Historical Child Abuse Allegations

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Naomi Long]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. Regardless of the Secretary of State’s statement yesterday, Sir Anthony is still entirely reliant on the voluntary co-operation of Whitehall Departments and MI5, which is simply not good enough given their record on this matter. Even the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in yesterday’s statement, did not promise full co-operation, but the “fullest possible co-operation”—a caveat that will chill those who recall previous doomed attempts to investigate this scandal.

A number of former military intelligence officers have recently come forward to indicate publicly that they possess information that would be of interest to an inquiry with regard to Kincora and also to indicate their willingness to give evidence, including on the alleged blocking of police and Army investigations by secret services at the time. At least one of them has indicated that he was unable to disclose some information to an earlier inquiry because it would have been deemed a breach of his obligations under the Official Secrets Act.

This specific aspect goes far beyond mere “co-operation” with the devolved inquiry; it is utterly naive to believe that former members of the security and intelligence services would volunteer to give evidence if they could face prosecution, so it is imperative that the UK Government authorise disclosure of all relevant information held in order to examine and fully address the persistent allegations surrounding Kincora. That will require a temporary and limited suspension of the Official Secrets Act.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Two years ago, I pointed out to the Home Secretary, as I did again last week, that it is imperative that the national inquiry panel should deal with this issue, and that it will take the Home Secretary to make it clear that the security services and all their former agents have full cover in presenting every piece of information they have.

[Naomi Long]

I totally concur. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that the task requires not simply words of co-operation, but practical assistance and prioritisation at the UK level. I shall explain why.

The child abuse that has recently come to light in Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford, to name but a few, is a national scandal; so, too, is Kincora. The fact that Kincora was located in Northern Ireland and that the allegations concerned a period during the troubles should not be a hindrance to the investigation of these crimes or to any subsequent cover-up by Government agencies. They are linked to Kincora by the allegation of MI5 involvement in cover-up.

Let me read a quote from an article written by Colin Wallace as recently as today. I recommend that people read his article in full. It can be found in “Spinwatch” and it is titled “Kincora—A need for transparency”. It says:

“The common denominator in both the Cyril Smith case and in the Kincora scandal is MI5. It would appear that in both England and Northern Ireland MI5 prevented the police and/or the Army from taking action against those who were systematically sexually abusing children. Surely this obvious link between MI5’s apparent role in covering up abuse in both England and Northern Ireland should be investigated by a single inquiry and not two separate inquiries. Also, any meaningful inquiry must have the power to demand the full disclosure of all relevant official documents and records and to subpoena witnesses to give evidence under oath. In the past, successive Government Ministers have promised that they would initiate thorough inquiries into Kincora, but on each occasion those inquiries were undermined by having their terms of reference watered down.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

Let me move on with my remarks, which I hope will respond to that important question.

The issues relating to Kincora are being examined by the historical institutional abuse inquiry under Sir Anthony Hart’s chairmanship. Currently, the view of Ministers across government is that this is the most appropriate place where all allegations related to Kincora should be examined.

Because the protection of children is a devolved matter—I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East that she feels certain matters have been dealt with fully—it would clearly be less appropriate for the inquiry panel chaired by Fiona Woolf to make recommendations for Northern Ireland concerning the running of the current child protection system there. Indeed, legislation was enacted in Northern Ireland specifically to enable Sir Anthony’s examination to take place.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister said it is currently “the view of Ministers across government” and then went on to refer to things being devolved matters. I hope he is not trying to imply that Ministers in Northern Ireland are agreed that the Home Office inquiry is not the appropriate place for Kincoral because that is not what those Ministers are saying.

[Norman Baker]

I am giving the official Government response which, of course, covers all Ministers in all Departments. That is the doctrine of collective responsibility.

I understand that Sir Anthony’s inquiry intends to examine allegations made to it by ex-residents of Kincora and has already heard evidence from a number of witnesses on this matter. Sir Anthony has said that if his inquiry finds evidence that anyone other than the three men convicted was aware of, or involved in, the sexual abuse of Kincora residents then, irrespective of their prominence, it will investigate their knowledge of, and any role they may have played in, such matters. I commend his approach.

Furthermore, the Hart inquiry has wide powers of compulsion, under section 9 of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, to require persons and bodies to produce evidence, although, respecting the fact that it is a body established by the devolved authorities, those powers do not extend to the UK Government, which is one of the issues my hon. Friend was concerned about in her opening remarks. It is important to put it on the record, however, that this is a statutory inquiry and can therefore compel persons to give evidence. The independent inquiry panel into child sexual abuse, established by the Home Secretary, will have no such powers of compulsion unless a decision is subsequently made to turn it into a statutory inquiry.

National Crime Agency

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I shall try to answer the hon. Lady’s question and the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) in a helpful way.

Since the Bill was published in the 2012 Queen’s Speech, we have had two and a half years of public negotiations. We had the initial debate, Second Reading and the Committee stage; it went through another place; it was implemented; and the NCA has now been in operation for one year. As was mentioned, we need to recognise that the NCA not operating in Northern Ireland is not just a matter for Northern Ireland; it is a matter for my constituents in north Wales and for constituents in Liverpool, Hertfordshire and everywhere. If there is a gap in our defences, asset recovery and coverage, it affects everybody, because criminals know they can operate from Northern Ireland with more chance of not being caught.

I am not the Minister, so it is not for me to decide, but there are serious questions about how we take forward these discussions with the Minister, the NIO and the political parties to reach a conclusion. As the Minister helpfully outlined, David Ford has, in this year of impasse, come up with proposals that could address some of the concerns of my hon. Friends and others. He said that the NCA, unlike its predecessor, did not have constabulary powers and that the authority and primacy of the PSNI needed to be maintained, so he proposed that the agreement of the Chief Constable be in place before the powers are used. In addition, he said that the director general of the NCA could be called to attend the Policing Board—more than we have with the police and crime commissioner in my patch in north Wales or elsewhere—and that there be consultation and consent for the implementation of the annual plan. He also proposed that the Police Ombudsman cover the NCA, which was welcome.

