predecessor in this job, he offered me a few words of advice—I offered him a few words of advice about the delights of the Ulster fry—and he made it absolutely clear to me that he is 100% committed to serving the people of Ulster.

The border is not just about the movement of people, it is also about the flow of goods, services and trade. It is about allowing the people of the United Kingdom and Ireland to live and work closely together. The arrangements with Ireland have their roots in the political, cultural, social and economic ties between the UK and Ireland, and the EU referendum result does not and should not change that. The UK has always been an open and outward-looking country and a great global trading nation, and that is what we intend to continue to be. It is important to understand that we are still members of the EU, and nothing has changed in the way our people can travel, in the way our goods can move or in the way our services can be sold, including across the border with Ireland and to the common travel area. I welcome trucks from the Republic of Ireland travelling on the roads of Northern Ireland, not least because they are paying the HGV levy, which helps to defray the cost of maintaining and modernising those particular roads. That was actually one of my ideas when I worked in the Department for Transport.

The common travel area arrangement predates the EU, and we remain committed to it. The Prime Minister spoke with the Taoiseach last Wednesday underlining that commitment. We have the full support of the Irish Government in working with us to preserve that arrangement during the negotiation of the UK’s exit from the EU, and work is already under way.

Since 1922, the position of Irish citizens in the UK and the citizens of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in Ireland has been unique. Nationals of each country are treated virtually identically to citizens, with an openness of travel between the two states. The absence of immigration controls has been commonplace since that date. We want to protect the principle of free, unhindered travel between Ireland and the United Kingdom—both north-south and east-west. Our relationship with Ireland is special and it should remain so. Air passenger numbers between Ireland and the UK are 10 million to 12 million a year, and passenger ferries between Ireland and Great Britain carry around 2.8 million passengers per year. However, the border is not just about the movement of people; it is also about the flow of goods, services and trade. We want to protect and enhance those benefits. Bilateral trade in both directions between Ireland and the UK is worth more than €60 billion a year. The UK is Ireland’s biggest trading partner.

The significance of the common travel area arrangement is perhaps felt most keenly at the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland—a border more than 270 miles long that meanders across the island of Ireland, cutting across some 180 roads and covering all types of terrain. On a relatively short journey, the border can be crossed several times. A considerable number of border crossings each day are undertaken by British and Irish citizens going about their daily lives. On average, there are nearly 17,000 daily vehicle crossings across the land border. In 2014, it is estimated that 13,200 long-term migrants arrived in Northern Ireland from Ireland and 10,500 moved in the opposite direction. The border today is invisible, with substantial cross-border movement and increasing business, cultural and economic links—all of which is good. A return to customs points, passport checks and a hard border would be a critical economic issue for Northern Ireland and is not wanted by any. All political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government share a vision of peace and prosperity.

The common travel area arrangement was preserved when the UK and Ireland joined the European Union, and we will look to preserve it again, now that the UK is negotiating to leave. We will be looking to preserve the position recognised by the protocols to the European Union treaties—namely, that the UK and Ireland

“may continue to make arrangements between themselves relating to the movement of persons between their territories”.

We share with Ireland an objective of preserving the common travel area and an open border on the island of Ireland, working together to avoid the imposition of hard border controls. For his part, the Taoiseach has been very clear that he wants to minimise any possible disruption to the flow of people, goods and services across the border. Indeed, I hope to have an early meeting with the Tánaiste to underline the importance of continued co-operation.

At a senior officials meeting in Dublin the week after the referendum, it was agreed that the UK and Ireland would work together on priority areas within the British-Irish relationship in the forthcoming negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU. Three priority areas identified were: the common travel area and borders and customs issues; Northern Ireland and north-south issues; and bilateral security co-operation. The Government will ensure that the interests of all parts of the UK are protected and advanced as preparations are made for a new negotiation with the EU, protecting what the Prime Minister has called the “precious bond” between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and between “every one of us”. Maintaining the long tradition of operational co-operation will be an important element of ongoing UK-Ireland collaboration to secure and strengthen the common travel area and to prevent the imposition of UK border controls.

[Mark Durkan]

I note what the Minister has said about developing and strengthening the common travel area. Of course, the common travel area does not apply in terms of visas for visitors coming in from outside Britain and Ireland, except for Chinese and Indian visitors. Will he, in his new role, look at ensuring that similar flexibility can be available to people such as the Chernobyl children who visit on a charity basis? They are not allowed to come in from Donegal to avail themselves of offers of swimming or bowling in a place like Derry because they need a separate UK visa. Similarly, visa systems mean that refugees from Syria who are on either side of the border, with some in Letterkenny and some in Derry, are not allowed to cross the border to meet one another.

