Intelligence and Security Committee: Russia Report

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and James Brokenshire

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she will make a statement on the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report into Russia.

[The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire) [V]]

This Government will not tolerate any foreign interference in the running of our sovereign state. We have long recognised the threat posed by the Russian state, including from conventional military capabilities, espionage, cyber-attacks, covert interference and illicit finance. We have been clear that Russia must desist from its attacks on the UK and our allies, and we have been resolute in defending our country, our democracy and our values. We categorically reject any suggestion that the UK actively avoided investigating Russia.

The UK has a record of taking strong action against Russian wrongdoing. This is demonstrated by our responses to the Salisbury attack, the ongoing illegal annexation of Crimea and, just last week, cyber-attacks on research and development facilities in the US, the UK and Canada. Our world-class intelligence and security agencies continue to produce regular assessments of the threats posed by hostile state activity, including any potential interference in past or current UK democratic processes. Our 30-year Russia strategy is designed to move us to a point where Russia chooses to work alongside the international community.

Since the Committee took evidence in January 2019, much more has been done. We have established the Defending Democracy programme and strengthened our cross-Government counter-disinformation capability. In March, we formally avowed the existence of the joint state threats assessment team. Earlier this month, we launched the UK global human rights sanctions regime to target serious human rights abuses, with 25 Russian Government officials already sanctioned.

We have committed to bring forward legislation to counter hostile state activity and espionage. This will modernise existing offences to deal more effectively with the espionage threat, and consider what new offences and powers are needed. This includes reviewing the Official Secrets Acts and considering whether to follow our allies in adopting a form of foreign agent registration.

We are taking action at every level. We have stepped up our response to illicit finance through the introduction of new powers by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, including unexplained wealth orders, and the establishment of the multi-agency national economic crime centre within the National Crime Agency. The rules on investment visas have already been tightened, but we will continue to consider whether any further changes are required to ensure that they cannot be abused. Let there be no doubt: we are unafraid to act wherever necessary to protect the UK and our allies from any state threat.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank the ISC past and present and all involved in producing the Russia report:

“until recently, the Government had badly underestimated the Russian threat and the response it required.”

Not my words, but the damning indictment of deep systemic failings in the Government’s approach to security that the Russia report sets out. It is not so much that the Government studied what was happening and missed the signs. The truth is that they took a conscious decision not to look at all, as in the case of the 2016 referendum. If there is any doubt about the failure of Ministers to look, let me tell the House what the report says:

“The written evidence provided to us appeared to suggest that HMG had not seen or sought evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes”.

Who provided the written evidence? If we check the footnote, it was the Government themselves. No wonder the Government were so desperate to delay the publication of the report. Sitting on it for months and blocking its publication before a general election was a dereliction of duty.

We have no issue with the Russian people. It is the Russian state that is involved in a litany of hostile activity, cyber-warfare, interference in democratic processes, illicit finance and acts of violence on UK soil. The report finds a failure of security departments to engage with this issue to the extent that the UK now faces a threat from Russia within its own borders. Does the Minister accept that that is in a situation when the UK is, as the report says, a top target for the Russian regime? Does he also accept, on defending the UK’s democratic processes and discourse, that no single organisation was offering leadership in government? Instead, it was, in the words of the report, “a hot potato” passed from one to another, with no body taking overall responsibility.

I thank our security services for the work they do, but they need help, and the report makes it clear that they have not received the strategic support, the legislative tools or the resources necessary to defend our interests. The report concludes that

“recent changes in resourcing to counter Russian Hostile State Activity are not (or not only) due to a continuing escalation of the threat—but appear to be an indicator of playing catch-up.”

When will the Government stop playing catch up? Anyone who saw the Prime Minister’s failure to engage on this at Prime Minister’s questions will be extremely worried. When will the Government treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves, act on the findings of the report and put the security of our country first?

[James Brokenshire]

The one thing I agree with in what the hon. Gentleman said is the threat we face from Russia, as I made clear in my opening statement in terms of all the different varieties in which that threat presents itself. We recognise and have always recognised the enduring and significant threat posed by Russia and Russia remains a top national security priority for this country. However, in terms of the other assertions that he makes, I reject them. It is a bit rich for those on the Labour Front Bench to lecture this Government on our stance in relation to Russia, given that the shadow Foreign Secretary herself even said at the weekend that the Labour party had got its position wrong.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted the issue of strategy and again I point to the Russia strategy that was implemented in 2017. Indeed, a cross-Government Russia unit is focused on all this and brings things together across Government with accountability through the National Security Council. He highlights the issue of the protection of our democracy. Unlike the Labour party, I am proud that we stood on a Conservative manifesto that committed to defend our democracy, highlighting that we will protect the integrity of our democracy by introducing identification to vote at the polling station and stopping postal vote harvesting, and through measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections. I look forward to the Labour party supporting those measures, which it did not in its own manifesto at the last general election.