Those are all difficult areas touching on the reasons for devolving policing in the first place. Concerns about security were raised at the time and were addressed in government by me and my late good friend Paul Goggins. I hope, however, that the assurances from David Ford, which were negotiated and are now on the table, will be open to further discussion. Only last week, in a discussion with the modern slavery Minister about modern slavery issues, we heard how the NCA could not operate on issues as important as people trafficking.

I am trying to challenge the Government in a helpful and friendly way.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

First, I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that in the Modern Slavery Bill Committee some of us proposed amendments to make the situation in Northern Ireland much more joined-up with laws and practices here at different levels, but that the Government resisted those amendments. Secondly, may I assure him that the proposals from David Ford arose from negotiations with my party and that we are committed to pursuing them to a successful end?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the support my hon. Friend gave the Opposition in that Committee, and yes he acted in a way that said he wanted the Bill to operate in Northern Ireland as well.

It is important to remember that my hon. Friends the Members for South Down and for Foyle, as well as absent Sinn Fein Members, have signed up to policing matters in the past. The proposals from David Ford would extend effective policing to tackling serious and organised crime. What extra steps can the Minister and the political parties take to get the NCA operating in Northern Ireland? He told us what happened in the past, but he did not set out a clear road map that will get us from David Ford’s proposals to an agreement to sign up to the NCA; to a legislative consent motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly; and to implementation of the relevant NCA provisions already on the statute book.

What steps are the NIO and the Home Office taking to discuss David Ford’s proposals further with the political parties? As mentioned, might they set a deadline? Occasionally, deadlines do work. We set one for the reintroduction of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the St Andrews agreement. We reached it at about one minute to 12, but reach it we did. I mean no disrespect to Northern Ireland Members, but deadlines sometimes focus minds. So is the Minister prepared to consider a timescale and possible future steps? When will the next set of talks take place between the NIO, the Home Office, the political parties and Assembly representatives? Is David Ford convening such a meeting? Will the NIO and Home Office be present? What is the timescale for concluding the discussions?

In Committee, the then Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), said that the Government were

“carefully considering the part 1 provisions to see how they can best be modified to give the NCA some functionality in Northern Ireland but in a way that does not require a legislative consent motion. We will aim to introduce any necessary amendments to the Bill on Report.”––[Official Report, Crime and Courts Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2013; c. 174.]

That was on 29 January 2013 but we are no closer to implementing the NCA. I say to the Minister that we need a plan—it need not necessarily involve a deadline, but it could—so that we can see what Ministers and the parties are going to do to take this matter forward.

[Mr Hanson]

I thought I had been very clear that I want the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland, in Belfast and every community represented here today on the same basis as it operates in my constituency, and as soon as possible. I have argued for that. I want Sinn Fein, along with my hon. Friends, to sign up to it as quickly as possible. The assurances given by David Ford should be subject to a positive response on those issues. I say to the hon. Lady that I am not the Government. If I were the Government, what I would be doing is looking at how to convene a meeting with the relevant parties to see if there are genuine outstanding differences, to see if resolutions on those differences can be reached, to look at what we do with the David Ford proposals and, if necessary, to look at setting a deadline against which consideration of these matters would take place. That is what I want the Government to look at and respond to. The vital point is that the National Crime Agency needs to operate in Northern Ireland to protect people from crime in Northern Ireland, as it does in Wales, Scotland and England.

[Mark Durkan]

My right hon. Friend has said again that he wants the NCA to operate on the same basis in Northern Ireland as it does in his constituency. Clearly, the ongoing discussions and negotiations suggest that that is not so in terms of accountability, the level of engagement with the police or the level of its own automatic authority. Those are all significant improvements and concessions consistent with the Patten principles around policing. This is about making sure that whatever happens in any quarter of policing in Northern Ireland is consistent with those Patten principles.

[Mr Hanson]

I understand and accept that. The hon. Gentleman will know that during my two years in Northern Ireland, we had to deal with very difficult issues around the very point of trying to get policing devolved, along with a range of other measures, including the re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I understand the sensitivities. I am simply making the point that the David Ford proposals provide the basis, I believe, for agreement on the operation of the NCA in Northern Ireland. It is incumbent on somebody—whether it be David Ford, the Northern Ireland Office, other Ministers or whatever—to try to convene a meeting to see if there are any outstanding issues and to provide some resolution as a matter of urgency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

When the legislation to set up the National Crime Agency went through this House, I was one of the Northern Ireland MPs who actually participated in those debates. Many of the others who have spoken today came nowhere near those debates. I made it clear then that the Bill’s provisions for the NCA would cause problems for Northern Ireland because they did not take account of the Patten architecture of policing. I also made it clear that we were not raising those points in order to try to prevent the NCA or anything else from coming into being. The basis of our argument was that more needed to be done to make sure that any new addition or change to policing architecture in Northern Ireland should be entirely compatible with the Patten prospectus. That was the point we made.

The issue before the House at that time related to references to the fact that the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland had agreed various things and that they would have to be satisfied with various things. It centred entirely on the Minister of Justice—that is where the focus was—not on the Policing Board, the Chief Constable or anything else. That is not a criticism of the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland, because, as I said at the time, he was caught in a situation whereby Whitehall, which dealt with the issue, was able to talk to him but he was not able to talk to the Policing Board or anyone else in advance of the legislation. Therefore, the first the Policing Board knew about the legislation—indeed, the first some senior people in the PSNI knew about the legislation—was when it emerged in this place.