[Mr Goodwill]

Those are all areas we can review. Indeed, they may well be a central part of the negotiations. The UK now has to raise its horizons to a global level. Travel and trade between the big trading blocs in the world are opportunities we must take. I commend the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for the passion with which he spoke about the opportunities of Brexit and not just the Private Frazer doom and gloom we have heard from some others in the debate.

We must continue to protect our borders and the public from the threat posed to both the UK and Ireland from criminals and terrorists who may seek to enter the common travel area and do harm. There is a considerable amount of joint working and shared policy between common travel area members to secure the CTA external border—for example, investment in border processes; increased data sharing to inform immigration and border security decisions; interoperable passenger data systems; and harmonised visa policy and processes.

At the end of March, Ireland passed legislation that allows the UK to require carriers to provide advance passenger information on UK-Ireland journeys where collected by the carrier. A joint British-Irish visa scheme is an innovative scheme that shows just what can be achieved when the UK and Ireland work together in our shared interest. The scheme currently allows Indian and Chinese nationals who are issued visit visas for one country to also visit the other. That promotes tourism in both countries and is an important and expanding part of the Northern Ireland economy, which we are keen to see grow further.

Preparations for the negotiations to leave the EU must involve all the devolved Administrations, to ensure that the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom are properly taken into account. The UK Government are committed to working with the devolved Administrations as we prepare for a new negotiation with the EU.

Persecution of Religious Minorities: Middle East

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am extremely grateful to be called in this very important debate. I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing it forward and for the leadership that he displays on this issue, alongside many others in the House. The salience of this issue means that it has been spoken about many times both in the Chamber and in this place, and the story of recent years is a tragic one. It reflects the importance of the issue against the historical backdrop.

I welcome the Minister to his new role. He has always been a good and decent Minister in any Department, so we welcome his leadership at the Home Office.

The middle east has suffered at the hands of sectarian and religious-based conflict for centuries. Sadly, religious persecution remains a prevalent issue across the region. Minorities have suffered from sectarian strife, with whole communities being destroyed in Iraq. Up to half of Christians have fled, many to Syria, where today they face new threats. The situation greatly deteriorated last year with the escalation in the conflict and the rise of Daesh.

Daesh has been one of the most lethal organisations in the history of the middle east and is engaged in the persecution of anyone who does not espouse its medieval, corrupt and extreme Islamist theology. It has particularly targeted minority religious and ethnic communities, including the Christian, Yazidi, Shi’a, Turkmen and Shabak communities, who are especially vulnerable. Daesh has threatened the whole region, but Iraq’s stability has been at particular risk from this abhorrent organisation.

Human rights and religious freedoms have been threatened—Daesh’s violent religious and political ideology allows no space for religious diversity or freedom of thought or expression. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) mentioned, the group has deliberately expelled minority communities from their historic homelands, forced them to convert to its version of Islam, raped and enslaved women and children, and tortured and killed community members. It has deliberately targeted Iraq’s smallest religious minority communities. That could well mark the end of the ancient religious pluralism displayed by communities in northern Iraq.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this scourge has contributed to more than 3.3 million internally displayed people within Iraq alone, who have fled their homes since January 2014, in addition to the more than 1 million people who remain displaced since the sectarian conflicts of the mid-2000s. There are 230,000 Iraqi refugees in countries across the region. It is important to note that these are only the Iraqis registered by the UNHCR in camps in Egypt, Gulf Co-operation Council countries, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey. As the International Development Committee recently noted, many refugees, particularly Christians, avoid refugee camps out of fear of persecution, and so, many vulnerable people may not even be considered for resettlement—as refugees in host communities are less visible to relevant authorities. We, as an international community, need more creative solutions to assist those people, although that is not to say that those in refugee camps are not also vulnerable and in need of refuge. In this country, our response should include a modest extension of our current Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme.

The House recently unanimously voted to describe what is being done to Yazidis, Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq and Syria as

“genocide at the hands of Daesh”.

Estimates put the number of Yazidis in Iraq at between 500,000 and 700,000, with the vast majority concentrated in northern Iraq, in and around Sinjar. In Syria, the number of Yazidis is estimated to be a tenth of that. Despite the fact that the majority of Yazidis in the region are overwhelmingly Iraqi, they are not eligible for the VPRS, simply because they do not live in Syria.

