Child Sexual Abuse (Independent Panel Inquiry)

Naomi Long Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. At an earlier stage, Chief Constable Simon Bailey raised with me his concern to ensure that investigations are properly joined up between police forces, and that information that might be helpful to an investigation in one force is not held by another force and not passed on. Part of his work in Operation Hydrant will be to co-ordinate all child sexual abuse investigations that concern people of public prominence or institutional settings, and he will also consider the responses from police forces to the inquiry to ensure that they are of suitable quality.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I welcome the statement and hope it represents a fresh start for victims, whose confidence has been badly shaken in recent months. In particular, I welcome the reassurances given on the Official Secrets Act and the Secretary of State’s letter confirming that those reassurances will also apply to people giving evidence to the Hart inquiry. She is aware of my concerns about Kincora and the allegations that MI5 was involved in a cover-up. When she says she will discuss the inquiry’s jurisdictional limits with the new chairman, can she assure us that she will do so with an open mind? Can she also assure us that those who wish to give evidence who are covered by the Official Secrets Act and require documentation to support their evidence will, along with the inquiry itself, have access to that documentation?

National Crime Agency

Naomi Long Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the increasing number of illegal activities being carried out by organised criminal gangs in Northern Ireland; notes police assessments that more than 140 such gangs operate in Northern Ireland; and calls for the implementation, in full, of proposals for the National Crime Agency to help deal with this problem, which is particularly prevalent in border areas.

This is an extremely important debate given the context of criminal activity right across the United Kingdom, but particularly in Northern Ireland. In recent months, the police in Northern Ireland have given their assessment that there are between 140 and 160 criminal gangs operating in the Province. The police have also indicated that they would like the utmost co-operation right across the community in dealing with these criminal gangs and attempting not just to stop and stifle their activities but to seize any proceeds from their illegal activities.

Last year the Police Service of Northern Ireland stated:

“It is the PSNI view that if the NCA is unable to operate fully in Northern Ireland, this will have a detrimental impact on our ability to keep people safe…It remains our view that the NCA should only work in Northern Ireland alongside the PSNI, so that operational control ultimately remains with the Chief Constable and nothing proceeds without agreement. There must be complete transparency for PSNI of the NCA’s intelligence, investigations and operational activity. Through such arrangements, the Chief Constable can be held accountable for NCA operations via the Policing Board.”

My reason for quoting that statement at some length is that there have been some “concerns” in Northern Ireland about accountability measures and how they will apply to the operation of the NCA. In fact, the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein have indicated, thus far, their lack of preparedness to endorse the NCA.

In addition to that PSNI statement, the Chief Constable has had a number of meetings with various political representatives in order to reassure them that the accountability measures needed are currently in place—he is absolutely clear about that. Therefore, given the scale of the number of criminal gangs that are operating—there are up to 160 of them—and what they could do, not just in Northern Ireland, but in the rest of the United Kingdom, one would have hoped for, and expected to see, total support for the full implementation of the NCA in order to deal with them.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter. Does he agree that there is also a financial cost—not just for Northern Ireland, but for the UK more widely—because civil recovery has been affected by the NCA’s inability to operate fully in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Campbell]

Yes, that is indeed the case. Although that is not the primary concern, it is an additional one to that which I am about to discuss. I thank the hon. Lady for raising it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that point, which I want to come on to. The consequences of the failure to implement the National Crime Agency are catastrophic.

[Naomi Long]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. In a number of significant PSNI investigations at the moment, the key and pertinent criminal associates, their infrastructure and organisation are based outside Northern Ireland. The NCA is much better placed to take the lead on those issues because it obviously has an international reach, but it currently cannot do so. Does he agree that that not only compromises investigations in that it limits the role of the NCA, but that it stretches the PSNI’s resources at a time when they are already extensively stretched?

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Lady for that comment, which is very true. Only in the past two weeks has the Chief Constable indicated the scale of reductions in normal policing in Northern Ireland that result from the budgetary changes that he has to implement. That will further compound the issue.

Some six years ago, a consignment arrived, also via the Irish Republic, that totalled €700 million-worth of cocaine. That of course predated the National Crime Agency; it was when SOCA was in operation. I mention those drug operations for the reason given by the hon. Lady. These drugs are doing untold harm to people not just in Northern Ireland, but in the entire United Kingdom. The Republic of Ireland market would not have provided even a toehold for €700 million-worth of cocaine. The report on 7 November, when the haul was located, said that the vast bulk of the cocaine was bound for the United Kingdom market.

The problem does not just apply to a small part of the United Kingdom; it will be felt in every constituency across this United Kingdom. On the streets of our cities, young people will be sold dope or illegal substances that have come from the shores of the Irish Republic and through Northern Ireland to the GB market. There is therefore an onus on everyone, particularly the SDLP and Sinn Fein, to sign up to the implementation of the National Crime Agency. I must say that Sinn Fein may well have associates who benefit from the failure to implement the National Crime Agency. I fully accept it when the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) says that the SDLP has no such hang-ups and no such associates, and that is all the more reason to sign up to the agency that will help to stop the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

It is important that the Minister respond to that point.

[Naomi Long]

So does the shadow Minister believe that the Government should implement the NCA provisions without the negotiation, which would have consequences for devolution? I believe the matter is serious enough that it ought to happen. There have been negotiations with the Department of Justice and the Government and proposals are in place for addressing the issues of accountability. The problem is simply the complete unwillingness of other people to recognise that things have shifted in the interim.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate to outline, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), the SDLP position. May I say at the outset that the SDLP has consistently and persistently opposed all forms of violence, at times when it might not have been popular to do so and at times when others promoted violence? Leaving that aside, may I also say that when we signed up to the new policing measures and the PSNI in 2001, it was to those Patten principles of inclusivity and respect for political difference, and it was about accountability and oversight mechanisms? Those were clearly embedded back in 2001, when the new Policing Board, to which the police are accountable, was established.

[Naomi Long]

Earlier, the hon. Lady intervened on the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), asking him to be specific about the accountability issues and what accountability mechanisms were in place. Would she like to be equally specific about where the gaps in those mechanisms are, because some of us are at a complete loss on that?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. If I am allowed to make a little progress, I will be able to explain those things.

Let me also say at the outset that it was due only to the SDLP’s efforts in ongoing negotiations that others are now talking about accountability and oversight; it was because of our efforts that those things are now taking place. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that nobody should gainsay or deny that. We are concerned about the lack of proper oversight mechanisms, and we are in discussions and negotiations with the Minister of Justice. Two weeks ago, during the debate on the issue in the Northern Ireland Assembly, he freely acknowledged that and took on board our concerns. I would like to highlight those—if I am allowed—as will my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle.

The SDLP is not opposed in principle to the NCA. We are opposed to violence of any kind, and we are opposed to child abuse and the other various matters that have been raised. However, I wish to raise certain issues. We have been given indications from Opposition Members and from DUP Members that questions have been raised as to the effectiveness of the Serious Organised Crime Agency and now the NCA. Why, despite the efforts of the PSNI, SOCA and other agencies on the island of Ireland, has almost nobody ever been before a criminal court in relation to such matters? For us to support the NCA it has a responsibility to us—to everybody—to prove that it will go after those fuel launderers. We have to see the evidence that it has worked heretofore. One of my colleagues, the former Minister of Environment, pursued many of these issues to do with national crime, through the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, with a measure of success, and he probably did not receive that much help from SOCA. So those issues have to be taken on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), but I hope to correct some of the things that she said in her speech.

Real difficulties are being faced by law enforcement agencies because of the ongoing situation with the National Crime Agency. Northern Ireland may be the locus of the problem, but the difficulties that we face affect crime right across the UK and indeed internationally. As Members have said, we are talking about transnational operations.

The history of the NCA has been well outlined today. It has been in effect from 7 October 2013, and yet some parties in Northern Ireland have yet to reach agreement on extending its powers fully with appropriate accountability mechanisms in place, and that is despite every effort being made to meet those parties’ requests. The Alliance leader, David Ford, who is the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland, was absolutely clear with the Home Office from the outset that any operation of the NCA in Northern Ireland would have to adhere to the accountability mechanisms that fit within the justice devolution settlement. That was made crystal clear from the beginning, and was not something that was said in response to complaints from others.

