Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point about Bedfordshire police. I commend them for the work they are doing. He has highlighted that it is possible to make savings in police budgets while ensuring that the front-line service is maintained and, in some cases, improved.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about Abu Qatada, we are now halfway through the three-month period set by Mr Justice Mitting for an agreement to be reached with Jordan. Does the Home Secretary expect to have met the deadline by the time we next meet for Home Office questions, or will Abu Qatada’s bail conditions have been revoked?

[Mrs May]

My reply to the right hon. Gentleman is the same as my reply to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). There have been two ministerial visits to Jordan; the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) has made one, and I have also done so. Home Office officials have been there separately as well. We are having positive, constructive discussions with the Government of Jordan about Abu Qatada, but while those discussions are continuing and while there are still legal issues to look into, I will go no further than that.

UK Border Agency

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The suspension of checks did start under the previous Government. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), this Government have a proper immigration policy and intend to control immigration. We also need to ensure that UK Border Force is the law enforcement agency with control at our borders that we all want it to be.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

When the Home Secretary made her statement to the House on 7 November, there was some initial confusion about whether Manchester airport was included in the pilot. Can she now confirm how many passengers passed through Manchester airport without biometric or fingerprint checks during the period of the pilot that was authorised by Ministers?

[Mrs May]

I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that Manchester airport was indeed part of the pilot scheme, but one of the problems—as shown in the report by the chief inspector—is that some of the record-keeping at ports was not complete in relation to the operation of the pilot and the suspension of checks, and that records were kept on a different basis between different ports. While the chief inspector has put the figures into his report as far as he is able, it is not possible to get the complete picture of the operation of the pilot precisely because the records are incomplete.

Abu Qatada

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to update the House on the decision to release Abu Qatada on bail.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

Since December 2001, successive British Governments have sought to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan, his home country, because he poses a serious risk to our national security. Qatada has a long-standing association with al-Qaeda. British courts have found:

“His reach and the depth of his influence…is formidable…He provides a religious justification for…acts of violence and terror”.

In Jordan, he has been tried and found guilty in absentia of terrorism offences including conspiracy to cause explosions at western and Israeli targets and involvement in the bombings of the American school and the Jerusalem hotel in Amman in 1998.

The House of Lords agreed with the Government that Qatada can be deported to Jordan to face a retrial because of the diplomatic assurances negotiated by Britain and the Jordanian Government. That agreement ensures that individuals deported to Jordan will not be tortured upon their return. Despite the House of Lords agreement that Qatada should be deported, and despite accepting that he would not face mistreatment in Jordan, the European Court of Human Rights ruled last month against his deportation. It did so on the grounds that deportation would violate article 6 of the convention, the right to a fair trial, due to the risk that evidence obtained from the torture of others would be used against him. Hon. Members should be aware that that argument had already been considered by a British court and rejected.

I hardly need tell the House that the Government disagree vehemently with Strasbourg’s ruling. We believe that Abu Qatada should be deported. We are considering all the legal options available, including whether to refer the case to the Grand Chamber. As we do so, we will continue to negotiate with the Jordanians to see what assurances they can give us about the evidence used against Qatada in their courts. Following the Strasbourg ruling, Qatada’s lawyers appealed to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission for bail. We opposed that appeal vigorously, but yesterday it was granted, and bail will start within a week.

The bail conditions are among the most stringent imposed on anybody facing deportation from the UK, and reflect the conditions set out when Qatada was bailed in 2008. He will be under a 22-hour curfew. He will not be allowed to access the internet or any electronic communication devices. He will not be allowed to travel outside an approved boundary. Visitors will need to be approved, under very strict conditions. He will be subject to a specific condition preventing him from attending mosques and leading group prayer. If any of those conditions are breached, he will be re-arrested and we will seek his immediate re-detention. But however strict the bail conditions, I continue to believe that Qatada should remain behind bars.

It is simply not acceptable that after the Jordanians have guaranteed his treatment, after British courts have found that he is dangerous and after his removal has been approved by the highest courts in our land, we still cannot deport such a dangerous foreign national. We continue to consider the case for a British Bill of Rights, and the Prime Minister is leading the Government’s attempts to reform the European Court of Human Rights.