In 2015, 102 Iraqi refugees were resettled under the Gateway protection programme and four under the Mandate scheme and 216 grants of asylum or other forms of protection, at initial decision, were given to Iraqi nationals. In contrast, official statistics show that, by the end of March 2016, nearly 1,900 Syrians had been resettled under the VPRS in the UK, including 1,602 who arrived since October 2015. The current levels of resettlement in the UK provide persecuted Iraqi minorities considerably lower levels of protection than Syrians. That is a simple fact, and it is particularly disconcerting given that Syrian and Iraqi minorities have both suffered from Daesh. The former can qualify as part of the 20,000 that the previous Prime Minister spoke of. To be consistent and fair as a country, as we should be in the world community, the VPRS should be extended to include Iraqi minorities suffering from Daesh.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

On that point, and the hon. Gentleman’s previous point that many people of a particular religious persuasion are not going to the camps because they feel at risk, does he recognise that that is particularly true of women and girls, because of the threat that they face? Does he also recognise that the German Government have been much more responsive in respect of Yazidis and other Iraqis, not only offering them refugee access but making sure that they have pathways to counselling and therapy?

[Mr Shuker]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The particular vulnerability suffered by women and girls is visible inside and outside the camps. They also need safe passage to areas where they may gain asylum. Some scary numbers—for example, the number of young women travelling into Europe and disappearing, many of whom will inevitably be forced to trade their own bodies to enable their survival—should make us especially concerned about that group.

On the Iraqi minorities and the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, we should consider that the previous Prime Minister himself drew no distinction between either side of the “line in the sand” between Iraq and Syria. Indeed, this Parliament determined, in its decision on air strikes in Syria, that if Daesh were not respecting that line in the sand, neither should we in our counter-extremism tactics. We need to respond to that inconsistency in the existing VPRS.

Whatever people’s view of the decision in 2003—personally, I was opposed to the war in Iraq at the time—we have a continuing responsibility to the sovereign state of Iraq. The UK should not absolve itself of responsibility, especially given the recent Chilcot finding that the UK decision to embark on the programme of de-Ba’athification and the demobilisation of the Iraqi army exacerbated sectarian divisions, contributing to many of the problems in Iraq today. Making Iraqis eligible for resettlement through a modest extension of the VPRS is an appropriate and modest response, and entirely consistent with the decent man that I know the Minister to be.

Independent Advocates for Trafficked Children

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I believe that it is not the first occasion, but I hope it is not the last. I welcome the opportunity for the House to focus on what we all agree is a most challenging and important topic, and for me to set out clearly the Government’s position.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing the debate and on her contribution to this country’s leading work on modern slavery and human trafficking. Through her position as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern day slavery and on the Modern Slavery Bill Committee, she has contributed more than many other people and deserves great credit. There are other Members, both here and in the other place, who have also devoted themselves to promoting the issue of child victims of trafficking and making their lives better. I have been grateful for and impressed by the individual and collective achievements on the issue.

Let me be clear from the outset: supporting trafficked children remains a key priority for the Government. I appreciate how many hon. Members are impatient for progress—so am I. We are talking about a vulnerable group of children, who deserve the utmost support and protection. We must ensure that our response is the right one to best support trafficked children. I value the conversations that I have had with many Members who are here today, with those in the other place and with other key stakeholders including Barnardo’s, to which I pay tribute for its work on the trial, ECPAT, UNICEF and the independent anti-slavery commissioner. We have discussed the critical issues and developed better solutions, and I am particularly grateful for all the frankness and honest insights.

The right hon. Member for Slough and others have referred to the delay. It is not a delay to procrastinate; it is about getting it right. She mentioned the Government’s commitment to report in March. I had hoped that we could fulfil that commitment but, when her all-party group and others voiced significant concerns, I did not want to make an announcement that we would need to go back on. I wanted to work with her and other stakeholders to ensure that we got it right.

I do not intend to go into the details of the trial but I want to address a few points regarding its effectiveness. I have listened carefully today and in earlier discussions, and although many good things came from the trial, I cannot agree that it was an unequivocal, resounding success. The outcomes were equivocal. The trial showed some benefits—the children felt listened to and other professionals reported that the advocates were able to co-ordinate different agencies effectively—but in other areas, there were severe limitations.

The evaluation raised a number of operational issues that required further work, including the process for referring children to advocates; the high incidence of missing children, which I will come to shortly; the fact that advocates did not have the legal powers that had been invested in them by the Modern Slavery Act; and the fact that, in some areas, the service was not visible to many agencies.