The Minister of Justice has been holding talks with most of the Executive parties on a proposal paper that he has put forward. There is a significant gap in Northern Ireland's law enforcement effort, as anyone who has read a recent article by the Chief Constable in the Belfast Telegraph will have seen—many Members have quoted liberally from that article this afternoon. It is of increasing concern that we do not have access to NCA skills.

[Bob Stewart]

The hon. Lady has just said that there is no access, but I feel almost sure that when the NCA gets intelligence that affects Northern Ireland, it will not sit on it; it will pass it on to the PSNI, even though it does not have officers operating in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long]

The point that I am making is that we have no access to the skills, and I will go on to outline what that entails. We are talking here not about minor crime, but about serious and organised crime. Others have already mentioned the 140 to 160 organised crime groups that are active in Northern Ireland. It is estimated that there are 800 active criminals engaging in drug dealing, fuel laundering, waste dumping and the increasing problem of cybercrime.

Northern Ireland is used as a transit as well as a destination country by human traffickers. Once criminals start operating across jurisdictions and international boundaries, as many crime groups do, the PSNI needs the active support of the NCA. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) pointed out, the Irish authorities recently benefited from that support to seize a yacht carrying a very significant amount of cocaine. It is beyond ironic that the Garda Siochana is currently willing and able to benefit from the support of a UK law enforcement body that the UK region of Northern Ireland cannot yet fully access.

The PSNI needs to be able to tap into NCA resources to undertake or assist operations. If it cannot access those resources, its officers will be taken away from other local policing work in order to replicate a model in a less effective manner than is already available elsewhere.

There are examples of where the PSNI has not been able to access resources, and I trust that they will answer the question of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). The PSNI needed support from the NCA on a number of occasions, including on Operation Notarise, which was about online child abuse. It could not get the same support as British police forces. Let me be clear as to why that was. If the predicated offences are devolved in nature, it is not possible for the NCA to assist in the financial investigation, and no Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 powers can be exercised by NCA officers in respect of those crimes.

There have been a number of occasions when the PSNI has sought financial investigator assistance from the NCA in relation to money-laundering investigations, but because they were predicated on a crime of cannabis cultivation, it was unable to access the assistance because it was a devolved matter.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a strong point, but, as she knows, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, of which she is a member, is holding an inquiry into on-the-runs. Does she feel that if the NCA had been in existence in Northern Ireland there would have been no excuse for the PSNI and the Metropolitan police not to know that the letters had been sent out, effectively allowing terrorists to go free?

[Naomi Long]

I do not think that the NCA would have had any impact there, not least because the NCA followed the locus and time of when those issues took place. However, close co-operation is important.

There have also been times when the NCA has been the correct authority to take a lead in a situation, as opposed to just providing support and skills to the PSNI. For example, there have been issues around drug distribution in Northern Ireland from supply chains across England and Europe, and the NCA has been unable to take a lead on the ground.

The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) talked about where the gaps in the service exist. On one occasion, the NCA had to request PSNI assistance to search the homes of Northern Ireland drug suspects who were involved in a wider crime investigation. The PSNI officers in question were diverted to another more serious task at the time, leading to a delay in those searches, which could have jeopardised the inquiry into the criminal gang. That has to be dealt with. The PSNI is already losing officers from local police work to cover work that could be passed to the NCA. As the current Budget cuts kick in, the effect of that on the ability to provide the services the public demands will become more and more evident.

Those examples show that delays occur when the NCA has to go through the PSNI because of lack of constable status, and that could compromise UK-wide and international investigations. That situation will get worse as the resources become more strained.

The NCA is also the United Kingdom's centre of expertise in many specialist areas such as cybercrime and child exploitation—areas in which we should all be aiming to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the best protection available. Support in the form of advice is available because the director general of the NCA is making every effort to work around the current impasse, but the PSNI does not have access to operational assistance. For example, in the absence of constabulary powers, the NCA can only provide support to the PSNI and it is restricted to assistance in relation to British or international issues. It cannot intervene on the ground.

Then there is the issue of civil recovery, to which I alluded in an earlier intervention: that is, the ability to target the assets of local criminals and disrupt their work and cash flows. That ability has been lost in respect of devolved criminality since 7 October last year. Unlike other areas, that is not being hampered or reduced: it is lost.

Those are all reasons why dealing with the National Crime Agency is urgent. The proposal paper that the Minister, my colleague David Ford, has put forward after working with the Home Office, the Northern Ireland Office, the police, the NCA and others sets out clear and extensive accountability arrangements in line with local requirements and represents a sound and final proposal to enable progress. Additional accountability arrangements proposed by the Minister of Justice include: the accountability of the NCA to the Policing Board, as the director general would have to attend meetings when requested, consult the board on his plans for Northern Ireland to secure its prior consent and take into account the Policing Board’s plans; the fact that the NCA could not exercise constabulary powers or covert investigation powers without the agreement of the Chief Constable, who is, of course, accountable to the Policing Board; and the fact that unlike for SOCA, complaints about the NCA’s functions in Northern Ireland would all be subject to investigation by the police ombudsman.

On the question of things not being placed in statute, I can confirm that it is absolutely the case that the offer to place this in statute is a real offer that will be followed through. There has been no question about that other than the one raised with no evidence to back it up in the House today. There is no question of insufficient accountability. Indeed, the accountability arguably exceeds that of the PSNI and certainly exceeds that of the NCA in any other jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

These are matters of some great urgency. We have now waited for two years to have the support and assistance of the NCA and to play our full role as a region in protecting the citizens of this country and many other countries from the work of organised crime gangs. It is time for those who are dragging their heels to move forward, have this implemented and do the right thing by the global citizens who are affected by these crime networks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

That is always the danger. The more levels of accountability are put in place, the more bodies may be restricted in their operation.

The next point made by the hon. Member for South Down was that we have never addressed the issues of accountability. Let us look at what is in place. Before the NCA operates its statutory powers in Northern Ireland, it has to get that cleared by the Chief Constable, who, in turn, is accountable to the Policing Board. If something goes wrong and there are complaints, the NCA is totally accountable to the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland. That is the same degree of accountability as for any other police officer. Once we examine the idea that the issue of accountability is not being addressed, it is seen to be clearly incorrect. It is nonsense. It is a case of dancing on the head of a pin while the criminals walk off with their ill-gotten gains.

The hon. Lady’s next point was about whether covert operations will be subject to the RIPA— Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—requirements, and so on. Again, covert operations will have to be notified to the Chief Constable, who will be aware of the conditions under which those operations will be undertaken.

[Naomi Long]

More than that, the Chief Constable will be accountable for those operations in a way that would not have been the case previously; if people wish to query decisions that have been made, he can be held to account by the Policing Board.

[Sammy Wilson]

If I had got to my next sentence, that is exactly the point I was going to make. The Chief Constable goes along to the Policing Board on a monthly basis and can be questioned on all the issues that the board is concerned about and all the issues that concern him.

The last point that the hon. Member for South Down made is that all this has to be wrapped up in statute. An assurance has already been given; I have heard the Justice Minister give it. Indeed, when I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Executive, the assurance was given not only that there would be a legislative consent motion here establishing the powers of the NCA, but that any additional statutory changes that were needed in law would go through the Northern Ireland Assembly.

It is not the case that the conditions of accountability are not being met. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked for an explanation of what is happening. I do not want to take the worst possible explanation, but there are only two interpretations I can think of: first, that the SDLP is so scared of Sinn Fein that it will not take a courageous step on an essential element of policing; or secondly—this is even more petty and childish—that because the term “national” is in the name, the SDLP cannot accept it. We could either batter SDLP Members into submission in this debate or persuade them, but even if we did persuade them by the end of the debate, the situation would not be resolved: given the way the Northern Ireland Assembly works, Sinn Fein has a veto on any legislation because it holds a certain percentage of seats on the Executive.

I have a challenge for the Government. If, even after all the safeguards that the nationalists have said they want have been put in place, there is still a refusal, do the Government have the courage to say, “If you’re going to put the security of people in the whole of the United Kingdom in jeopardy, if you’re going to allow Northern Ireland to be used as a back door for international criminal gangs, and if Northern Ireland is to be the bank for criminal gangs, we are going to put an end to that by putting through legislation—we will take it out of your hands.” That would be a real step of courage, and that is the test.