There is a lesson there: such sensitive issues should not be conducted in that way in future. A devolved Minister should not find himself locked in like that. Since then, the Minister has, rightly and helpfully, engaged with a number of the concerns that we and others—not just we and Sinn Fein—have.

I should also point out that when the whole idea of the NCA was brought up, the Labour party had issues with whether it would properly and adequately replace SOCA. Those are valid concerns. It is not the case that people were stepping in the way to try to stop the NCA. Moreover, Jim Gamble, who has offered distinguished service as a police officer in Northern Ireland and to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, had serious reservations and misgivings about how the NCA’s work would be carried forward overall. He is on the record as agreeing on several of the issues raised by the SDLP on questions of accountability and—

[Naomi Long]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Durkan]

No, because I did not intervene on any Northern Ireland Members. I heard an awful lot about us on all sorts of questions, and I want to deal with those points and to set the issues in context.

Hon. Members have suggested that the SDLP has wilfully set out to stop the NCA and is still somehow vetoing it. We pointed out issues that needed to be addressed and could have been addressed when we considered the legislation. Many people then dismissed those issues, saying, “It’s impossible. You can’t have the National Crime Agency make anything available to the Policing Board. You can’t have it working with the Chief Constable in such a way. They can’t operate differently in Northern Ireland from how they operate anywhere else.” Lo and behold, we now have proposals for those things to happen, but those who wasted time in dismissing our concerns—saying that they could not be met, but were impossible and specious—now accuse us of having a vacuous position. The fact is that if our views had then been properly pursued and followed by others, we might not now be in the impasse that we have been in for too long.

I want to make a point about child protection. Hon. Members have referred to the recent Assembly legislation on human trafficking. When I sat on the Public Bill Committee on the Modern Slavery Bill, I was at pains to make sure that the legislation in this House was in a better state so that it was properly compatible with the Northern Ireland legislation and there were no jurisdictional or other gaps. That included ensuring that the new anti-slavery commissioner—a UK appointment; potentially a British appointment—could, under the legislation in this House, review and make recommendations on matters in devolved areas if the devolved Administrations opted any of their services into the scope of the anti-slavery commissioner’s work. It is not therefore the case that the SDLP has said that nothing at British or UK level can be applied or that we will have no part of it.

It has been suggested that the SDLP is somehow reluctant to do things on policing that Sinn Fein does not do. Let us be very clear: we committed to Patten. We went on the Policing Board, and we drove the delivery of Patten when Sinn Fein refused to do so and attacked us for our position on policing in council chambers and at every political level. We did not need Sinn Fein then. Even before that, we supported the creation of the Assets Recovery Agency, which Sinn Fein completely opposed, and we supported its work when it was attacked and demonised by Sinn Fein. When SOCA was created, we had concerns that it might not carry forward the good work being done in Northern Ireland by the Assets Recovery Agency, and some hon. Members from other parties shared those concerns. They were not opposed to the existence of SOCA; like us, they had concerns about whether the work would be properly carried forward. People can raise concerns about agencies such as the NCA without being opposed to good law enforcement.

There is no question of our needing to know where Sinn Fein is going before we take a position on the NCA or on anything else. Equally, we differed from Sinn Fein on another aspect of policing. Annex E of the St Andrew’s agreement covered the provisions that basically allowed MI5 to get around the accountability mechanisms provided in Patten. It ensured that what happened with the Mount Vernon gang report by the previous police ombudsman could not happen again, and that no question that touched on or took in aspects of national security and the performance of MI5 could be examined by the police ombudsman. We opposed annex E at the time, and we were the ones who were isolated. We therefore have no problem in differing with Sinn Fein on policing issues. We have done it regularly. We have, however, been absolutely consistent in opposing—

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

[Mark Durkan]

I will not give way, because I want to answer several questions and challenges.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) mentioned issues of statute earlier. It is true that commitments have been given that certain provisions will be set in statute, but we need to see the statutory provisions. Any Member of the House would say that the commitment to put something in statute is not enough and that they want to see it. There was exactly that character of exchange recently in the Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee. The Government have committed to table amendments in new areas. We welcome that, but we will judge the amendments when we see them.

Similarly in this matter, we are not telling people, “No, do not draft any statutory provisions or show us what they might look like.” We were told that the statutory provisions will ensure that the ombudsman can look at things. We want that to be properly framed in statute, because we do not want the role that has been promised for the ombudsman to be got around by something in the style of annex E of the St Andrews agreement, which allowed the Government to get around the issue of MI5.

On the issue of MI5, I have asked questions of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in this House about how MI5 could conduct operations in Northern Ireland in ways that seem to abuse the role of SOCA. I have spoken to her privately, outside the Chamber, about the cases of people who have supposedly been put under pressure using SOCA powers, on the basis that, “That will go away if you turn for us, work for MI5 and join dissident organisations to be our agent.”

We do not want the NCA to be used and abused in that way under the new arrangements. We want clarity on that. That is one reason why we want to ensure that the role of the Police Ombudsman is absolutely clear. When people come to us with those sorts of problems, there must be a proper channel through which they can take their case and their evidence. And evidence they have. I gave the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the phone numbers of those who were ringing people up and pressing them. They were stopping people in other parts of the world and taking them into custody in hotels. That is the sort of thing that is going on currently using the MI5 position and the SOCA role. We want to ensure that none of that will apply to the NCA. Those good and proper standards for our constituents are not a lot to ask.

We have engaged with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland. In the past, I have acknowledged that he has done good work in this area and has taken some of these issues forward. I also credited his special adviser, even though politicians are not meant to acknowledge special advisers, for his good work and engagement on these issues. We need to take this matter forward. We want there to be no hiding place in relation to any aspects of crime.