The right place for a terrorist is a prison cell. The right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell, far away from Britain. That is why we will do everything that we can within the existing legal regime to deport Qatada, and we are doing everything that we can to reform that regime to avoid such cases in future.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her answer. She will understand, of course, that there is considerable concern throughout the House about yesterday’s decision. I appreciate, as do we all, that it places her in a difficult situation, but the public will want reassurance that the Government are doing everything possible to protect their safety.

First, can she offer any explanation why Mr Justice Mitting decided to bail Abu Qatada now, while an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights is still possible, rather than give notice that that would happen at some point in future if Ministers were ultimately unable to deport him? Will she say more about the discussions with the authorities in Jordan? Does she expect to receive assurances on the use of evidence, and if so, when? Given the urgency of the situation, will Ministers be directly involved in those discussions? Does she intend to make further representations to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission? Has Mr Justice Mitting indicated that he would be prepared to reconsider the three-month deadline for removing bail conditions if the Government received the necessary assurances and appealed against the ECHR ruling?

The public will be reassured by the fact that Home Office lawyers were successful in pressing SIAC to impose a 22-hour curfew on Abu Qatada. What arguments were advanced for that level of control, and how do they compare with the much-reduced arrangements that would be available if Abu Qatada were made subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure? Will the Home Secretary confirm that, under a TPIM, Abu Qatada would be entitled to a mobile phone and have access to the internet, that an overnight residence requirement would not exceed 16 hours, and that she would be unable to relocate him to another part of the country?

What additional costs will fall to the police and the Security Service as a result of the decision to grant Abu Qatada bail? Will the Home Secretary update the House on progress made since the Prime Minister’s recent speech in Strasbourg on the need to reshape the relationship between the ECHR and the UK’s own judicial system? Does she agree that it should be only in truly exceptional cases that a Supreme Court judgment can be challenged in the ECHR? Finally, does she agree that it is a good thing that indefinite detention without trial was ruled to be unlawful, but that the answer in Abu Qatada’s case is deportation, with assurances, to Jordan, not release into the community in Britain?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman has raised several issues in his supplementary questions, some of which relate to the approach that Justice Mitting might take in certain circumstances, but obviously it is not for me to indicate what approach the judge would take. However, were assurances received from the Jordanian Government—we are working hard on that—obviously that would change the scenario and, by introducing a new factor, would enable the Government to take action that would, I think, change SIAC’s approach. If any case were to go before it again, though, it would be for it to determine.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the work being done on the ECHR. As he will be aware, because of our chairmanship of the Council of Europe, we are in a position for six months to take action on this matter, and we are working actively with other countries with a similar interest in ensuring that the European Court acts as originally intended, which is as a Court considering the most serious issues and key points of human rights law, rather than as a body to which people automatically appeal once they have gone through national courts. That work is being actively led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice. Furthermore, as I mentioned, the Prime Minister has been to Strasbourg, spoken on these matters and explained our position.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned TPIMs and bail, but of course they are two separate matters—one should not conflate the two. The Home Office made vigorous representations to SIAC arguing that Abu Qatada should not be released on bail, but that were it to happen, the most stringent conditions should be applied. As I said, these are among the most stringent conditions applied to anybody we are currently unable to deport from the UK.

As the right hon. Gentleman said at the end, it is absolutely right that in this country we do not have indefinite detention without trial. However, everyone on both sides of the House wants to ensure that we can deport those who represent a danger to the United Kingdom and whom we believe should be deported. That is why we are considering our options within the legal process, and why we are negotiating with Jordanians on further assurances in order to deport Abu Qatada. However, it is also why we are working to make the changes in the European Court to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and looking at the whole issue of assurances with other countries, to ensure that we strengthen our ability to deport people who are a danger to us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am happy to congratulate the police on that work in Reading. My hon. Friend has highlighted the fact that serious and organised crime touches communities directly. The Government have recognised that in the organised crime strategy. Our focus on ensuring that organised crime is given a much higher priority has a significant effect on the crime that we see on our streets. Our work through the National Crime Agency will make an important difference and strengthen the response further.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister expect the switch from the Serious Organised Crime Agency to the National Crime Agency to result in an increase in the level of reclaimed criminal assets? What proportion of those proceeds of crime will he demand is returned to the communities that are most directly affected by crime?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman highlights an important point on the proceeds of crime, about which I feel strongly as a Minister. We are already driving changes to ensure that there is a focus on this matter in policing. The Serious Organised Crime Agency already has responsibility for it. I am pleased to tell him that since we got rid of the previous Government’s target-driven approach, the performance has improved.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am aware of the strong interest that the House attaches to this issue, which is evidenced by the fact that there are nine questions about it on today’s Order Paper. I believe that that constitutes a record number of Home Office questions on a single issue. My noble Friend Lord Henley, the Minister responsible for crime prevention and antisocial behaviour reduction, is well aware of the concern felt by Members of both Houses, and has told me that he would be very willing to meet members of the all-party parliamentary group.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