--- 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—

Historical Child Abuse Allegations

Naomi Long Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I am pleased to be able to bring the matter of Kincora, and in particular its relevance to the child sex abuse inquiry, to the House.

There have been many shocking and sordid episodes throughout the history of the troubles, but the allegation of sexual abuse and exploitation of vulnerable young people by those in positions of power, and the failure to ensure such allegations were properly investigated at the time, is surely a low point even by those standards. Whether the allegations are directed towards the state or the republican movement, it would seem that some placed the protection of their institutions and cause ahead of protecting those who were being abused. In doing so, they compounded the abuse and the hurt.

The voices that were silenced at the time are now being heard again. I believe there is a fresh opportunity to listen and to respond, and to make amends for those failures. In my own constituency, despite the 30 years since the successful prosecution of three members of staff at Kincora boys’ home for child sex abuse, the allegations persist that children were abused as part of a wider paedophile ring that was UK-wide and that the intelligence services not only knowingly allowed that abuse to continue—both to protect informers and to gather information on abusers to be used for blackmail—but ensured that the subsequent investigations would never uncover the full picture. The allegations of political cover-up have been brought to the fore again recently with the launch by the Home Office of an inquiry into institutional abuse in care homes around the UK, and specifically into allegations that figures in Westminster and Whitehall failed in their duty of care towards children, and that MI5 was also involved in cover-up—a point to which I will return later.

With Kincora, the allegations descend into murky and disturbing territory. It is not simply that paedophiles operated there or even that authorities were neglectful towards those placed in their custody, but rather it is alleged that a conscious decision was made to allow that abuse to continue for more than 10 years after it was first uncovered by the police and the Army, either to protect intelligence assets or to acquire material to be used in the blackmail of those involved.

Just yesterday, both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made statements on the inquiry, which is to be chaired by Fiona Woolf, announcing that Kincora would not now be included in the terms of reference despite calls from MPs, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and, most importantly, the victims of that abuse who have pleaded for it to be included. I first raised Kincora with the Home Secretary in July this year following the announcement of the inquiry and I have done so on a number of occasions since. I have had no formal response to any of my correspondence. Given a summer of silence, I find the timing of the announcements quite curious, but I want to proceed to outline the case for a full investigation of Kincora as I originally intended, as the point has clearly been missed by the Home Office to date. I will also return to the recent announcements in my conclusion.

What distinguishes Kincora from other cases of historic child abuse in Northern Ireland, but links it, crucially, to others such as Rotherham, are the allegations that persist that Government and their agencies, such as MI5, had full knowledge of the allegations at the time and acted to prevent appropriate investigation from taking place. There is further suspicion that MI5 and the security agencies were complicit in the abuse in order to collect information that could be used to blackmail those in positions of power.

Furthermore, it is thought that the abuse that took place in Northern Ireland did not involve victims and perpetrators only from Northern Ireland—there have been suggestions that children were moved between different locations in Northern Ireland where abuse took place. One witness has stated that he was aware of boys being brought from different children’s homes to be abused in Kincora—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mel Stride.)

[Naomi Long]

One witness has stated that he was aware of boys being brought from different children’s homes to be abused in Kincora, including from Bawnmore Road children’s home, which lies on the outskirts of south Belfast. A recent BBC “Spotlight” programme elaborated on these allegations, with a former resident of Kincora and victim of abuse stating that they also were taken to local hotels where they were offered to guests as entertainment. This illustrates the almost unfathomable depravity of what happened to boys who were entrusted to the care system and whose safety and welfare were used as leverage in manipulation and political games.

During the trial in 1980 of the three Kincora housemasters, who were subsequently jailed in 1981 on 23 counts of abusing 11 boys, the man who was widely believed to be the ringleader, and was indeed the most senior member of staff, William McGrath, who was also a member of a shadowy loyalist paramilitary group called Tara and an alleged MI5 agent, pleaded guilty to the extensive charges against him, thus negating the need for him to give evidence. This led to suspicion at the time, but evidence of a cover-up goes far beyond those circumstantial points.

Two former Army officers have spoken publicly about the links between the British security forces and the goings-on in Kincora. Brian Gemmell worked as an intelligence officer in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and has recently relinquished his anonymity in order to speak out and call for a full investigation. Gemmell has said that he first learned details of what was happening inside the home while gathering information about loyalists, and was told he was running two agents with close links to Kincora. Gemmell alleges that after presenting a report on the allegations of abuse in Kincora to a senior MI5 officer in 1975, he was ordered to stop looking into the claims.

Colin Wallace has been speaking publicly of the collusion in Kincora since the 1970s and was professionally and publicly discredited as a result. However, he has continued to press for an extensive investigative process in which security personnel can speak freely and honestly and sensitive military documents can be released. I will return to that point in a moment.

There were numerous inquiries into Kincora in the 1980s dealing with the failures of the Department of Health and its agencies in relation to preventing abuse and acting upon allegations from both children and staff. Interestingly, MI5 refused the police permission to speak to any of its officers, thus preventing effective investigations from taking place into the allegations of a cover-up. To be clear, I am not seeking an investigation into the failures of the Department; I want an investigation into the allegations of a cover-up and MI5 involvement.

Despite the rumours, allegations and previous inquiries over a 40-year period, the truth has not yet been fully explored by the inquiries and investigations. Kincora is currently one of a number of children’s homes subject to investigation by the historical institutional abuse inquiry, which is chaired by Sir Anthony Hart but which is limited in its terms of reference and statutory powers to summon witnesses. Sir Anthony recently spoke out to confirm that he did not have the power to compel MI5 and military intelligence witnesses to give evidence or Whitehall Departments to release files. He stated in his recent letter to me:

“Our powers under Section 9 of the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Act (Nl) 2013...are limited to ‘transferred matters’. In other words we have no power to compel witnesses from the Ministry of Defence or the Home Office to attend or produce documents”.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady will be aware that today Sir Anthony responded to the Secretary of State’s statement and indicated that he might now be satisfied with the extent of his powers and the finances of his inquiry. Like me, however, is she still concerned that this is a national matter that should be investigated here at Westminster?

[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.”

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

I am following the hon. Lady’s very worrying speech, which she is making with great power. The problem is that the investigation panel set up under the Home Secretary does not have statutory powers of subpoena and relies on the good will of witnesses coming forward to disclose all documents. The Government have offered their full co-operation. Does she think it will still prove a problem if the UK-wide investigation includes Kincora as well and that the security services will refuse to co-operate? If so, what does she suggest the Government should do to alter the terms of the inquiry?

[Naomi Long]

I believe the investigation should have statutory powers and should be able to compel witnesses. Those who were affected by the abuse, who believe that their abuse was covered up, require something slightly more than promises of co-operation, particularly when it was the state and people in these institutions who failed them originally.

The gravity of the allegations mean that nothing less than the fullest independent investigation and disclosure of all evidence will satisfy the right to justice for victims and survivors, or be sufficient to address the most serious disrepute into which all those allegedly involved—including the state itself—have been brought by this litany of abuse.

The Home Office inquiry undoubtedly has the possibility of being a better vehicle for full exposure of the truth of what went on behind the door of an unassuming house less than a mile from my constituency office and less than a five-minute walk from my own home. Kincora does not exist in a bubble. Some of those later convicted of child sex offences in Britain, for example, also worked in the Northern Ireland care system. Although they were never convicted for offences in Northern Ireland, I have been presented with information by people who claim that they, too, were abused by those individuals. Their activities need to be scrutinised. Predators had no respect for regional borders or geography when it came to the exploitation of vulnerable young people, so why should any investigation of their activities respect those boundaries? The same applies to MI5 and its activities in protecting the powerful and covering up sordid abuse of this kind.

Yesterday the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland issued a statement in which she said:

“The protection of children is a devolved matter”.

Let me make it clear that I am not seeking an investigation of the failure of social services or other health agencies to protect the boys at Kincora. That has already been done. I am calling for a full investigation of the allegations of blackmail and cover-up of this abuse by Government agencies such as MI5. I do not believe that it is unreasonable to expect the Home Office to be able—indeed, to feel obliged—to hold such agencies to account. I therefore call on the Home Secretary and the Home Office to review yesterday’s decision, or to initiate an independent inquiry with the full statutory powers that will be required, and I call for Kincora to be included in that inquiry.