Let us be clear that it is not just people in the SDLP who have questioned whether SOCA and all the other agencies to date have been as active and assiduous in relation to whole areas of organised and commercial crime in Northern Ireland as they should have been. The NCA has powers in non-devolved areas such as customs, and there are a lot of things that it could be doing.

When the Crime and Courts Bill was going through the House and we were identifying the problems, some of us said that provision could be made for the PSNI to access and use the resources and insight of the NCA. Other people said, “No, it is only constabulary powers that will work. It cannot work in any other way.” We also made it clear at that time that we were worried that there might be discontinuity in the pursuit and recovery of assets because of the difficulties that had been created. We made it clear that we did not want to see that and that we did not share any of the objections or anxieties that appeared to be coming from Sinn Fein in relation to the pursuit and recovery of assets. It was other people who made those choices. We made it clear that we did not have any issue with that and did not want to stop it in any way. We wanted to ensure that the provisions would be proper and robust.

I refute the insinuation that the SDLP is wilfully blocking the good work that the NCA should be doing. On the Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, I have argued for future-proofing the provisions to anticipate that the NCA will have a role. That proves that this is not a case of wilful and persistent obstinacy for the sake of it, but a matter of principle. Our principles can be put into good practice. Other people have disputed that, but they now tell us that they have the last word and documentation on how to do it. I think that that so-called last word needs a little more work, and that we will get there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

No. I am sorry, I need to make progress. My right hon. Friend, a former Minister for Northern Ireland—there should be a collective noun for former Ministers of Northern Ireland, because we have many in the room today—explained clearly the importance of the issues in the light of his great experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) pointed out that, in a way, he has a land border with another member state—the only such non-Northern Ireland Member in the room—and expressed clearly the need for the NCA to operate throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

A number of Members, including the hon. Members for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham, talked about the need for proceeds of crime measures to be extended to Northern Ireland. I very much agree with those points. Depriving organised criminals of their assets makes it harder for them to return to crime and perhaps acts for many as a bigger deterrent than jail. I refer Members to the changes we are putting through in the other place through the Serious Crime Bill, which will assist us in dealing with asset recovery. Clearly, extending those provisions to Northern Ireland would be very important in improving that recovery rate.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) talked about the oversight mechanisms, and usefully clarified her party’s concerns about accountability. It is probably useful if I make some points now about the accountability proposals. There are no statutory mechanisms, about which she asked, providing for NCA accountability in Northern Ireland at the moment, but David Ford’s proposals provide that the NCA director general will attend meetings of the Policing Board on request—including urgent meetings, with reasonable notice—and this will be in statute. NCA officers will need the agreement of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to exercise policing powers in relation to an offence, and the PSNI will then produce a community impact assessment.

On covert techniques, in all cases the NCA will obtain the agreement of the PSNI prior to their use, save for where the request is related to a case of police corruption. That would be enshrined in a memorandum of understanding, made under schedule 24 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The human rights adviser of the Northern Ireland Policing Board will have access to the surveillance commissioner’s report on the NCA, in a non-redacted form, in connection with the NCA work associated with criminality in Northern Ireland.

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Karen Bradley]

I cannot, I am afraid; I have been given strict warnings by the Deputy Speaker. The—

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who discussed that matter with me last week, and I share her concern about the particular case to which she refers. There is an issue there that needs to be looked at, but she will understand that such matters have to be considered carefully, so I will, if I may, get back to her in writing.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Further to her answer earlier on the inquiry panel in relation to child abuse, what steps has the Home Secretary taken to ensure that the security services are making sure that no documents of theirs are destroyed or removed, that all information will be made available to the inquiry panel, and that former officers and agents have every encouragement and confidence in coming forward with their information?

[Mrs May]

As I said in reply to the earlier question, in relation to Kincora particularly, but it goes across the board, we want an inquiry that is able to look properly into the events of child abuse that have taken place in the past, particularly, obviously, in state institutions, although we will cover non-state institutions as well. It is important therefore that the information is made available to the inquiry, and steps are being taken with a number of departments and agencies across Government to make sure that that happens.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

I will deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I was the Minister responsible for RIPA. It was a carefully constructed Act that was preceded in 1999 by a lengthy consultation process. Everybody recognised at the time that it was a major improvement on the legislative regime for intercepting communications, data retention and other matters. As I said earlier—and I introduced the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill on this basis—its purpose was to make the intrusive powers of the state compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force more than two year later on 2 October 2000. I am proud of the 1998 Act and—to reassure and provide therapy to the hon. Member for Cambridge—of the fact that it was indeed a liberal measure, but I of course accept that the world of telecommunications has changed radically in the 14 years since. Interestingly, it has not changed as much as it had changed in the preceding 15 years, which followed the Interception of Communications Act 1985, but it has still changed a great deal and for sure it would be worth while for RIPA to be reviewed. However, that is not a case for not proceeding with this measure tonight.

I also accept, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said eloquently in her speech, that even if we accept the need for emergency legislation, as we do, it would have been far better for our consideration to have been extended over two or three days in the Commons rather than just one. Indeed, if we had not been up against the buffers of the summer recess that might easily have been possible and we would have avoided the process of manuscript amendments.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson)—who, parenthetically, is not that much younger than my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), as he is in his fifth decade and my right hon. Friend is in his sixth—asked rhetorically whether we were surprised that relatively few Members had taken part in the debates today. He then tried to provide an answer, but I must say that it was not that convincing. He said that the reason was the pressure of time. I have been present in the Chamber when debates on Bills or other subjects have been subject to time pressures. When they have been very controversial this place has been packed and Ministers have had a hard time. I would suggest that the more convincing explanation for the fact that not many Members have been present for all or any part of the debates today is that most are convinced by the arguments that are being made by the Government, with the support of the Opposition; that the measure clarifies the law in the light of the ECJ judgment; and, in so far as it changes RIPA, that it does so in one respect only—through clause 3, which has the effect, which I hope would be supported by every Member, of restricting the basis on which warrants can be made in relation to economic well-being and qualifies that with reference to national security.