13. What plans she has to review the Riot (Damages) Act 1886.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

A review of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 is under way, and will consider all options for reform. It will include all learning from the August disturbances, and will involve consultation with people affected by them who made claims under the Act as well as organisations involved in the recovery. We expect it to be completed before the end of the current financial year.

[Paul Goggins]

I commend the Minister for the positive way in which he is engaging with Greater Manchester police authority, which, as he knows, carries a liability of more than £9 million as a result of the disorder in August. As he conducts his review, will he ensure that there is more clarity about responsibilities and the financial support given to police authorities by the Home Office, and that more pressure is put on the insurance industry to deal with claims promptly?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We have been concerned about the rate at which payments have been made, and last week I convened a meeting with representatives of the insurance industry to discuss the matter. They assured me that, according to their latest assessment, some two thirds of businesses have received a partial or full payment. However, there ought to be processes to ensure that people are paid more swiftly, and such processes need to be sorted out by police authorities and the industry.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I do not accept that it provides uncertainty. It provides the courts with the ability to operate the regime effectively. As this matter was raised in the Lords, we are seeking this House’s consideration to ensure that the measure is properly applied. That is the basis on which we have introduced the amendment. I think it is appropriate to provide flexibility in the way that has been proposed.

Amendment 10 relates to the police reporting measure. It makes it clear that in addition to requiring the individual to report to a police station at specified times and in a specified manner, the Secretary of State may require the individual to comply with directions given by the police in relation to such reporting. That is necessary to ensure that the individual can be required to co-operate with the practicalities of reporting—for example, requiring him to report to the front desk of the police station, to speak to the officer there, and to sign to confirm his attendance. That has always been the intention behind the measure, and it is the current practice for control orders. It is necessary to ensure that the provision reflects the reality of how the measure is intended to operate. It is also in line with the general procedures for individuals required to report to a police station for any other reason—for example, individuals on police or court bail. Lords amendment 3 is necessary in consequence. It specifies that the definition of “TPIM decision” at clause 17(3) includes such a direction given by a constable in relation to the reporting measure.

Lords amendments 4 and 5 are essentially technical amendments which are necessary in consequence of changes to other legislation currently before Parliament. Section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which has not been commenced, increases the maximum sentence on summary conviction in England and Wales from six months to 12 months. When the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill was drafted, the intention was that that provision would be repealed by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Because of this, clause 23 provides that the maximum sentence on summary conviction for contravening a measure specified in a TPIM notice is six months. However, section 154(1) of the 2003 Act will not now be repealed. On that basis, these amendments are needed to revert to the previous practice when legislating for offences that are tried summarily. They provide for a maximum 12-month term in England and Wales, but include a transitional provision limiting the sentencing power to six months pending commencement of section 154(1) of the 2003 Act.

Lords Amendments 6 and 9 relate to the overnight residence measure. That is intended to ensure that the individual can be required to reside at a specified address and to remain there for specified periods overnight. The clear purpose of that is to manage risk. As part of that measure, it may be necessary to require the individual to remain within the residence and to prohibit them from entering any garden or outside area that forms part of the property or any communal area in a shared property during the specified hours overnight.

As it was drafted, the provision did not necessarily make it clear that the measure could be applied in that way. These are essential drafting amendments to remove that uncertainty and to make clear the policy intention. They put it beyond doubt that the individual may be required to remain within their residence—that is, essentially, behind their front door—during the specified overnight period. I should make it clear that, where individuals are required to remain at their residence or are electronically monitored in other contexts, they will usually be required to remain in their house or flat and will not be allowed out into their garden. The particular requirements imposed by the Secretary of State in each case must, of course, always be necessary and proportionate. The court will subsequently consider the proportionality of each measure as part of its review of the notice.