The locus should be here in Westminster. Westminster should have the power to compel the giving of evidence and the appearance of witnesses, to suspend those parts of the Official Secrets Act that currently prevent people from giving evidence, and to ensure that all who wish to give evidence can do so and that all the material that is required for this matter to be investigated properly, once and for all, is made available. That now appears to be the only way in which the victims and survivors of the Kincora scandal will get the justice they deserve. I believe that we owe it to those victims to expose any wrongdoing that took place at Kincora, in order to deliver justice to them, and also to ensure that nothing of the same kind happens again. To fail to use this opportunity to finally uncover the truth about Kincora would be an indictment of us all.

Gary Hoy is one man who was abused in Kincora, and he has taken a brave stand in waiving his anonymity and talking about the abuse that he suffered. He said today:

“I knew all along it wouldn’t go there as there have been too many high-profile people involved. We have been very badly let down. It was important for us to get justice. They don’t want to know.”

I believe that there are many Members of Parliament who do want to know. I think that it is hugely important that we do not let the victims down yet again. Let me be brutally honest: I believe that it is a case of now or never. If the Home Office has the will to uncover the truth, it has the power to do so. If it does not do so now, with Kincora on the public agenda and with cross-party support for a full and frank inquiry, I doubt that we shall ever have the opportunity to revisit this matter.

There are many unanswered questions about Kincora. Failing to address this issue as part of a national inquiry, with powers of compulsion and with the suspension of the provisions of the Official Secrets Act relating to witnesses, will simply add another question to the list, namely, “What have the Government got to hide?”

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Naomi Long]

I appreciate the Minister’s point about the powers of compulsion, but it is for the Home Office to set the terms of the national inquiry, so the powers of compulsion could be given and put on a statutory footing. Secondly, Sir Anthony Hart’s powers of compulsion, as stated clearly in his letter and reiterated in his comments today, only extend to those matters which are transferred, not to issues such as the security and intelligence service, the Ministry of Defence, MI5 and others.

[Norman Baker]

I fully accept that, and as I shall say later, if evidence is produced or there is a request from Fiona Woolf’s panel for this to be turned into a statutory inquiry, the Home Office will consider that at that point.

I accept that, because the Hart inquiry’s powers of compulsion do not extend to the UK Government, concern has been expressed as to whether it will be able to deal effectively with the allegations of misconduct and cover-up regarding the horrific events that occurred at Kincora. My hon. Friend referred to allegations of blackmail and cover-up. I make it perfectly plain from the Dispatch Box that I expect those matters to be dealt with by Sir Anthony Hart’s inquiry, and it would be incomplete if it did not do so. I will also encourage him to make it very clear if he feels that his efforts to uncover the truth are in any way being thwarted. Thirdly, I make it plain that there was no intention on the Government’s part to engage in any cover-up. Our only interest is to get to the truth of this matter.

[Norman Baker]

As I have said, if Sir Anthony Hart feels he is being thwarted or he requires further information for his inquiry, he should say so, publicly, if he wishes. Similarly, if Fiona Woolf believes that her inquiry should be converted into a statutory inquiry, she can say so. We do not have a closed mind on these matters.

I would like to set out how the concern that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East referred to is being addressed. As the Northern Ireland Secretary said in her statement yesterday, all Government Departments and agencies that receive a request for information or documents from the Hart inquiry will co-operate to the utmost of their ability in determining what material that they hold might be relevant to it regarding matters for which they have responsibility, in accordance with the terms of reference of the inquiry. The Northern Ireland Office has already started this process by disclosing to the inquiry a list of files held by it which relate to the Kincora boys’ home. In parallel, the Ministry of Defence has begun work to establish whether it holds any documents that are relevant to the inquiry, and other UK Departments and agencies will do likewise.

It will be important for the Northern Ireland inquiry to determine whether either the Security Service or the MOD has documents that are relevant to it. The Northern Ireland Secretary has been clear that a detailed plan of action for achieving this is being worked on as a matter of urgency.

[Naomi Long]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being extremely generous. On the question of what information and papers may be held, will that also extend to looking at notices of destruction for some files for that period, to find out whether there was a pattern of destroying some of the information that is critical in this case?

[Norman Baker]

It is for Sir Anthony Hart to take forward his inquiry; it is not for me to determine exactly what he should look for. However, clearly, if he believes that there has been a pattern of destruction, that, in my view, would be relevant to the inquiry he is holding.

I hope that what I, the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Home Secretary have said will to some extent allay the concerns expressed in this debate. I am strengthened in that view by what Sir Anthony Hart himself has said on this matter. I shall quote him at some length, because his comments are relevant and it is important to put them on the record. He said:

“My HIA Inquiry panel colleagues and I welcome the written statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the House of Commons in which she has given assurances that all Departments of HM Government and its agencies will co-operate to the utmost of their ability with the HIA Inquiry into Kincora. We are satisfied that the assurance of full co-operation by all Government Departments and agencies, and the satisfactory resolution by HM Government of the other issues the Inquiry has raised with it, will provide our HIA Inquiry with the ability and financial resources to carry out an effective and thorough investigation into all the Kincora allegations. However, should it become apparent during our work that it is necessary to have powers under the Inquiries Act 2005 then we will ask OFMDFM (Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minster) and HM Government to confer such powers on our Inquiry.”

So Sir Anthony Hart appears to be robust in his determination, as we are in ours, to uncover the truth of this horrible matter.

Taking all these strands together, I hope that this reassures those on both sides of the House that we have set out the best possible approach to bring justice to all the victims of these dreadful crimes. However, the coalition Government has made a commitment to monitor carefully the extent to which the inquiry is able to make progress in respect of material relevant to Kincora. We will look at the situation again if the inquiry tells us that it is unable to determine the facts. In the event that this were to occur, there remains the possibility of seeking agreement to bring the Kincora allegations within the terms of reference of the inquiry panel, along with the option of converting it into a statutory inquiry. We have not closed our minds on these matters, but we want to see how they unfold.

I repeat that we have no interest in any cover-up, and that we are interested in getting to the truth, just as the hon. Lady and her colleagues from Northern Ireland are. I again commend them for the efforts that they have made in the House today and outside it to take this important matter forward. I think I speak for all of us here today when I say that we share a passionate belief that children have a fundamental right to protection, and that, where there have been failings by institutions, we will leave no stone unturned in rooting them out.

Question put and agreed to.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Naomi Long Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am happy to make it clear and sorry if my remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge led my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) to interpret my response in that way, because that was certainly not my intention. I will specify more clearly the process as I see it in due course.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I have been extremely generous to Members. I may be prepared to take some interventions later in my speech, but I want to make some progress.

Before I took a number of interventions, I mentioned the European Court of Justice. I also want to refer to the European Court of Human Rights, which contradicts laws passed by our Parliament, overrules judgments made by our courts, and interprets the articles of the original convention on human rights in an expansionist way. That is totally unacceptable. I therefore believe that we also have to consider very carefully this country’s relationship with Strasbourg as well as our relationship with Brussels. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is working on that particular issue.

Before I turn to the policy detail of the 2014 decision, I want to address the role of Parliament in making it. I know hon. Members have had some concerns about this, and I hope I can provide some reassurance, including to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, about the process we will undertake.

Under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, which the previous Government signed in 2007, the United Kingdom has until 31 May 2014 to decide whether to opt out of about 130 justice and home affairs measures covered by the treaty. If we do, the opt-out will come into effect on 1 December 2014. As I have indicated in response to earlier interventions, it is not possible to opt out of individual measures. The opt-out must be exercised en masse, after which we may seek to rejoin any measures in which we would like to participate. This would be subject to negotiation with the European Commission and other member states. As I confirmed in my statement last week, the Government intend to exercise the opt-out. We then plan to seek to rejoin a limited set of measures that underpin practical co-operation in the fight against crime.

The Government have always said that we will give Parliament time to scrutinise that decision properly. In his statement in January 2011—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

It is not the case that the Scottish Government knew nothing about this until last week. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), visited Scotland in January and met the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, and ACPO Scotland. He also visited Northern Ireland and met the Justice Minister, David Ford, to discuss these issues in relation to Northern Ireland.