Let me turn to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East, which would repeal the Bill by the end of this year rather than by the end of 2016, as the final clause of the Bill proposes. My hon. Friend said by way of justification for his amendment, in a very delphic comment, that we had not seen what the Government had seen. By definition, we have not seen that which the Government have not shown us and that might be secret or classified, but in justifying this measure the Government have not come along and told us that there are plenty of reasons for it but that they cannot let us in on them.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) made a very witty speech earlier in which he spoke of the Disqualifications Act 2000. That measure changed the basis for the disqualification of Members to allow members of Sinn Fein to sit in the Dáil, the Northern Ireland Assembly and this place. My right hon. Friend was not allowed to explain that, so that really was a situation in which Members of the House had not seen what the Government had seen. That is not the case here. We have seen what the Government have seen. The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to it—it is the ECJ judgment and everybody can read it and understand its consequences. That is the basis for this Bill. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East that I do not accept what the hon. Member for Cambridge is suggesting, which is that we can only have legislation either in a day or in six months. If this House wanted to, it could consider legislation over a two-week period and that would be preferable in this case.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The right hon. Gentleman says that we have all seen what the Government have seen of what is behind the Bill. One thing continually cited about the extraterritorial extensions is that companies have said that they want such provision so that they are in a clearer position, but there have been questions about that. Does the right hon. Gentleman know who these companies are? Which companies have said that they need or want such things to be covered? Which companies would, as the Government are telling us, act outside this provision and act in defiance? We have been told about that several times today, but we have not been given any details.

[Mr Straw]

I do not know in precise detail. I used to know when I was responsible for these matters as Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary. Even when I was Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, when there were fewer telecommunications providers, the ones that were wholly UK-based inevitably had a different and closer relationship than those based overseas but which were providing telecommunications services in this country. The latter were, for reasons one understood, much less willing to enter into voluntary arrangements than those based in the UK.

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) was in the Chamber when I drew attention to the fact that this provision is genuinely a clarification of the extraterritorial application of the RIPA Act and not an extension of it. I refer him, for example, to a definition of a telecommunications system in section 2:

“any system … which exists (whether wholly or partly in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)”.

The clear intention of that Act was that it extended extraterritorially. The legal advice is that the wording has not worked quite as intended and that overseas telecommunications providers particularly want more clarification.

[Mark Durkan]

If we are to believe that that is the only effect of clause 6, and that companies have said that they want such provision, should we not be told which companies have said that?

[Mr Straw]

That is a matter for the Minister. Sometimes, companies do not wish to be named; sometimes they do. If they did wish to be named—they are not slow in coming forward in other respects to let us know their views—they would have named themselves.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As I said earlier, my concerns—like those of others—are not just about some questionable aspects of the provisions in the Bill, but about its presentation as emergency legislation. The ruling from the European Court of Justice followed a case that had lasted two years, and the flaws and weaknesses that it revealed had been identified by, among others, a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. Moreover, a judicial review that is pending in the United Kingdom courts was lodged some three years ago. It is clear, therefore, that the Government should have been aware of the susceptibility of the existing legislation to a court challenge of that nature. There is absolutely no reason why good, due, careful parliamentary consideration should not have been given to the issues before now. Furthermore, it has still not been properly explained to us why—although the judgment of the European Court of Justice was issued as long ago as April, and despite the long notice that is provided by cases that last so long—legislation is being scrambled, or microwaved, through the House just before the summer recess.

The Government have made several claims today. At one point, we heard that the Bill was intended to clarify, or strengthen, the focus of RIPA. In some respects the Bill actually widens that focus in a way that arguably extends its implications, yet the Government are trying to tell us that it narrows the focus, and also contains new protections and new qualifications. As other Members have pointed out, the Bill wears some new words here and there like badges, pretending to recruit the judgment of the European Court of Justice, but the fact is that the existing powers are not being narrowed as Ministers have claimed.

The other assurance that we have been given relates to the sunset clause. It is supposedly emergency bridging legislation, intended to prevent a serious situation in which existing powers are challenged and cannot be used to close a dangerous gap. However, the expiry of the sunset clause is nearly two and a half years away. That appears to be quite a lengthy emergency. If we are saying now that we are happy to pass this legislation on the basis of a two-and-a-half-year sunset clause, and on the basis that it merely continues the data retention provisions that we already have in RIPA, does anyone really believe that, in two and half years’ time, Parliament will do anything other than say, “Well, we must carry on with what we have already had, and what we have already put up with, because if it has been done before and if it has been done up until now, and if it is what the security services and others say they need, we shall just have to stick with it”?

As for all the other paraphernalia that we are being offered—the furniture of the various reviews that will take place, the privacy and civil liberties oversight boards and all the rest—none of it will convince the public that, when it comes to it, when the security services and others say that they want the essence of these powers and these arrangements to be renewed in 2016, and indeed, if they wish, to be extended, deepened and widened, Parliament will not say that that is OK. Again, the senior parties will feel they have no choice but to go along with it on this basis, and we will have a consensus based on poor consideration by Members who feel they have been whipped by some of the threats, suggestions and inferences that come from the security services.

This House, which often raises questions about the respect in which politics and Parliament and this Chamber are held, has to ask how the public are meant to have any respect for an elected Chamber that is not showing a lot of respect for itself, in the way in which we are receiving and passing this Bill. We are even offering to the public that the things that will protect them will be outside Parliament—that there are going to be those commissioners and oversight boards. That is because we know that the public no longer believe in Parliament as the protector of their civil liberties and of good democratic order.