On the point about directions hearings that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made, I should add that clause 8(5) still provides that the substantive hearing is to take place as soon as possible. I just wanted to reassure him in case he thought that the proposal was open-ended. That is certainly not the intention. I hope that the need to act expeditiously in this regard is clear to him.

Lords Amendment 7 deletes subsection (11)(a) of clause 26, which allowed a temporary enhanced TPIM order to amend any enactment. That subsection was drafted on the basis that the temporary enhanced TPIM order would need to amend other legislation to ensure that the enhanced TPIM system would function correctly. The Government considered it further following an amendment helpfully tabled in Committee in the other place by Baroness Hamwee. We concluded that the subsection was not necessary for this purpose and therefore amended the Bill on Report to remove it.

Lords Amendment 8 is necessary to ensure that the power to make a temporary enhanced TPIM order does not impinge inappropriately on devolved matters in Scotland. Clause 26, as amended, provides that a temporary enhanced TPIM order may not make any provision relating to devolved matters in Scotland, other than those already contained in the Bill, without the consent of the Scottish Government. In relation to those provisions touching on devolved matters that are already contained in the Bill, I can confirm that the Scottish Parliament passed a legislative consent motion on 17 November. I am grateful to Scottish Ministers and officials for their help in that regard.

Finally, Lords Amendment 11 relates to the transitional period provided by schedule 8. In the period following the coming into force of the Bill, the control orders in force immediately before the commencement of the Bill will remain in force, unless revoked or quashed before the end of that period. Such a period is needed to ensure that there can be a safe, orderly and managed transition of individuals from the old system to the new system. As the Government have consistently made clear, the police have confirmed that extensive preparations are being made and that arrangements will be in place to manage the move from the control order system to the TPIMs system.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will just finish this point and then I will gladly give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

We have received advice from the police that as the transitional period will fall over the Christmas and new year holiday period, a small extension to the period is necessary. That will assist in the effective management of the process of transition for individual cases over the holiday period. It does not reflect on preparedness. Lords amendment 11 therefore extends the transitional period from 28 to 42 days.

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Paul Goggins]

I am delighted that the Minister did not give way when I sought to intervene, because he has been able to enlighten the House and demonstrate that Opposition Members who have been pressing him for months on whether the police and Security Service would be ready have partly been proved correct. Let us look at the bigger picture, however. With the Olympic games, a new system and the end of relocation, why does such a moderate Minister want to take so many risks with the safety of the public?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Goggins]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous with her time this afternoon, as always, and is advancing a powerful argument. She will recall that when the Minister responded to my intervention earlier by telling me that national security would always be his highest priority, I was slightly taken aback, because I would not have doubted for a second that that would always be the case.

In view of all the risks that will face us next year and the fact that an entirely new system is being introduced involving additional officers, can my right hon. Friend help me by explaining why, given a choice of dates, the Minister should pick the earlier rather than the later date to introduce his measures?

[Hazel Blears]

I am afraid that this is one of the rare occasions when I cannot help my right hon. Friend. I cannot for the life of me think why, if I were a Minister faced with this level of risk and if I had a practical solution that would not cost me a great deal of extra money, I would not seek the House’s agreement to an extension of the transitional period as a precautionary, preventive measure, just to get us through what I believe will be a time of heightened risk.

I am grateful to the Minister for placing information from the police in the Library to reassure us about their readiness, but I want to ask him a question. What provision exists to cover the—possibly—six people who are currently subject to control orders and to relocation provisions, and who are likely to return to London? In Committee, I raised an issue that has still not been resolved. Paragraph 1 of schedule 1 allows a TPIM to be applied which specifies a residence where a person must reside, but paragraph 3 contains a power to exclude a person from a locality. I believe that there is still a contradiction between a person’s right to reside at his or her own residence and the power that would allow that person to be excluded from, for example, east London. What if the person’s residence is in east London? Which power will have priority, the power to exclude under paragraph 3 or the power relating to residence in paragraph 1?

I have still not received an answer to my question, and I am very worried about the position. If those six people, many of whom may well have residences in east London, choose to live there, will the TPIMs regime include a power to exclude them from a broader area than the locality in which the Olympics will take place? I should appreciate a clear answer from the Minister today. If it is necessary for me to write to him I shall certainly do so, but I should be reassured if he could give me that further information.

Intelligence and Security Committee

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). He spoke about his pride in his constituents who do such tremendous work at GCHQ, and I join him in praising those dedicated and important staff.