[Naomi Long]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs May]

I will. The hon. Lady has waited patiently.

[Naomi Long]

Will the Home Secretary confirm, as she failed to do last week when I questioned her on this matter, that the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland is not reassured by what he has heard in discussions with the Home Office about the operation of the European arrest warrant?

[Mrs May]

As I believe I said last week during my statement in response to a similar question from the hon. Lady, I am aware that concern has been expressed about the European arrest warrant because of the importance—I intend to refer to this a little later—of the operation of that arrest warrant between the United Kingdom, and particularly between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. A lot of concern expressed previously was when it was thought that the Government would not propose to try to opt back into the European arrest warrant. Of course we must have further discussions with relevant Ministers in Northern Ireland on this matter.

I turn now to the substance of the debate. The Government will exercise the opt-out, but as I announced last week and have said today, we propose to seek to opt back into 35 measures where we believe it is in the national interest to participate. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Justice, the Minister for Government Policy and the Minister for Europe and I have listened to the views of the law enforcement agencies, have considered the civil liberties of British subjects and have been mindful of how the European institutions, particularly the Court of Justice, operate, and to borrow a phrase coined by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who has particular knowledge of and expertise in these matters, we have pursued a policy of seeking “co-operation not control”—for example, it is not for Europe to impose minimum standards on our police and criminal justice system. There are therefore more than 20 minimum standards measures that we will not seek to rejoin.

Likewise, we should not pretend that all these measures facilitate cross-border co-operation; they do not. Where they do not—as with the measure on counterfeiting, for example—we will not seek to opt back in. Furthermore, the last Government signed us up to the Prum decisions on the identification of DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration documents, but then did nothing to implement them. Rejoining now would leave the UK open to a fine that would run into millions of pounds, so we will not rejoin those measures. Lastly, I want to make it absolutely clear that we will do nothing that leads to the establishment of a European public prosecutor or anything akin to a European police force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate briefly in this debate. I want primarily to address the issue of the EAW, which is of particular concern in Northern Ireland because of the close co-operation required between the justice Departments in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in tackling terrorism and serious organised crime, on behalf of not just Northern Ireland, but the rest of the United Kingdom.

I recognise that the Home Secretary has clearly stated her intention to opt back into the EAW, but I remain concerned at the impact of opting out without any certainty on opting back in. It may be possible for the UK to opt back into certain measures on an ad-hoc basis, but that will not be automatic and it will need authorisation from the EU. If the UK does opt back into a measure, it will have to accept re-entry criteria and the rules of the Commission and Court. Those things have to be taken into account.

The Home Secretary was unable to give the assurance sought by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) as it is not in her gift to say that we will definitely be able to opt back in; it will be for the EU to decide, in negotiation with the UK. I accept that the intention is to opt back in quickly and smoothly, but it is not possible at this point to be assured on that. The uncertainty may not matter on measures where we do not need or want to opt back in, but it is dangerous on measures that are important to this country and its security—the EAW is one such measure.

As I have indicated, there are continuing concerns in Northern Ireland about the potential opt-out from a number of key areas, particularly the EAW, and the collective impact that will have on cross-border working with the Irish Republic, in particular, and with other states. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has been very vocal in its opposition to the UK’s opting out of a number of important measures and considers it vital that the UK opts back into them as soon as possible. That view was also reflected in the ACPO paper mentioned by other Members.

The House of Lords European Union Committee report was published on 23 April, after the Committee had taken evidence from a wide range of sources. In summary, its conclusions echo the concerns that stakeholders and criminal justice practitioners in Northern Ireland have outlined. Of primary concern is the risk to the EAW; the Committee believed that that was the single most important of the measures subject to the opt-out decision. The Committee was not persuaded that alternative arrangements would address the criticisms directed at the existing European arrest warrant arrangements, and believed that it would

“inevitably render the extradition process more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety.”

The Committee also believed that the best way to achieve improvements to the EAW system was through negotiations with other member states from within. While I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State says that she is pursuing that matter, I remain concerned about the opt-out. I suspect that we would all agree that there are flaws in the EAW—I believe, however, that it worked reasonably well, and the evidence is that it did so—and deficiencies have been identified, including proportionality and the time that some nationals have spent in other jurisdictions on remand following extradition. We would all wish to see those matters reformed and addressed, but the opt-out could have significant repercussions both for the internal security of the United Kingdom and for the administration of criminal justice in the UK, and it could reduce our influence over this area of EU policy.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If the European arrest warrant did not apply, is the hon. Lady suggesting that the close relationship between the police in the Republic of Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland will be gravely affected, and they would not be able to exchange people as necessary?

[Naomi Long]

If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall come on to the specific problems that will occur if the EAW does not operate continuously. There are indeed challenges to that co-operation which are not about will but about means and process.

From a Northern Ireland perspective, this is of particular importance. Since the EAW came into force in January 2004, the PSNI has received about 265 EAWs for action in Northern Ireland, and 50 EAWs have been issued for action outside the UK. Of those 50, about 31, or 60%, have been sent to the Republic of Ireland. The PSNI believes that there are some areas in the process that could benefit from review, but overall it has said that it

“has proven to be an effective mechanism for ensuring the administration of justice across the EU jurisdiction.”

The Crown Solicitor’s Office believes that the EAW system

“works very successfully. When operated properly it can be speedy, effective and fair.”

Neither the PSNI nor the CSO believe that the UK should withdraw in any way from the current arrangement, and the pressures on the PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service and CSO manpower and costs would increase if we did so. The PSNI and the CSO are concerned about the likely alternatives to the EAW. If the UK withdrew from that system, under the designation by which member states that operate the system are regarded, we would become a category 2 state, as opposed to category 1. Extradition would then have to operate by way of formal requests from the UK Government to other countries through bilateral treaties or under the European convention on extradition. Such requests are more time-consuming to prepare and may involve the sending of witnesses to foreign jurisdictions to give evidence, possibly at significant cost.

With respect to the impact on north-south relations and north-south co-operation, which was raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), before the introduction of the EAW, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland followed the system known as the “backing of warrants”, which allowed an arrest warrant issued in one jurisdiction to be passed to police and endorsed or backed by a judge or magistrate in the area where the subject of the warrant lived. The Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 was repealed by section 218(a) and schedule 3 of the Extradition Act 2003. There is no reason to assume that the Irish authorities would be willing to return to such a system. The land border between the two jurisdictions necessitates speedy arrangements that may no longer be available if the European convention or a bilateral treaty were the basis of the extradition relationship. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question, because it is a significant issue. Indeed, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence in the Republic of Ireland, in discussions with the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland, has expressed concern about its impact, given the repeal of legislation that facilitated north-south extradition arrangements.

Crucially, however, Alan Shatter TD has just given up the chair of the EU Council on Justice and Home Affairs, and is therefore exceptionally well placed to gauge the Commission’s appetite for negotiating terms with the UK to opt back in. His clear and continuing concern about the opt-out should sound a note of caution for those who believe that an opt-in will be simple and straightforward. I understand that this is a reserved matter, but even when matters are reserved decisions made by the UK Government can impact on the criminal justice system in devolved settings, and nowhere more so than Northern Ireland, given that we have a land border with the Republic of Ireland and thus a vested interest in close co-operation.

The cross-border dimension is unique in the UK, and important to us. Cross-border co-operation is essential in tackling security threats and organised crime, not only in Northern Ireland but across the whole of the United Kingdom. Of the third pillar measures, the possible opt-out from the EAW is the one that causes most alarm among all stakeholders in the Government, but it creates real uncertainty if we opt out without knowing that we can opt back in or that that will be a seamless process.

I put a question to the Secretary of State after her statement last week, and she said that the matter had been discussed with the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland. However, she did not respond directly to my invitation to confirm that the Minister remained extremely concerned about any interruption to the operation of the EAW, and the impact that that would have on the justice system in Northern Ireland. It is important to talk to the Minister of Justice, and I hope that Home Office Ministers will recognise that listening and responding to what they hear in those conversations is of equal importance.