We should be a chamber of scrutiny and accountability. That is why we should be questioning the way in which we have received this Bill, and it is why we should be pressing the Government further through debating amendments at the next stage of this Bill’s passage.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (Business of the House)

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Like some other hon. Members, I will be opposing the motion. This House should not be microwaving legislation on to the statute book under the confected urgency about which we have been told. We seem to have had a muddle within Government, a huddle between Government and Opposition and now an attempt to hurry and befuddle Parliament under the guise of various arguments and scares.

The Government may have arguments in favour of legislating in response to the judgment. We still have not heard a proper explanation for why that has not happened before now. The assurances offered by Ministers today that this Bill is simply a carry-on data retention measure—that it is pure continuity with no extension—are not assurances that I can accept. The nature of the Bill’s provisions seems to extend the legislation in a number of areas. Ministers will say that that is simply to clarify but, in effect, it extends the effect and the strength of the existing legislation in ways that go beyond the assurances of Ministers.

Legislation that is the subject of soft consensus without due consideration usually turns out to be poor legislation and, as legislators, we find it hard to take ownership of such legislation in the face of public concern and criticism. Credible legislators in this House should send a clear message to the Government, and offer some assurance to their electorate, that we will not as a legislature be treated in this way. We can do that very simply by voting against the motion.

Modern Slavery Bill

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

In common with the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), I welcome the debate and commend the Government for allowing the draft Bill to be tested through pre-legislative scrutiny. Evidence was received from many groups who have direct experience of, and insight into, issues of modern slavery, not just through being witnesses to the crimes and their effects, but through providing protection and support for victims.

I commend the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and all who were involved in the Joint Committee for their work in proofing the Bill at its pre-legislative stage. I wish, however, that their efforts had received a more positive reflection from the Government than is suggested by the Bill before us today. The Joint Committee did very good work, highlighting the need for greater clarity about the offences. It provided a good service, helping to tidy up and improve the complicated, sometimes turgid language of the Bill, drawing from the existing legislation that it seeks to consolidate, by providing a clearer suite of offences. Each specific offence must be clear and the different facets of the overall crime and evil with which we are trying to deal should be made clearer. That would lead to more competent and more cogent legislation in respect of the message it communicates and the problems it seeks to recognise and address.

I am not convinced by the Government’s arguments that it is only necessary to have a consolidation of existing legislation with a few minor add-ons, as identified by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), rather than a more cogent programme as suggested by the Joint Committee. We also need to ask on Second Reading whether the Bill does enough to address the causes of the problem, or enough to protect the victims? Does it really justify the claim, which has been made, of its being world-leading legislation? We have heard from some hon. Members that in some major respects the Bill simply catches up with what is happening elsewhere, while in other respects it falls far short of that. It does not match the true working standards of legislation in other countries or indeed the structures and systems in place in other countries for achieving the role envisaged in the Bill for the anti-slavery commissioner.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman will, like me, be aware of other legislation pursued and brought forward in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I believe a Second Reading has taken place and that a Bill is before the Assembly for ratification. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the Government should also take note of the Northern Ireland legislation, which covers trafficking and the sale of women for sex? Does he feel that that should be part of what the Government are considering today?

[Mark Durkan]

I think that that Bill has been subject to a number of different viewpoints in the Assembly, particularly in respect of the workability of its detail. Indeed, many of the campaigning organisations that have highlighted the shortcomings of the Modern Slavery Bill have also indicated their reservations about some of the language in the Assembly Bill, which they want to see improved, modified or qualified. Now that there are moves to legislate in a number of these areas, we want to make sure that the legislation is as competent and effective as possible.

Some of the provisions of this Bill are clearly UK-wide—for example, both the slavery and trafficking prevention orders and the slavery and trafficking risk orders are UK-wide, yet many other functions apply to England and Wales, making it an England and Wales Bill. The orders are rightly UK-wide and they can even have international or extra-territorial effects.

There is a case for saying that we need more joined-up legislation in this area, and I know that the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, for instance, has already engaged in a consultation exercise and seems ready to take forward legislation that has a similar remit to this Bill. I imagine, however, that if a Bill in this form went before the Northern Ireland Assembly, it might be subject to amendments and could be successfully amended in some of the respects raised by hon. Members here that the Government are resisting. We could reach the odd situation whereby subsequent legislation in Northern Ireland that appears to mirror this Bill could be more than just a karaoke Bill, along the lines that we are used to in the Assembly whereby a Bill is simply replicated. The Assembly Bill could go further and embrace some of the suggested amendments that the Government have resisted here.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one important element that needs to be UK-wide is the ability to seize assets of criminal gangs to recompense the victims of the crime? Does he agree that that should apply regardless of which part of the United Kingdom the gangs operate from and regardless of which part of the United Kingdom their assets are held in? Their assets must be subject to seizure and then redistributed among the victims.

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, I do believe and recognise that. In case the hon. Gentleman is thinking that there is some kind of blur into issues surrounding the National Crime Agency, we have always been of the opinion that whatever arrangements are in place in respect of the pursuit and recovery of assets and ill-gotten gains should apply UK-wide. We want no weakening in that regard. The burden of our concern about difficulties involving the NCA did not arise from that, and does not centre on it, as I think both Home Office Ministers and the NCA itself are aware.

I accept that, in focusing on some of the Bill’s shortcomings, we may not be doing justice to some of the strengths that other Members have rightly welcomed, but I think that at this stage in its passage we need to urge the Government to think further and think better, given some of the answers that they have provided in respect of not just the offences issue, but the role of the anti-slavery commissioner. I am not persuaded by the Home Secretary’s presentation. I am not convinced that the commissioner, as described in the Bill, will be as robust and independent, in terms of drive and impact, as she has implied. Again, I think that we should look to arrangements that exist elsewhere, not least in Finland. We should be demanding an anti-slavery commissioner with similar scope, status and standing.