It is common ground among the main political parties that the Government’s top priority must be to protect the people of this country. Although we all want a law enforcement and criminal justice system that is as open as possible, in order to maintain public safety we must have some level of secrecy, and scrutinising the workings of that secret world is the core task of the ISC.

As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) put his finger on the key issue when he talked about the importance of trust. I am sure that I speak for all members of the Committee in saying that it is a privilege that trust has been placed in us in respect of the access that we have to the agencies and confidential information. It is also a privilege to visit the agencies and meet the staff who do such important work. Some of them are long-serving and very experienced, and I pay tribute to them of course, but I have noticed during my first year serving in Committee that there are also many energetic and ingenious young people in these agencies, and they do tremendous work. What they do is a very important form of public service, and I pay tribute to them.

There is much to welcome in the ISC report on what has been done in the past year. Many Members have mentioned the NSC’s work and the coherence that it brings to national security. We all agree that that has been a very important step forward, not least because of the regular contact that it brings between senior Ministers and the heads of the agencies, as the ISC Chair, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), has pointed out. I am sure that that is helping to foster a greater degree of collaboration between the agencies, which is welcome.

I want to say a couple of things about resources. First, I welcome the additional £600 million that is being made available to deal with cyber-security and the cyber-threat. That is an important investment and, as has been suggested, it will almost certainly not be a one-off sum and will need to be followed up in subsequent spending periods.

On the funding of the agencies, the report says that the 11% real-terms cut is “a fair settlement”, which is a fair comment by the Committee. Given the rapid growth over the past decade in the funding available to the intelligence and security agencies and given the level of cuts right across government and the public services, it probably is a fair settlement. However, as page 15 of the report states, it is essential that the funding

“can be adjusted if there is a significant change in the threat.”

I have no reason to doubt the good intentions and good faith of the Government, but their response to the Committee’s report could be a bit more robust in the strength and clarity of the answer. We all accept that where things change we need to look first at reprioritising our resources. For example, the events in the middle east required a reprioritisation of the resources of the various agencies. Those agencies cannot expect simply to have new money made available if there is a new threat or a new need, but with the Olympics coming up, with the increasing threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism and with the continuing threat from international terrorism, Parliament and the public need to know clearly from the Government that additional resources will be made available, if they are needed.

On the Olympics, it is clearly recognised by government and by the Security Service that additional officers will be required by the Security Service. Some of those officers will be drawn from existing staff, but some will be new recruits. Last November, the Committee was told that the Security Service was

“seeking to recruit 100 new intelligence officers by November 2011”.

Subsequently, in May, the Committee was told that 90% of these officers are expected to take up their posts by November 2011. We are now in that month, and the House will be pleased to hear in the Minister’s winding-up speech that those staff have been recruited and trained and that they will be available well in advance of the Olympics.

Finally, on resources, I want briefly to comment on the Communications-Electronics Security Group. That little-known group operates out of GCHQ and performs an important service in providing information assurance right across government and all its agencies. The problem is that the importance of that service is not reflected in the enthusiasm of Departments and agencies in taking it up, and as a result GCHQ is out of pocket to the tune of £7 million over the past two years. We have been given repeated reassurances that a grip will be got of that situation. It is very important that that happens and that in the next financial year we have a funding model for the service that actually means that it can be provided without having to be subsidised from the GCHQ budget.

May I raise, as one or two of my right hon. Friends have done, the new counter-terrorism measures? The TPIMs are, as we know, intended to replace the control order system that went before. The Minister may or may not be pleased to learn that I do not seek to debate the principle of TPIMs as against control orders this evening, as we have done that often enough over the past few months. However, I remain of the view that the system that he is introducing is weaker, and I draw his attention to the remarks of the director general of the Security Service on page 46 of the report:

“Covert investigation does not deliver disruption”.

I do not wish to go over the principles again, but we are now six weeks away from the planned implementation of the new TPIMs system. As that system relies on additional resources being made available to the police and to the Security Service, we need to find out, in this timely debate, whether the additional officers that were to be recruited to provide the additional resource to the Security Service have been recruited and trained, and whether they will be available to work on the new system as soon as it is introduced, which will presumably be early in the new year.

I also wish to draw attention, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary did, to the director general’s comment in the report that

“there should be no substantial increase in overall risk.”