In response to my intervention today, the Home Secretary suggested that concerns arose only from the point where the Government indicated that they were going to opt out, but had not stated clearly that they intended to opt back in. That is not the case, however, and I put that on the record. Northern Irish Ministers remain concerned even though the opt-in is the Government’s stated intention. That has not allayed concerns, and there is serious uncertainty about the ability to opt in and about any delay in the opt-in process.

[Mark Reckless]

The hon. Lady says that the intention to opt back in to the EAW has been stated by the Government, but does she accept that with the acceptance of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), that will no longer be something stated by this Parliament?

[Naomi Long]

I accept that that is the case, which causes me concern and, indeed, it will cause my colleagues in Northern Ireland even more concern. It would therefore be helpful if the Government could provide reassurance on that matter at the end of the debate. Any suggestion that we may choose not to opt back in would have significant consequences for north-south co-operation on justice matters in Northern Ireland.

The EAW has helped to bring offenders to justice, including those charged with serious and organised crime. The best way to effect the required improvements is to do so from within, not from outside. More than 60% of EAWs issued in Northern Ireland are for extradition from the Republic of Ireland so, in closing, I would simply ask what plans Her Majesty’s Government have to renegotiate an opt-in. How confident are the Government of success in that regard, given the reservations that have been expressed today and, indeed, given the concerns, I believe, of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence and of the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland? Do the Government have the necessary support from other member states to be able to do this, and what happens if they do not succeed? What is the fall-back position? Will they try to negotiate individual arrangements with 28 states, and what appetite do those states have for entering into that negotiation?

Those are unanswered questions and points of risk in the process, and I simply ask that the Minister take the opportunity, first, to allay our concerns about the amendment that has been accepted, which will obliterate Parliament’s commitment to opt back in, and, secondly, to provide answers to those specific questions so that we understand what plan B is if the opt-in does not work out as intended.

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

Naomi Long Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only Members of this House but the public will be dismayed at the decision that has come from the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on whether it is possible for life genuinely to mean life. It is also a surprising decision, given that last year the Court decided in a number of extradition cases that it was possible to extradite on the basis of potential life sentences without parole—so today’s judgment is contrary to the decision it took last year.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Fighting organised crime and terrorism in Northern Ireland is important. Extradition from the Republic of Ireland is now entirely reliant on the European arrest warrant. I understand that Irish domestic legislation to allow extradition to the UK has been repealed. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and, indeed, his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland are extremely concerned about the impact that this opt-out will have on the fight against crime and terrorism in Ireland in general?

[Mrs May]

As I have said, we have already started discussions on this issue with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, and I have had previous discussions with the Minister for Justice and Equality in the Republic of Ireland about the exercise of the opt-out. On the hon. Lady’s specific point about extraditions being subject to the European arrest warrant, we are proposing to opt back into that, albeit with safeguards for British citizens so that we can ensure that the problems that have arisen in the exercise of the EAW do not arise in future.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Naomi Long Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s interest in the matter. I am cautious about getting ahead of ourselves. We envisage the National Crime Agency coming into operation fully on 1 October, but of course that is subject to the House giving its assent to that proposition during the two days of deliberation on Report and Third Reading, and we should not take the wishes of the House for granted. Then Royal Assent is necessary. The NCA will have considerable and wide-ranging powers, and I think everybody would accept that it is sensible for it to bed down and establish itself.

There is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had about where this extremely important function should be exercised. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend. He puts forward a point of view that many people agree with, but there are people who will take a contrary view. There will be a suitable time to deliberate on the matter. I want to assure the House that we believe that the super-affirmative procedure will allow more than adequate time for that debate and for those issues to be properly aired. Any decision to give the NCA a counter-terrorism role will be an important one; we have no wish to diminish, impede or lose those aspects of the current arrangements that work well.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The Minister will be aware that there are particular arrangements in Northern Ireland for dealing with counter-terrorism, so it is important not only that that is debated, discussed and consulted on in this place, but that there is the opportunity for the Northern Ireland situation specifically to be considered. Can he give us an assurance today that that will be the case?

[Mr Browne]

By the time I get to the end of my speech, the hon. Lady will be in no doubt that all Northern Ireland aspects of the Bill and how we deal with serious crime and terrorism will be given a strong airing. If I can make progress, large parts of my speech deal with issues that relate directly to Northern Ireland.

Currently, counter-terrorism policing is a partnership endeavour among all UK police forces. Chief constables, each of whom retains full authority over policing in their force area, maintain a framework of agreements on how the various national counter-terrorism policing functions are distributed between forces, and how those national functions support forces in both proactive and reactive operations. However, with the creation of the National Crime Agency, it is reasonable, as I hope I explained satisfactorily to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), that the Government should want to consider afresh how the current counter-terrorism policing arrangements work and review whether the NCA could play a role to enhance our response to the terrorist threat. Those questions can be sensibly considered only after the NCA is up and running, and only then after a full review.

As I said at the outset, and as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, the position remains that the Government have no preconceived notion—others will—as to the outcome of a review of counter-terrorism policing arrangements and any future role of the NCA in them. However, we continue to believe that it is right to build into the Bill the flexibility to implement the outcome of such a review in a timely fashion through secondary legislation, but subject to a high level of parliamentary scrutiny in the form of the super-affirmative procedure, as I hope I have explained, and that we should be able to proceed on that basis. The Government would rightly be criticised if we could not implement the findings of a review for a year or more for want of the necessary primary legislation. We believe that this is the best way to strike the right balance between being able to move quickly in this extremely important area, but without undue haste.

Let us not confuse the point at issue. It is not about whether or not the NCA should exercise counter-terrorism functions; that debate is for the future. The issue today is the mechanism by which such functions could be bestowed on the agency. The Committee tasked with examining such matters in the other place said that

“the idea of adding to a statutory body’s functions by subordinate legislation subject to a Parliamentary procedure is well established”.

Of course, it is for this House to come to its own view on the matter, but I put it to all Members present that this is a perfectly proper way of proceeding and invite them and the House to support the new clause.

On the NCA and Northern Ireland, and particularly new schedule 1, it is with great regret that I must inform the House that I will have to table amendments limiting the role of the NCA in Northern Ireland. As the House will be aware, we have been unable to secure the agreement of the Northern Ireland Executive to take forward a legislative consent motion for either the NCA or the amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. To say that that is a disappointing outcome does not do justice to the implications for the effectiveness of the NCA and, more importantly, the protection of the people of Northern Ireland. The Government are being up front about that. It is not the outcome we sought, but we are obviously required to deal with the situation as it is, rather than as we would wish it to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I understand that point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I did two years in Northern Ireland, and I accept and understand the difficulties of that position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) also served in Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will speak on his party’s views shortly. I always regret that Sinn Fein Members do not give their view to Members of Parliament in this House, but that is a separate issue.

I understand where the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is coming from, but the issue is still open to negotiation, because even if we accept new schedule 1 today, the NCA will not operate in Northern Ireland and there will be only an affirmative order to put that arrangement in place at some point in future. There will therefore still have been no resolution of the difference of opinion. The Minister has a duty to tell the House how he intends to bridge that gap strategically.

[Naomi Long]

When the right hon. Gentleman said that he did two years in Northern Ireland, it sounded more like a sentence than a pleasure. I am sure that was not intentional. Does he agree that the problem is much more significant than simply leaving Northern Ireland at an operational disadvantage, which will clearly happen? There is currently a duty on the PSNI to co-operate with the Serious Organised Crime Agency, but that will go once the Bill comes in. Even the basic duty to co-operate will be removed from the NCA if there is not an agreement otherwise.

[Mr Hanson]

I reassure the hon. Lady that I loved every minute of my time in Northern Ireland and was sorry to be airlifted out on the day when, fortunately and for good purposes, devolved government was restored and my time there finished.

The hon. Lady will be aware that clause 14 will abolish SOCA, which currently operates with the PSNI to tackle issues such as we have discussed. After Royal Assent, there will be nothing in place. I do not want the Minister simply to say, “Well, we’ll have an affirmative order”. He needs to explain to the House what will happen after Royal Assent, when the NCA is not operating in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

It is with regret that I see the references to Northern Ireland and the role of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland being removed from the Bill, and I want to put some questions to the Minister on this point. If any part of the United Kingdom needs the effective operation of a national crime agency, it is Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in this House has already identified the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds every year are lost to the Exchequer and go into the hands of criminal gangs, on many occasions to finance terrorist activities, as a result of fuel laundering alone. There are many other areas in which organised crime plays a big role in Northern Ireland. We need the National Crime Agency.