Our approach to the threat Russia poses is clear-eyed. That is why we have taken the steps that we have, and, as I outlined, all the different measures we have implemented over the last months and years. Indeed, we have set out the message to Russia that, while we want to maintain a dialogue with it, there can be no normalisation of our bilateral relationship until Russia ends the destabilising activity that threatens the UK and our allies and undermines the safety of our citizens and our collective security.

We take the issue of our national security incredibly seriously. As I have said, I will take no lectures from the Opposition on putting the interests of this country first.

Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendments to Designations) Order 2020

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and James Brokenshire

Monday 2nd March 2020 General Committees

[James Brokenshire]

I will respond briefly to the points that have been made. Equally, I welcome the support for the order.

The hon. Member for Torfaen raised the issue of our future relations in discussions regarding the position post-transition. Equally, he made reference to the negotiating mandate that has recently been published. I stress to the Committee that the safety and security of our citizens is the Government’s top priority, and we stand ready to discuss an agreement on law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation in criminal matters. That agreement should equip our operational partners—the police and other law enforcement agencies—on both sides with the capabilities that help to protect citizens and bring criminals to justice, promoting the security of all our citizens. The hon. Member made reference to the negotiating mandate. That does underline that, although we do not intend to participate in the European arrest warrant, the agreement should provide for fast-track extradition arrangements with appropriate further safeguards for individuals.

The hon. Member asked what precedents we can point to. The order indicates that it is possible to create fast-track arrangements in the way that Norway and Iceland have. We go into these discussions in an even-minded fashion, as a shared endeavour and with a shared desire to have a system that works well, but, clearly, with the issues that we have set out in the negotiating mandate.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

What does the Minister believe is defective about the European arrest warrant arrangement?

[James Brokenshire]

It is important to understand that we will be in a fundamentally different relationship with the European Union, and that is the approach to the negotiations that we rightly take. We are seeking to enshrine further important safeguards in our extradition arrangements, including the ability for a judge in the UK to dismiss a warrant from an EU member state on the basis of proportionality, for example, or if there has not yet been a decision to charge and try the wanted person.

Judges will also be required to establish that the offence is also an offence in the UK—that is, the dual criminality issue. The order refers to Norway and Iceland having negotiated those arrangements with the EU, which underlines that doing so is entirely possible and practical. Indeed, on the issue of the EU court, Norway and Iceland have sought to manage that and to find a resolution in terms of dealing with disputes that does not take that into account. Therefore, the order practically underlines the way in which we should be positive about what can be secured through these negotiations.

The hon. Member has rightly highlighted concerns about human rights—an issue that he raised specifically in relation to Kuwait. I can categorically confirm the opposition of the UK to the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle. The death penalty undermines human dignity, and any miscarriages of justice are, by their nature, irreparable. The Extradition Act is clear: an individual cannot be extradited if

“he could be, will be or has been sentenced to death”.

It is important to underline that. The hon. Member may know that, under the category 2 process, which Kuwait and Morocco would fall within, there has to be satisfaction in relation to that point. If the individual

“could be, will be or has been sentenced to death”,

that bar clearly exists, unless there is an “adequate” assurance that

“a sentence of death—(a) will not be imposed, or (b) will not be carried out”.

That is understood in how this issue is approached.

To highlight some broader human rights issues, I reassure the Committee that, although this is not linked explicitly to the treaty, we have a regular dialogue with Kuwait, including about fair, open and transparent systems and the rule of law. Those are things that we in this country hold dear, and we will continue to underline their significance to our friends, allies and partners. Our ambassador and our Ministers regularly raise the issue of human rights with their Kuwaiti counterparts.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the subject of the Government’s commitment to human rights, can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s policy to remain signatories to the European convention on human rights?

[James Brokenshire]

It is beyond a certainty that we are members of the European convention on human rights, which is a separate legal jurisdiction. Sometimes people conflate what is EU law and what is ECHR law, but, obviously, while we leave the European Union, we firmly remain subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

With those assurances, I will draw my comments to a close and seek the Committee’s approval for the order.

Question put and agreed to.