That of course implies that there may be some increase in the additional risk, and the Committee records that as being of concern to us. We will be taking an active interest in that in the weeks and months ahead. I am very grateful to the director general for his candid assessment of that situation, but Ministers will also need to pay close attention to whether or not the level of risk increases, and they must be prepared to act if there is any sign of an additional risk, be it substantial or otherwise.

Such action must mean either additional resources or a willingness to return to this House to implement emergency legislation, which the Government have spoken about, which they intend to subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and which would impose greater restrictions on those suspected of deep involvement in terrorist activity. My view remains the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who intervened earlier in the debate. We feel that delay would be far better than uncertainty and risk. I say again to the Minister, as plainly as I can, that this matter has gone way beyond party political squabbling, although it never was about that for me. I put it to him that if there is any doubt whatsoever, delay should be the first thing that he considers and that he would have the full support of Members on both sides of this House if he did the sensible thing.

Although I have been a member of the Committee for only the past year, it is fair to say that Northern Ireland has probably had a slightly higher profile in the Committee’s work this year than in the preceding two or three years. The Committee has been told that in 2008-09 the Security Service’s effort in countering Northern Ireland-related terrorism fell to some 13% of its overall effort total, which is not surprising given the progress in Northern Ireland. Not only was stage 1 of devolution delivered in 2007, but in July that year we saw the end of Operation Banner, which meant the end of Army involvement in Northern Ireland after 38 years. At that point, just a handful of dissidents remained. They were few in number, fragmented in their organisation, more interested in the proceeds of crime than in the politics of a united Ireland and technically inept in their capability. That has changed and their number has increased. Their expertise has clearly increased and now the threat level is “severe” in Northern Ireland and “substantial” in Great Britain. The director general reported to the Committee that although he has no reason to believe that an attack in Great Britain is imminent,

“I certainly believe it’s in their minds”.

We know that just in recent months the murder of police officer Ronan Kerr has occurred, a 500 lb bomb was placed near Newry and there have been other attacks, including on Derry’s UK city of culture office. These risks are real, and I again pay tribute to those who serve in the Security Service and to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in countering that threat.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on, he might wish to draw the House’s attention to paragraph 33 of the report, which states:

“The Security Service has told the Committee that the numbers of individuals involved with the current republican terrorist groups is around half the number that were active in the Provisional IRA”.

That is a very considerable number, is it not?

[Paul Goggins]

It is, although it is also fair to say that there are degrees of involvement. Although there may be some latent support at a fairly local level for certain individuals, the number of active people who are determined on violence in pursuit of their aims is probably still fairly limited. None the less, they are increasingly dangerous in what they do, and they need to be dealt with. That is why, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, the 34% increase in investment in the past couple of years in the Security Service’s work on Northern Ireland terrorism is welcome.

There have been some positive developments, and it is important to record them in this debate. The devolution of policing and justice, of course, was a very important step in April last year. The PSNI and the Security Service have worked very well together in a new relationship over the past few years, which has borne great fruit. Only recently—this is outside the period covered by the report, but it is none the less important—Michael Campbell was convicted in Lithuania and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment there. That was the product of some very good work, and those involved should be commended and congratulated.

I warmly welcome the Green Paper, which others have already analysed. Frankly, it takes political courage to come forward with such a Green Paper. The territory is complex and the document is hardly a vote-winner, but it is essential that we grapple with such issues and seek to try to resolve them on a cross-party basis, because they are important. The Binyam Mohamed case was clearly a major breach of the control principle and, as we have reported in our report this year, when we went to the United States and met our colleagues and counterparts there it was clear that they were shaken by this development. Although they reiterated time and again the value that they attach to the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom on intelligence and security, they made it absolutely clear that they must know that their intelligence is safe in our hands. If they cannot trust us, it would be a very negative development.

We all agree that we want a system of open justice. Article 6, on the right to a fair trial, is a vital part of our system. As far as possible, of course, defendants and suspects should have the gist of the case against them outlined and given to them, but the problem is that the “gist” is starting to become virtually the whole case, which makes things very difficult. When evidence includes highly sensitive information, there must be a way of protecting it. Ministers have an obligation to ensure that they uphold article 6, but they also have article 2 obligations to the people who are the source of the intelligence that enables Ministers to act. Those people must be protected, too, because if Ministers were to reveal such information and thereby the identity of the sources, who might then be imperilled, it would be a terrible development. It is vital that both sources and the wider public are protected.