I appreciate that, as a Government Member observed earlier, we cannot create a body, or post, that is so independent that no Department or Secretary of State relates to it, in the context of, for instance, pursuing legislative proposals or being a channel for budget bids. Those of us who are calling for something more independent do not want a commissioner who would be so detached, and such a political and governmental orphan, that he would not have the necessary standing and leverage. We want that standing and leverage, in budgetary and legislative terms. However, we also want people to know that that status is entirely within the commissioner’s own independent right, is based on the authority of the role, and is not qualified by sensibilities or sensitivities on the part of a certain Minister in a certain Department. In particular, we do not want the suspicion to arise that those sensitivities are actually on behalf of a Minister in another Department or agency.

We should consider some of the grounds for qualification. In my experience, the issue of national security has been used to cover a very wide and loose variety of concerns. We do not want the work and the role of the commissioner—not just in terms of reports—to be limited or curtailed to that degree, and we hope that, as the Bill progresses, the upgrading of that work and role will go a great deal further.

Other Members have raised the issue of guardianship. I think that that is one of the issues that go to the heart of the question of whether the Bill does enough in regard to protection, although it is not the only such issue that is still outstanding. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the other members of the Joint Committee clearly identified the gap that continues to exist when they were considering the draft Bill. While it purported to do more in respect of prosecution and seemed to be trying do more in respect of prevention, it did not offer much in respect of protection and support. I think that the Bill in its present form is still short in that respect, and one of the most notable ways in which it is short relates to the glaring issue of child guardianships.

If child guardianships are not included in the Bill and we allow it to be passed without them, we, as a House, we will be saying “We think it will be all right on the night. We think it will somehow be okay.” When it comes to the treatment of children, we have been confronted by many derelictions, false assurances and false assumptions. It is claimed that children are being protected and their interests are being properly safeguarded, but we know that, in this respect, they are not. Other Members, including the shadow Home Secretary, have already referred to statistics showing how many children have gone missing for this reason, and have been brought back into the woodwork of exploitation, abuse and manipulated rights. If we are serious about the way in which the Bill regards children, we must ensure that guardianship is at the forefront and central to its provisions.

I ask Ministers to consider again the very logical arguments that have been advanced about the question of surer definitions relating to children. I do not think that there should be an either/or when it comes to whether we have a general defence or a particular offence. We know that, in plenty of other contexts, we can have both. If we are to entrust various other matters and means to the judgment, recommendation and guidance of the commissioner—and to law officers and others who are engaged with such matters—I do not see why we cannot trust people to cope with particular offences relating to someone’s status as a child, as well as with a general offence.

Let me make one final point about children and protection. We need to be absolutely clear that defence clauses such as clause 39 can extend to non-prosecution. We need to be certain that people can have the protection of not being prosecuted in the first place, rather than becoming part of the feeding line for potential case law through having to activate and use a defence. I believe that the House would want to offer those people a greater protection: a guarantee that the relevant legal officers could choose the option of non-prosecution, in full recognition of the conditions and circumstances with which they were dealing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I am pleased that the Bill enables sentences to be extended to life, which will give the courts an opportunity to deal properly with the criminals who are involved in the trade of slavery.

As a number of Members have pointed out, the Bill contains a notable omission. The best thing to do is to prevent slavery from happening in the first place. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) gave us a lot of information. How likely is it that companies that are using slave labour in the United Kingdom will be caught as a result of fewer inspections? I believe he said that there would be one inspection every 250 years, and that there was a chance of employers being convicted once in a million years. That is hardly going to focus the minds of those who use slave labour on the fact that the authorities are going to get them.

I know that one argument will be about the expense of inspections. As the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) pointed out, we know that certain areas and certain industries in the United Kingdom are more prone to using slave labour than others. If there are to be inspections, why can they not target likely employers? Some of them may have a record; there may be local knowledge. If such people are harassed, there may at least be a chance that they will desist from using the slave labour that they are currently exploiting.

It has rightly been said that the offences that have been specified are really just a gathering together of existing pieces of legislation. The fact is—and there may be a number of reasons for this—that the number of convictions has been very low. Even when people have been identified as engaging in the slave trade and using slaves, the percentage who are taken to court and are convicted is below a third. A small number of people are taken to court, and there is a small percentage of convictions. Moreover, given the complexity of the legislation, those cases often take a long time. A case in Northamptonshire involved 200 police officers; 13 arrests were made, and, three years down the line, there were two convictions.

As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) pointed out, it is not that the Government do not benefit from good legal advice. I am not a barrister, but I know that legal advice has been sought on how the offence could be made simpler, more understandable and easier to prosecute. However, none of it has been included in the Bill. If we are to have effective legislation, let us not just gather together elements of legislation that have not been seen to be working so far; let us look at offences and define them in the Bill. Of course the Government may argue that consolidating the legislation and all the support that will be made available will increase the conviction rate, but if the legal opinion is that the plethora of laws at present causes complications, this is the time to change that.

The protection of children has been well highlighted. From her vast experience, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made it clear that we need separate definitions and separate measures to deal with the exploitation of children. I cannot understand—the Minister did not make it clear—why a definition of children would cause complications and perhaps lead to even fewer convictions. If the reason is to do with establishing the age, there is an easy way to deal with that. If there is some concern about establishing the age, put the individuals in the general legislation. Where it is clear that we are dealing with children, let us have separate legislation and a separate definition of children.