The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) expressed concern about whether the country was compliant with the EU directive. We are already fully compliant with the EU directive and the Council of Europe convention. Existing provisions ensure that the relevant statutory agencies meet the international obligations. With the trials, we are looking to do additional work to support trafficked children over and above those obligations.

I have to disagree that children going missing is just something that will happen. We should not see that as acceptable. I understand that there is a problem, and I have a round-table discussion on missing children later this week. I am determined that we make the police response and other responses to missing children part and parcel of everyday work. Those are the children who are trafficked. They are the adults who have mental health problems and find themselves locked up in police cells when they should not be. They are the children who are sexually exploited. We cannot stand by and say that it is acceptable that children go missing. A child’s safety and welfare must be the overriding consideration of any child in the care of the Government, where we are acting as their parent.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I have not heard anyone suggest today that it is somehow acceptable that children are going missing. What people find unacceptable is that the enforcement and implementation of section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act is missing. There seems to be dereliction in the name of perfection. The fact that the pilot showed a need for improvement does not disprove the need for the provisions of section 48.

[Karen Bradley]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will address the next steps later in my speech.

EU Migrants: National Insurance Numbers

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Obviously, one of the key elements is that we need a strong economy to be able to support our public services. As for the pressures on particular communities, the Government are introducing a controlling migration fund to assist those that may be specifically affected by population increases linked to migration, and we will continue with reforms to control migration.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister knows that I represent a border constituency with a natural hinterland. I have constituents who cannot get national insurance numbers. They have worked in the south and are pensioned from the south, but they pay tax in the UK and have been issued with UK tax numbers under double taxation rules. However, they cannot get national insurance numbers. Can the Minister assure me that the sensitivity around the statistics and the nonsense about EU migrants are not factors in their predicament?

[James Brokenshire]

I will certainly ensure that his comments about people’s ability to obtain national insurance numbers are passed on to colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions. I point the hon. Gentleman to the ONS’s clear statement on the lack of a connection between national insurance numbers and long-term migration and to what I have already indicated about the best measures.

Hillsborough

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is right: the 96 will not be forgotten. She is absolutely right to pay the tribute she does to the families, who have kept alive the hope of truth and justice. As I said earlier, I hope they will take some comfort from the verdicts yesterday.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

May I pay tribute to the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), not just for the power, poignancy and import of their words here today, but for the decisive and responsive character they have both shown on this matter? Not only do I salute my fellow Members in this House who represent the families of the Hillsborough victims, but, on behalf of the Bloody Sunday families in my constituency, I want to salute the Hillsborough families. They have made that journey from victimhood, through vilification, to vindication—that tortuous journey to justice that my constituents faced. The right hon. Gentleman brought the Hillsborough families over to Derry to meet the Bloody Sunday families in advance of the panel report, for solidarity and mentoring, and I know that the Bloody Sunday families would give the biggest hugs they could possibly give to the Hillsborough families today.

We need to learn other lessons, rather than just comparing what has happened in this case and in other cases. Points have been made about what the families still had to go through even after what the panel report told us—the fact that they had to sob and seethe inside, and yet still show calm in the chamber as they listened to callous cynicism about the deaths of their loved ones, no less cruel from the paid lips of counsel.

We also need to address, once and for all, this insensitivity and arrogance of power, and this default setting of system defensiveness that the Home Secretary has rightly identified. The system tells us all when we raise these issues on behalf of families who come to us, “Move on, there is nothing more to know.” I know that that is exactly what the system was telling the right hon. Member for Leigh when he was in government and was making his decision.

On the questions about possible charges that arise, one issue occurs to me, and it arises from the Bloody Sunday experience as well. Could we get clarity soon on whether or not the law officers in this situation are applying the same rubric that they have applied to the Bloody Sunday situation: that any question of charges of perjury, perverting the course of justice or anything else cannot be considered until the issues of any possible charges relating to the events of the day have been? That rubric is deeply troubling to Bloody Sunday families.

[Mrs May]

I will take that point away and look into it. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the remarks he made about the importance of a justice system. We are rightly proud of our system of justice in this country, but sometimes it has failed to get to the truth, as we have sadly seen. On Hillsborough, it is once again the families who have been prepared to fight over 27 years who have got, first, to the truth from the independent panel’s report and now to the clear verdicts which have vindicated what they have said about the fans and about their loved ones all along.