I welcome the proposals in the Green Paper on the closed material procedures, but, as others have said, they must be made as tight as possible. In the end, the court will always have the last word and make the ultimate decision, but it is for Parliament now to make its views absolutely clear, through statutory guidance and through the consideration, as others have said, of the statutory presumption against disclosure of foreign intelligence material. All those safeguards should be considered, but, having had the courage to introduce this Green Paper and grapple with these issues, it is vital that we get it right. We will not get an early or easy second chance to do so, so it is essential that we make the best effort that we can now.

Let me make a final point on closed material procedures. We are familiar with the arguments about the control principle and more familiar with its application to immigration cases in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and to control orders—and TPIMs, when they are introduced. I caution the Minister, as we will increasingly need clarity on the recall of convicted terrorists who are out of prison on licence. I want to emphasise the importance of that. It is already an issue in Northern Ireland, and it will become increasingly important across the rest of the UK. When intelligence raises concerns about the continued involvement in terrorism of someone who has served their sentence and is now out in the community on licence, although that intelligence might not be able to be used further to convict that individual, it must be possible to use it to ensure that they go back into prison and continue their sentence so that the public are protected. That is another important test that the Minister will need to set himself when he comes up with the ultimate solution to the issues raised in the Green Paper.

Finally, I warmly welcome what the Green Paper has to say about the future role and remit of the Committee. I am not personally persuaded by the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) that the Chair of the Committee should always be from the Opposition party, and there was a good exchange involving my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen in which the arguments were advanced. It is important that the individual who is in the Chair of the Committee should be respected by not only its members but more widely across Parliament and the agencies. The Chair should have the expertise and leadership to create consensus, which is at the core of all this work. We have that in our current Chair, and whether or not a future Chair is from the Opposition or Government party, those are the key credentials that that individual must have.

I welcome the proposal that the Committee should be a Committee of Parliament, with all the safeguards that have been discussed. There should be a limited number of public sessions, which would help to explain more about the importance of the work of the intelligence and security agencies as well as that of the Committee. The remit of the Committee should run across not only policy, resources and administration, but all the work of the agencies. That already happens, and we need to ensure that it is formalised for the future.

It is also important that the Committee can not only request information but require it. As we make that move, it will place greater obligations on the Committee to ensure that it gets the information and that it knows that it has it, as well as that there is nothing missing. That means that we will need a deeper investigative capacity in the Committee. The agencies should ensure in every case that we get all the information that has been requested the first time rather than the second or third time.

Speaking personally, my first year as a member of the Committee has been fascinating and very enjoyable. I certainly look forward to the year ahead and the many challenges that lie in it. There will certainly be no let-up in those challenges, particularly with TPIMs coming into operation and the Olympic games coming to our capital city.

Border Control Scheme

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

My right hon. Friend is right. I am sorry that the Opposition cannot elevate the tone of the debate. As I say, it is interesting that when Labour Home Secretaries cease to be Home Secretaries and become former Home Secretaries, they commend the degree of consensus about using a risk-based approach to security control and immigration control. That would be a sensible way for this debate to go forward, because it is perfectly clear that the long-term solution to the many challenges at our border is to use our resources as intelligently as possible and to use the very good people we have at the border to cope with and combat the highest risks. That is what the general aviation policy was meant to do, as was our pilot over the summer, and the early signs are that they are indeed successful. The Opposition can argue about the details, but I would genuinely welcome some common sense and support for these principles from the shadow Home Secretary. That would be a more sensible approach that the one she has taken until now.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Given that the Home Secretary’s policy was consistent across the country, will the Minister confirm that a number of private planes were allowed to land at Manchester airport this summer without proper customs and immigration checks? If that is the case, will he tell me how many?

[Damian Green]

The point of the pilot and of the private jets policy was to improve checks. The idea that there were no immigration checks is simply wrong. It is wrong in relation to Manchester airport and wrong in relation to other airports. The right hon. Gentleman asked how many flights arrived without immigration checks. The answer is none.

Border Checks Summer 2011

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I regret the fact that the Home Secretary is no longer with us—

[Stephen Pound]

No longer in her place.

