Draft Crime and Courts Act 2013 (National Crime Agency and Proceeds of Crime) (Northern Ireland) Order 2015
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Bradley, Karen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)
Campbell, Mr Ronnie (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
† Colvile, Oliver (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Farrelly, Paul (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
† Gilbert, Stephen (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
† Heaton-Harris, Chris (Daventry) (Con)
† Hinds, Damian (East Hampshire) (Con)
Love, Mr Andrew (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
† Miller, Maria (Basingstoke) (Con)
Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
† Pincher, Christopher (Tamworth) (Con)
† Pound, Stephen (Ealing North) (Lab)
† Smith, Henry (Crawley) (Con)
Watson, Mr Tom (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
† Whittaker, Craig (Calder Valley) (Con)
† Wilson, Phil (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Kate Emms, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):
Wilson, Sammy (East Antrim) (DUP)
Thirteenth Delegated Legislation Committee
Tuesday 10 March 2015
[Mr Gary Streeter in the Chair]
Draft Crime and Courts Act 2013 (National Crime Agency and Proceeds of Crime) (Northern Ireland) Order 2015
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Crime and Courts Act 2013 (National Crime Agency and Proceeds of Crime) (Northern Ireland) Order 2015.
May I start by saying what a pleasure and privilege it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter?
Since the National Crime Agency was created just over a year ago, it has begun to make a real impact on the threat to the United Kingdom from serious and organised crime. During the passage of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the Northern Ireland Assembly was not able to agree that NCA officers could use police powers or operate on devolved matters, meaning that although the NCA was able to operate fully throughout the rest of the UK, its ability to operate in the Province has been severely limited. The impact of the restrictions on the NCA’s operations has been made clear by Justice Minister David Ford, PSNI Chief Constable George Hamilton and Keith Bristow, the director general of the NCA.
The NCA has been unable to do as much as its precursor organisation, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and the PSNI has therefore had to stretch itself further to fill the gap. The fight against serious and organised crime in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK has been inhibited. There have been a number of significant PSNI investigations that the NCA would have been better placed to lead, given that key criminals and their associated infrastructure have been based outside Northern Ireland. That includes an investigation into a Northern Ireland drugs distribution organised crime group that was sourcing and arranging drugs supply through a supplier based in north-west England.
It has been difficult for the PSNI to access the specialist resource and capability that the NCA holds. Northern Ireland has been left at a greater risk from child sexual exploitation, cybercrime and economic crime because the specialist resources developed by the NCA have not been available there. For example, as part of the NCA’s Operation Notarise, a national investigation into online child abuse, a number of evidential packages were produced for follow-up action by the PSNI. As part of the national investigation, the NCA offered assistance to police forces across England, Wales and Scotland. However, the NCA was not able to provide similar assistance to the PSNI, which put extra demand on PSNI resources.
In practice, the NCA cannot conduct end-to-end investigations in Northern Ireland without drawing on PSNI resources. That compromises the level of protection
afforded to the citizens of Northern Ireland, could result in delays and puts increasing pressure on the PSNI. An NCA investigation in the north-west of England targeted an organised crime group involved in the importation of class A drugs into the UK. PSNI officers were redeployed from the operation to respond to an alleged serious sexual offence. That created a further delay in securing evidence and intelligence gathering against the organised crime group.Civil recovery has also been affected. Since June 2013, civil recovery investigations are down more than 50% and property freezing orders are down more than 70%. That is concerning, because denying criminals the proceeds of crime is one of the most effective ways of disrupting their activities that we have. Serious and organised crime groups do not operate in isolated pockets in each region. They do not respect borders or force boundaries. The PSNI estimates that there are between 140 to 160 organised crime groups active in Northern Ireland, with an estimated 800 active criminals. Nearly a third of those groups are assessed as having links to international criminality. Another third are linked to criminality in the UK and in the Republic of Ireland.