The role that the criminals play is not confined to Northern Ireland. Their tentacles spread well beyond Northern Ireland and dealing with them involves operational decisions that cannot be taken solely by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Indeed, the fact that they are now laundering their money across Europe and north America demonstrates the international dimension involved, and the PSNI cannot be expected to deal with them alone.

[Naomi Long]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a false interface is being created between terrorism and criminality, which is an extremely blurred area in Northern Ireland, in that the same people are often involved in both activities? Does he also agree that a false interface exists in the incorrect assumption that there is some kind of border beyond which the tentacles of those criminals cannot reach?

--- Later in debate ---

Having no legislative consent motion means that, when it comes to customs and immigration, for example, certain activities will still go on and we will not see the full-blown co-operation that we need. In Committee, I proposed the organised crime task force system in Northern Ireland as a model for the rest of the country, bringing together all the partners in the fight against organised crime: the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Serious Organised Crime Agency in its present form, private business, Government Departments and a whole array of people, including the Policing Board, all working together to combat organised crime. Just a glance at last year’s annual report will show the benefits of that approach.

[Naomi Long]

I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there is another important issue here, to which the Government might be able to respond. Where the NCA is operating in the reserved field in Northern Ireland, we will still have an input into the organised crime effort. The Home Secretary, however, has removed the statutory requirement to consult the Department of Justice and the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland on strategic priorities and in respect of the annual plan by the director-general. That leaves another deficit that could be filled if the Government acted now.

[Paul Goggins]

I compliment my hon. Friend on her ingenuity in seeing two pages ahead in my speaking notes; I will come on to her very important point in a few moments.

I was reflecting on the effectiveness of the Organised Crime Task Force and how SOCA has been able to work with all the other law-enforcement agencies. Last year alone—this is in the annual report—£13 million-worth of drugs were seized, 33 potential victims of human trafficking were rescued, £4.44 million-worth of criminal assets were seized, and the list goes on. That is the result of working together to combat organised crime. That is now being put at risk because of the breakdown in negotiations and the failure to get a legislative consent motion. As reported by the BBC today, a recent massive operation against the illegal fuel trade involved law enforcement north and south of the border, with 300 officers deployed. If we do not get that sort of co-operation continuing at the highest possible level and to the fullest extent, the impact of such operations will be greatly diminished.

I have four specific points to put to the Minister, some involving broader issues. The first has been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). I think it is a mistake to take the Northern Ireland Justice Minister out of the loop of consultation, as suggested by the Minister in new schedule 1. That Northern Ireland Minister will no longer be consulted on strategic priorities, on the annual plan or indeed in respect of the appointment of a director-general. We have an impasse here: taking the Northern Ireland Justice Minister out of the loop of consultation is, I think, the result of a failure to co-operate or to show the right spirit. We want to get this issue dealt with across the line, not to retreat from the line. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East made an important point in her intervention. David Ford chairs the Organised Crime Task Force and is in a leading position in the fight against organised crime, so not to consult him on these key issues is a big mistake.

In that context, the Minister has described himself as a “collegiate” Minister—and who am I to argue with that description? I was rather hoping, in that spirit, that he would have come back with an amendment to schedule 6, paragraph 1(2), which deals with inspection. Provision is made there for inspections relating to the NCA in Scotland, but no mention is made—there is still no mention of it anywhere in the Bill—of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland. It inspects the police there. It should be involved in any inspection of the NCA. In the spirit of trying to move this forward to get a meeting of minds, the Minister could, even at this late stage, make a commitment to involve Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland in the same way that he is involving the Scottish inspectors in Scotland.

Secondly, the Minister has to tell us more about how the negotiations will continue. Who is in the lead? Is he in the lead? Is it the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Is there a meeting this week? Is there a meeting next week? Are Ministers planning to meet the parties? How is it being done? Is there any real urgency in the negotiations that should be happening? Are Ministers just sitting back and waiting for Northern Ireland politicians to come forward? We really need to know whether something is happening. As I said, negotiation is hard work, but it is important for Ministers to get on with it.

Thirdly, let me deal with operational co-operation. I particularly want the Minister to address the issue of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. Frankly, many of our constituents think that CEOP, an excellent organisation, operates independently, but it is in fact part of SOCA and will be part of the National Crime Agency. The huge irony is that Jim Gamble, an excellent first chief executive, is from Northern Ireland and was a former officer with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He did so much to put CEOP in the place it is as a world leader in this field.

What is going to happen in Northern Ireland? Will the Chief Constable have to establish a new team to deal with these issues? What happens if CEOP has intelligence and important information about paedophiles in Northern Ireland? What is going to be done? What are the practical arrangements that Ministers are overseeing and how will they ensure that they are in place to deal with such problems? It is important not just to have reassurance about the operational responsibilities but to ensure that the message goes out to people that, if they know of abuse or if they have been abused, they must come forward to report it. Goodness me, after all we are supposed to have learned from Savile, any message that says “Frankly, CEOP is closed in Northern Ireland” would be a dreadful message to send. It is essential that the Minister provides some reassurance about that.

[Naomi Long]

I hope I can reassure my right hon. Friend slightly. The Justice Minister is aware of that particular risk and is working to try to put in place mechanisms to ensure that such a gap does not exist and that alternative arrangements are available for co-operation and the trading of information if we fail to get to the desirable point where the whole of the NCA is operating properly in Northern Ireland.

[Paul Goggins]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance. It is timely to pay tribute to David Ford, the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, who has done a superb job since devolution and who is, even now, looking at and trying to deal with the risks that may occur if consent is not given to these provisions. It does not come as a surprise to me at all to know that he is trying to plug the gaps in these provisions. The Minister, however, is the Minister responsible for the NCA and for CEOP, so that Minister has to offer us some reassurances.

My last point is about the relationship between the NCA and the Northern Ireland Policing Board. The hon. Member for East Antrim made the point that when he was a member of the Policing Board it was important to establish what the relationship was between a UK-wide body and the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I remember going, as the Minister responsible for policing in Northern Ireland, to the Policing Board—I did that once a year—for a formal session on organised crime. I would take with me senior SOCA officers, so that the Policing Board could ask them questions and get to the bottom of certain issues. We were as open as we possibly could be, even though there was no formal requirement for accountability. That was the spirit in which we operated. What will happen now? If the NCA is to have no formal relationship in Northern Ireland, the danger is that such discussions, formal and informal, will cease to happen. Yet the NCA will still have responsibilities for customs and immigration in Northern Ireland. There will be a loss of communication and dialogue about those and other important issues.

There is a huge agenda here. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us some reassurance about the urgency with which he is dealing with these matters and the negotiations that need to take place, and that he will respond in detail to the points that I, and others, have raised. There are continuing and serious differences of opinion in Northern Ireland, which must be respected and worked through in a democratic way, but surely there should be absolute unanimity when it comes to the need to combat organised crime and the awful evil that it brings. That, at least, should be a matter of absolute consensus between the politicians of Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

The reluctance is not a reluctance to see the National Crime Agency operate or make a due contribution to the fighting and the reducing of crime in Northern Ireland, and crime that reaches into or out of Northern Ireland and affects other territories. The hon. Gentleman mentioned SOCA. When SOCA was first proposed, his party and mine had reservations about it, but many of those reservations were concerned with whether it would mean the loss of the valuable work done by the Criminal Assets Bureau. We wondered whether level 1 crime would be dealt with by the PSNI and level 3 would be dealt with by SOCA, and whether criminals knew that if they kept their criminal activity within level 2, there would be no one to deal with it.

Many issues arose in relation to SOCA, not just the issue of whether UK policing would affect Northern Ireland. We were seriously worried, for instance, about SOCA’s role in relation to the role of MI5. The notion of what is classified as national security, and of what a Government treat as national security, seems to be something of a movable feast in terms of the level of crime operations that are deemed to be within MI5’s sphere of influence. We were trying to clarify all those matters, and the same applies here. We need to know about any additional policing element.