[Paul Goggins]

No longer in her place. She will know from the exchanges that she and I have had both inside and outside the Chamber in the 18 months that she has held office that my starting point, as a former Home Office Minister and Northern Ireland security Minister, has been to trust the Home Secretary, as, indeed, I trusted all her predecessors. We heard on Monday from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who described the job as the “ministerial graveyard”. We heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) talk earlier this afternoon about the serious responsibilities that the job has for public safety and our borders. It is my strong belief that we should not seek to second-guess difficult decisions that Home Secretaries have to take, often with advice, of course, that the rest of us do not have.

Having said that, in the interests of protecting her own reputation and, crucially, that of her office, the Home Secretary needs urgently to clarify a number of issues. I have three specific questions. She and the Minister will remember from my question on her statement on Monday that Manchester airport is in my constituency. Indeed, when I asked her whether the pilot included that airport, she gave me three answers for the price of one: “No”, “Yes” and “Maybe”. Well, I need to know whether the pilot did in fact operate at Manchester airport, and if so how frequently checks were relaxed and how many people passed through the airport without biometric checks. I appreciate that the Minister replying today will have many other things to respond to, so a letter on those issues and questions would be very welcome.

My second question, which has not been discussed as extensively as it needs to be, is where did the pressure for this pilot come from? I find it difficult to believe that all the pressure came from within the UK Border Agency. After all, procedures were in place for health and safety and public order emergencies, and Brodie Clark himself has confirmed that, even this summer, when the pilot was operating and there were three-hour queues at Heathrow airport, checks were still not relaxed.

However, delays at airports damage the reputation of airports themselves and of airlines. I would therefore like the Minister to tell us whether any pressure has been applied, either on the Home Secretary or the Transport Secretary, by BAA or other airport operators—or indeed by any airline companies—to speed up passport control. Has there been any correspondence with the Home Secretary and the Transport Secretary on that, or any meetings or discussions with Ministers? If there has, we should have copies of those letters and minutes.

My third question goes to the very heart of how Ministers operate within this Government. How hands-on were the Home Secretary and her Ministers in establishing, monitoring and evaluating this pilot? The right hon. Lady must have been aware of the political risk she was taking in establishing the pilot. She must have been aware that the public would take some convincing that a more effective and targeted approach would include the relaxation of biometric checks. If she wants now to convince us that she is on top of the situation and has been throughout, she needs to publish all the submissions and all the other documents that relate to the pilot, including the information that was gathered during the pilot.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the public reaction, but would he not admit that one of the things that we most commonly hear from members of the public is about using intelligence-led checks at our borders? Everyone I speak to—lots of constituents—constantly asks why we do not use a more intelligence-led approach, rather than frisking schoolchildren and so on. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The public would have every sympathy with an intelligence-led approach.

[Paul Goggins]

Of course the public want an intelligence-led approach, but the idea that that includes disregarding the biometric content of any passport is preposterous. I hope the hon. Lady accepts that.

To return to my point, surely Ministers were receiving weekly updates on the pilot. Surely they were convening regular stocktakes in relation to what is, after all, a highly controversial pilot. I would be particularly interested to hear from the Minister how many times decisions to implement measures beyond the routine procedures that were allowed within the pilot were escalated to the border force duty director, in line with the instructions to which we heard reference earlier.

There was some speculation on the radio this morning that in the end both Mr Clark and the Home Secretary will be proved right. I believe that that would be the worst of all outcomes. It would show a complete disconnection between policy and operations, with claims that officials were over-interpreting what Ministers had approved, and Ministers so hands-off that they simply blame officials when things go wrong. I find it astonishing that the first the Home Secretary knew about the issue was when she was informed by the permanent secretary that disciplinary action had been instigated against Brodie Clark. If she had taken even a basic interest in the pilot, she would have known well before that that something had gone wrong. For the sake of her reputation, but more particularly for the reputation of her office, she should be as open as possible and publish all the documents that she has.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this serious issue, about which I want to talk to the Department for Transport. Uninsured driving already raises the cost of premiums for honest motorists to the tune of £30. Individual fines are a matter for magistrates, but it is important that we look at this matter.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Further to the Home Secretary’s reply about the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, if insurance companies are successful in pressing claims for the cost of business interruption, will those costs also be included in the financial settlement?

[Mrs May]

I do not think that business interruption is being looked at, but I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman and set out exactly what we are doing in relation to the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 and what criteria are being followed to ensure that police forces and others are paid the necessary sums.