The NCA can operate across jurisdictional boundaries in a way that local law enforcement cannot. The order will ensure that it has the national and international reach needed to tackle serious and organised crime that affects the whole UK. The draft Crime and Courts Act 2013 (National Crime Agency and Proceeds of Crime) (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 will enable to NCA to operate with full powers in Northern Ireland: to work with the PSNI; to provide expertise; to seize criminal funds; and, most importantly, to ensure that the people of the UK are all afforded the same protection.
On 3 February 2015, the Northern Ireland Assembly consented to the making of the order. That consent is a necessary precondition for the making of the order. The draft order gives effect to a package of measures proposed by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, David Ford MLA, and accepted by the Northern Ireland Assembly. That package provides clear, transparent and robust accountability for the NCA in Northern Ireland. Let me highlight some of those elements.
The order will ensure the primacy of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. A National Crime Agency officer will not be able to use constable powers or covert investigatory powers without the prior agreement of the Chief Constable of the PSNI. Although not required by this order, community impact assessments will need to be completed so that the effect of NCA activity can be properly measured and monitored.
As far as possible, the oversight arrangements mirror those already in place in Northern Ireland for the PSNI. The director general will be answerable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. He must attend meetings of the board and provide it with information. The board will monitor the exercise of National Crime Agency functions in Northern Ireland. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland will also have a role in overseeing the activities of National Crime Agency officers in Northern Ireland and investigating complaints against them.
The director general will ensure that all NCA officers working in Northern Ireland have read and understand the Police Service of Northern Ireland code of ethics. Wherever practicable, the code will be reflected in the
disciplinary procedures applicable to the National Crime Agency officers in relation to their exercise of functions in Northern Ireland.This is a comprehensive package of measures that meets concerns raised about NCA accountability. If the order is approved today, we can expect to see a fully operational NCA around the end of May. The relevant civil recovery provisions relating to the freezing and recovery of assets will come into effect the day after the order is made. However, the related civil recovery investigation powers will require further secondary legislation to introduce the codes of practice. We expect that to be in place later in the year. This order will allow the National Crime Agency to deal with serious criminals no matter where they are. I commend it to the Committee.
2.36 pm
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): May I associate myself—and, I am sure, my colleagues—with the Minister’s comments on the pleasure and privilege of serving under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter? If I may also crave the Committee’s indulgence, I think it would be appropriate—certainly for those of us with experience in Northern Ireland—to mention the passing of James Molyneaux. Lord Molyneaux led the Ulster Unionists through one of the hardest periods of the troubles. He was a man of great dignity and a man who would, I am absolutely sure, were he with us today, be supporting this order. He was a man who worked for peace and an absence of criminality in Northern Ireland, and he will be sadly missed.
The Minister has given a forensic, lucid and wide-ranging introduction to this order. Let me say at the outset that those of us on the Labour Benches will not be opposing her. We thoroughly support and endorse the principle and were delighted when the Assembly made the decision in February finally to approve it. It is important to realise that, with the border issue in Northern Ireland, we are talking about an entirely different sort of criminal activity. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that has a border with another European country. Those of us who have spent a very long time in the north have seen the fuel smuggling and the problems of cross-border smuggling and the huckster sites that you see on the crossroads. All of those things will be improved greatly.
It is also significant that in the interim period, between the order being agreed in GB and our extending it to Northern Ireland, the PSNI has not been still and it has not been silent. One remarkable thing has been the links with An Garda Siochana, which have built up over the past few years. The cross-border links between the PSNI and the guards have been absolutely remarkable and we should be very proud them. This legislation will go a long way towards cementing that relationship.
Has the Minister had discussions with Chief Constable Hamilton, whose name was mentioned earlier, about any resource implications? I understand that the order will be welcomed by the PSNI; however, it will involve some additional work, and let us not forget that part of the NCA’s work will involve activity outside the geographical jurisdiction. One of the reasons we are agreeing the order today, as the Minister has said, is that criminality does not know boundaries or borders. Work may be required in other parts of Europe and there will certainly be resource implications for that.