The Bill with which we were originally presented provided for constabulary powers to be given to National Crime Agency officers in Northern Ireland, and we needed to know how they would be aligned with the constabulary powers of the PSNI. The Bill also provided for NCA special constables in Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Gentleman would have been very surprised if, four and a half decades on from all the working and striving to get rid of the B-specials, nationalist parties did not question legislation providing for new special constables. Those are exactly the sort of provisions that people want to address in a sensible way.

[Naomi Long]

I do not doubt for a minute that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about wanting the NCA to operate in a way that respects the devolved settlement and secures the progress that has been made in policing are genuine, but he has referred on a number of occasions to the original draft Bill, and considerable changes have been made to it to get to where we are today—leaving aside the fact that we are not going to delete all references to Northern Ireland. Huge progress has been made on constables and their status, answering to the ombudsman and other issues. Therefore, will he outline the remaining concerns that need to be addressed, so we can get over the line?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Lady’s point about the discussions and modifications that have already been made proves that many of us have raised valid concerns. When they are validly accommodated, we accept that, and we will want to raise any further outstanding concerns.

What would have happened if we had not raised our misgivings? For a long time people were saying, “That’s just an SDLP hobby-horse.” For instance, it was certainly said that I was still hung up on all the stuff about MI5 and so forth. It was said that we had too much emotional and intellectual capital invested in the Patten reforms, and that we had a hang-up. Latterly, Sinn Fein seemed to realise some of the issues as well, but it is not a matter of them trying to outflank us, or us trying outflank them. We, as parties, have a duty.

We have made our own contributions and decisions about the new policing dispensation. If we are saying that assurances are in place and policing in Northern Ireland both now and in the future is different from the historical policing dispensation, we have to show that that will continue to be the case, and that it is not being got around by the lateral legislation and policing arrangements being produced by the Government here.

We have the NCA taking over from SOCA. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, we agreed with, and came to terms with, some of the SOCA arrangements and the safeguards in relation to it. Then the NCA came along, and it cannot be the case that parties will just say, “Whatever other changes you at Westminster want, and whatever you’re having yourself, we’ll just take it and we won’t look at what difference it makes to us.” We need to be reassured.

Time should have been taken to address this matter. This is not a criticism of the Minister or anyone else; it might be to do with how legislative consent motions are handled, and how we get better joined-up scrutiny between a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland and Westminster so we are not left in the current clumsy situation, which is not just the case in relation to this Bill. Sometimes, legislative consent motions come before the Assembly long after a Bill has passed through this place. Introducing such motions earlier might give the Assembly more influence on the form of the legislation or the sensitivities that need to be taken into account. There are lessons to be learned at the procedural level for all of us, therefore.

I am not trying to point a finger at the devolved Minister or anybody else. As others have said, however, these issues were raised with Northern Ireland Office Ministers early last year, and they were asked, “What are you doing through conversations with the Home Office and devolved interests to make sure these issues are being well accommodated?” They did not seem to know, or to want to know, what we were talking about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Naomi Long Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am sure the whole House will share my hon. Friend’s disgust at something that came as a shock to many of us. He is right. What we saw was effective police action, co-ordinated in many ways by the Serious Organised Crime Agency. As he knows, the new national crime agency will have among its functions co-ordinating activity against trafficking, both domestic and international, which will give us a much more effective way of combating such particularly vile crime.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I have been contacted by a constituent who was born in Germany while her father, an Irish citizen, was stationed there with the British Army in 1948. Despite her mother being British, and the fact that she has lived the remainder of her life in the UK, she is a British subject, not a British citizen, which carries additional cost and inconvenience when she travels. Will the Home Secretary consider how to resolve that historic anomaly?

[Damian Green]

That sounds like a deliberate quiz question for the Immigration Minister, with every possible complication within it. If the hon. Lady wishes to write to me, I will happily examine the details of the case.

Women (Government Policies)

Naomi Long Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jon Ashworth) is no longer in his place, but I too pay tribute to him for a very assured and interesting maiden speech. It was a privilege to be in the Chamber to hear it.

I had not planned to speak today until I saw this patronising and paternalistic motion on the Order Paper—this drivel that we have had to debate all afternoon. I am absolutely incensed by it, because the way in which we address the fact, which we all acknowledge, that women earn and own less on average is not by ensuring that they continue to receive a stream of benefits throughout their lives or only state-sponsored child care options.

From some interesting points that Opposition Members made, we learned that at the next general election the right hon. Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) will stand on a platform of restoring their household’s child benefit, which is worth £2,400 a year tax-free, despite their combined income being well into the hundreds of thousands of pounds. That will be a difficult message for them to sell on the doorstep, but it was certainly a fascinating insight into planet deficit-denial on the Opposition Benches.

I also thought that I was living on a different planet when we heard no acknowledgement of the fact that over the past 12 months more than 530,000 jobs in the private sector have been created, with 400,000 more, net of the necessary reductions, in public sector employment. How is it good for families and women to be paying £120 million a day in interest? How is it good for families and women if Opposition Members put their heads in the sand and refuse to identify a single cut or alteration that they support? This Government are introducing welfare reform that will incentivise the economic choices of women in recognising that at the end of the day only additional work will help them to address the earnings gap and the asset gap.

As someone who has fought all my life for greater equality for women in the workplace, I feel somewhat differently about pensions. I think that we should welcome the fact that men and women will be retiring at equal ages and that women and men will be treated equally as regards pensions.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I agree that the equalisation of pension rights and ages is an important and necessary thing that we should all support. Does the hon. Lady accept, however, that the real crux of the issue for Opposition Members is the amount of time that certain women will have to prepare for the change because the goalposts have been moved so quickly?

[Harriett Baldwin]

We should bear in mind what these women are preparing for. An average 55-year-old woman today will live to 88, on average, and many more women will live to see their 100th birthday. Having the extra year to prepare for saving for that very old age is not at all a bad thing. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), I have absolutely no intention of retiring in my early 60s, and I welcome the fact that men and women will be treated equally regarding pension age.

National Crime Agency

Naomi Long Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Counter-terrorism is a good example of where there is a national organisation that deals with a matter at national level. When the National Crime Agency is in place, it will want to look at how it chooses to operate with the different commands that are under its remit.

My hon. Friend’s question reminds me that I did not respond to one of the points that the shadow Home Secretary made about counter-terrorism. I will do that now, if I may, because it is an important issue. We have never said that counter-terrorism would come under the remit of the National Crime Agency. We have made it clear that we will not do anything to disrupt the current counter-terrorism arrangements before the Olympics, and we will not do anything to disrupt those arrangements before the National Crime Agency is up and running. There will be a point at which it will be appropriate, in the new landscape, to look to ensure that counter-terrorism is still being dealt with in the most effective way possible.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The UK’s only land border is with the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland. Given the particular and specific challenges that that border raises, what discussions has the Home Secretary had with my colleague, the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland, about how to implement this in the Northern Ireland context and how to ensure that the NCA benefits from the very positive working relationships between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana?

[Mrs May]

We have been talking to all the devolved Administrations, including in Northern Ireland, about the establishment and operation of the NCA. We are very conscious of the particular issues in relation to Northern Ireland, particularly given the existence of the common travel area in relation to border issues. We are also conscious of the very good relationships between the PSNI and the Garda in dealing with a number of issues that affect both sides of the border. Obviously, we respect the relationships that have been established and will continue to work with and talk to the devolved Administrations about how the operation of the NCA will affect them and how we can all work together.

Prevent Strategy

Naomi Long Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend’s question refers back, in a sense, to that asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). In considering how we deal with prisons, we will do much more work to examine exactly what is happening there. We will work with prison governors and staff and with the National Offender Management Service to get better information about what is happening in prisons, which is a key aspect of the strategy. We recognise that more work needs to be done.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. In disentangling the issues of trying to create more community cohesion and at the same time trying to deal with terrorism and radicalisation, how can we ensure that there is not a gap through which radicalised young people can emerge? How can we ensure that the policies co-exist and are complementary to each other, not in conflict?

[Mrs May]

As I indicated earlier, we will take steps to ensure that our policies are complementary across the Government. Importantly, I hope that the integration and community cohesion strategies will encourage people to be willing to identify those young people who they consider to be vulnerable to radicalisation, and who they feel need the support and action of the programmes that are available, to ensure that they do not go down the route to terrorism.