The next issue I want to raise is in relation to other parts of the UK. The Joint Committee pointed out that, although private Members’ legislation does mirror the Bill, it does not totally mirror it. One easy option would be to ask the Northern Ireland Assembly to pass a legislative consent motion, so that the legislation would apply in Northern Ireland. The alternative is to take separate legislation through the Assembly, but given the length of time it takes to get some legislation through the Assembly, the legislation might be passed not in this Session of Parliament or the next, but the one after that. That gap causes great concern in one particular area: the seizure of assets and their use to recompense victims.

If assets are kept in Northern Ireland or Scotland, will it be possible to pull those assets in when someone is convicted of using slave labour in England and Wales, or will it be much more difficult? In Northern Ireland, we have an added complication. I know that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) tried to dismiss the point I made earlier but it was also highlighted by the Joint Committee. The National Crime Agency is not able to operate fully in Northern Ireland because that is being blocked by the Social Democratic and Labour party and by Sinn Fein. That in turn creates a difficulty in dealing with the trafficking gangs, who may see places such as Northern Ireland as a haven from which they can operate.

[Mark Durkan]

Again, I make the point that the debate has nothing to do with the National Crime Agency and the wider issues in Northern Ireland. The SDLP’s concerns in that regard do not relate to the issue of asset recovery and never have.

[Sammy Wilson]

The SDLP’s concerns may not relate to the recovery of assets from criminals but, because the National Crime Agency legislation cannot apply to Northern Ireland, the fact is that the issue is all tied up with the blockage that has occurred, owing to the attitude of Sinn Fein and the SDLP.

On the issue of corporate supply, the use of slave labour in the supply of materials from many developing countries is a multi-billion pound industry. It is worth while for slave traders to use slave labour, given the rewards. There have been impassioned pleas to the Government to include that matter in the legislation. There does not even seem to be any commercial argument against that, at least not from firms that want to demonstrate corporate responsibility. In fact, if anything they appear to be arguing that the market is flawed if we do not have legislation to protect firms who wish to do the right thing in respect of their supply chains, because otherwise they are undercut by the gangsters and the criminals.

I find it very odd that on one hand we will legislate for what goes into our food—for what is in a burger—but we do not seem to be concerned about how it is made, who it is made by or what conditions they work in. We do not seem to think it causes any difficulty for firms to have traceability for the ingredients, but somehow or other it creates commercial difficulties if we want traceability regarding the labour force used in making goods that are sold here in the United Kingdom.

Given that I did not hear any Members on the Government’s side resisting the calls from the other side of the House for transparency in corporate supply chains to be included, and given that major organisations in the United Kingdom have said they have no difficulty with this, but, indeed, they would welcome it, I trust that as this Bill goes through the House, that will also be included.

This is an important Bill. I commend the Government for bringing it forward, and I commend the Secretary of State for the energy she has put into it and the commitment she has made, but I hope the criticisms that have been made and the shortcomings that have been highlighted will be taken on board and addressed during the Committee stage.

Stop-and-Search

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

It is, indeed, a Conservative Home Secretary who is bringing these measures forward, but the Deputy Leader of the House, who is sitting next to me, points out that this is a coalition Government.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement for reasons that have already been expressed. She says that the community trigger hinges on a large volume of complaints. Will she ensure that that does not become a working quota that must be met before a public explanation by the police is needed? Who will set the threshold for the trigger, and will it be locality sensitive, rather than force-wide? Will a public explanation be given if the number of complaints is short of the threshold, but there is a suggestive pattern of concern?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the new power has to be used carefully and properly so that it does not become a mechanistic process or something that is abused in any way. I want to see a situation where it does not have to be used because police forces talk to the communities in their locality in advance and ensure that they are involved in and understand the use of stop-and-search. We will look into exactly the sorts of issues that he has raised, such as whether the process will be locality sensitive and how it will be put in place, to ensure that it is effective in the places where it is necessary.

Hillsborough

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have had a number of discussions with representatives of the families about this matter and what the most appropriate structure is to have in place. I believe that we do have the right structure at the moment, because the two investigations are looking at different aspects of this tragedy. It is of course important that there is co-ordination between them, and as I said earlier, the IPCC is managing part of the Operation Resolve investigation. What I have seen from visiting Warrington is that both investigations are conscious of not only those areas where it is necessary for them to co-ordinate, but those areas where it is necessary for them to recognise the difference in their investigation.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I acknowledge the worthy statement of the Home Secretary on the double injustice, but why should the ethic of apology and accountability not extend to the third possible level of injustice—the hostile surveillance of victims’ families? What standing policy says that evidence in that regard can continue to be withheld? Surely that is what would tell us how far and how high this syndicate of deceit and vilification actually reached. Before the Home Secretary tells me, as she told my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), that families can go to the IPT, will she tell us what the IPT’s record is of upholding complaints or ever giving a reason?

[Mrs May]

I will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, in that I will not be giving a different answer to the one I gave earlier. As I indicated, the IPCC is aware of this issue and is considering how best to address it. If it finds evidence of surveillance that has taken place, it will deal with that as appropriate.

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

Mark Durkan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s interest in this issue and his expertise on these matters. It is right for us to be able to take a decision such that we can start the more formal negotiations with the European Commission and with other member states. I believe that it is in our interests to be able to rejoin a number of measures, and starting the negotiations now will enhance our ability to do so.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Some of us are trying to work out whether there might be an element more of figment than fig leaf about what we have just heard. Can the Secretary of State help us to understand the difference between the opt-out measures and the opt-in measures by explaining whether, when Northern Ireland citizens find themselves detained by Spanish police at an airport, only to be confronted by MI5 officers making nefarious propositions with menaces, those actions are covered under opt-in measures or under proposed opt-out measures?

[Mrs May]

I find it a little difficult to see the situation in the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has described it. If he would like to write to me about the issue that concerns him, then I can respond.