I would also like to ask for a little more information about the accountability measures, to which the Minister referred. Implicit in the legislation—indeed, specifically stated—is the role of the human rights adviser to the Policing Board. I am confident, as I hope many of us are, that this will be completely uncontentious in operation and that the only people who will object are the criminals—and frankly, they can object as much as they want to; we are not going to lie awake worrying about them. However, in parts of Northern Ireland, there will be a recognition that certain aspects of the legislation were contentious in the early days. Will the Minister say whether there will be an annual report on its operation? Would that come from the Home Office or the Northern Ireland Office? I am acutely aware of the fact that although the order is clearly not hybrid legislation—if it were, you would not allow us to continue, Mr Streeter—we have two different Departments coming together with, I hope, a common aim.
I do not wish to detain the Committee. The Opposition welcome the order as a positive step forward and a recognition of the unique qualities of Northern Ireland and the fact that, despite the rather sad news—I will say no more than that—that is currently emerging from Stormont, there has been progress. The decision in February was a major step forward. The order is good news, and I would like to see it in operation. I would also like to see an end to some of the worst aspects of criminality, which often has involved people who were previously involved in other sorts of activities who have moved on to such criminality, particularly cross-border smuggling. We wish the legislation a fair following wind, we thank the Minister for her lucid explanation and we wish the legislation every success in future.
2.41 pm
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): I join the hon. Member for Ealing North in welcoming the order. As we heard from him and the Minister, it has been some time coming, relating as it does to legislation that was first introduced in 2012. The Northern Ireland dimensions of that legislation were clearly problematic for some of us. At the time, we raised issues in clear but measured terms and highlighted the problems that needed to be addressed to make the provisions compatible with the Patten architecture of policing in Northern Ireland, in order to ensure that the National Crime Agency’s operation would be entirely consistent with the standards of accountability and transparency that the Patten perspectives for policing had bestowed on Northern Ireland.
My party’s position was that we wanted to meet relevant Ministers both in Northern Ireland and at the Home Office, with a view to correcting the provisions to make them Patten compatible and ensure that any new arrangements for the powers and functions of the NCA would be entirely consistent with the policing culture set down for Northern Ireland. Many people disparaged us for taking that stance. Some disputed whether the Social Democratic and Labour party would ever agree to the NCA having a role and being able to discharge functions in relation to Northern Ireland unless and until Sinn Fein agreed. However, it is important to set out for the record that the SDLP has always taken its own stance on policing, absolutely regardless of Sinn Fein’s stance. That is why we were initially one of only two parties to support the Patten plan for policing.
We also held out for the translation of the Patten plan into legislation, and insisted on driving the implementation of Patten, in circumstances where Sinn Fein refused to endorse the policing arrangements, in terms of either the legislation or the establishment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland structures and the Policing Board. We showed then that we made our own call about the needs and requirements of a new beginning to policing, alongside a new beginning to politics, in terms of the policing needs of the community and what would help the policing professionals, who discharge the important and complicated vocation of policing in Northern Ireland. They need the protection and credibility of clear and accountable structures, with politicians who take a responsible role in discharging an authoritative accountability, rather than taking cheap pot shots at the police or trying to seize on every single difficulty and professionally compromise the officers concerned. We are going to apply, absolutely and consistently, the same approach to the addition of the NCA to the new policing arrangements in the north as we took to the establishment of those arrangements.
Whenever the legislation was first proposed, it included provisions in respect of Northern Ireland for special constables under the NCA. For those of us whose background is in a party that was formed out of the civil rights movement, the idea that reintroducing special constables into Northern Ireland, decades after the B-Specials were removed, would somehow not be in conflict with the Patten vision for policing was something that we could not accept.
While some other parties clearly had difficulty with what we said were some of the requirements and said that they were satisfied with the legislation as originally proposed and that it did not need any other additions, the fact is that, thankfully, Home Office Ministers engaged with us—maybe to try to flush us out and test our word—at that level. I should acknowledge that the Home Secretary in particular showed a tolerance and a degree of consideration on those issues and sensitivities that some of us did not expect from her. I should also put it on record that the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland, David Ford, put considerable effort into helping to tease forward some of the options that would ensure that the operational capacity that both he and Home Office Ministers wanted to ensure the NCA could have in Northern Ireland and that we did not object to could come forward, in circumstances where parties could be comfortable that all the other requirements and safeguards were there.
Those requirements and safeguards are important, because if we did not have them, key aspects of what was previously understood as the policing function would, in essence, be discharged by the NCA. Those aspects that would have been subject to the accountability mechanisms of the Policing Board on the one hand and to complaint investigation by the police ombudsman on the other would no longer be amenable to that degree of accountability, because the story would be, “Well, they’re part of the NCA and that does not come under the Patten architecture.” Therefore, a key problem could arise, the public may have issues about it and certain individuals may be aggrieved, but when it came to testing or investigating what had happened, we would
be told that we could not do so, because the system had changed. Then people would say, “Well, what happened to your vigilance, in terms of the new arrangements and the new standards?” That was why we had to get these things right.That degree of negotiation should not have been necessary to maintain consistency with the Patten architecture; that should be taken as a given, and it should have been part of the working reference and standard for the Home Office and the Department of Justice in the north. While that may not have been the basis on which they started, there is now a point of convergence, whereby we have arrived at that. I credit not only those in the Home Office for their role in that negotiation, but those the NCA and its director, who I think was initially apprehensive and sceptical about some of the terms of accountability that we were pressing for.
However, as the NCA’s director looked at some of the issues and questions—in particular, as he took some light from the PSNI and senior officers there—he found out how beneficial they have found the accountability arrangements. Strenuous and difficult as those arrangements can be at times, PSNI officers have nevertheless found them to be of professional benefit, with a degree of public understanding and good will that goes with that. He director seemed to be prepared to stretch himself when it came to the working arrangements that he was prepared to see applied to the work of the NCA and, indeed, to his own work and planning, in the context of Northern Ireland.
I also credit the PSNI senior officers and leadership for their good contribution to the understanding that we have reached and the good working arrangements, which—again—helped to protect the primacy of the PSNI and the Chief Constable of the PSNI. That was a key aspect of the Patten reforms, which gave operational primacy to the Chief Constable, while still giving a clear role of accountability to the Policing Board. That was protected as well.
I also want to credit my party colleagues, in particular Alex Attwood, for his long and diligent role in negotiations; Dolores Kelly, a member of the Policing Board; Conall McDevitt, a former member of the Policing Board; Alban Maginness; and my party leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), who engaged with the Home Secretary and others to ensure that we could come to an understanding. There was a question mark over whether the NCA would have a complete suite of functionality in relation to the key serious crime issues that it would be dealing with, which needed to be addressed.
The Minister and I both sat on the Modern Slavery Bill Committee, so she will be aware that, even in advance of our formal agreement on the functions of the NCA, I was at pains to future-proof that Bill to ensure that no aspect of it could not work in Northern Ireland. I wanted to ensure that it matched up with and complemented Northern Ireland legislation and to ensure that legislation from this House—including legislation relating to the NCA—would have full, relevant sway in Northern Ireland.
An important result of those negotiations is that the NCA will comply with the PSNI code of ethics, which was a key part of the Patten vision. Indeed, the director general of the NCA will not only be bound by that
code, but will be held to account in a similar way to the PSNI. The director general has also indicated his intention to incorporate the best parts of the code of ethics into the operation of the NCA, not only in the north of Ireland, but in Great Britain, which is a positive advance.The powers and function of the Policing Board in Northern Ireland are important and are a key feature of the Patten architecture. Unlike the original plan in the legislation, under this order the Home Secretary will no longer have a veto over key powers of the Policing Board, when it comes to reports and inquiries, which is important. In turn, the Chief Constable will have a veto power over the operation of the NCA in Northern Ireland, which will include a veto over the recruitment of agents—a sensitive issue in Northern Ireland, not just historically but currently—and over the use of other intelligence weapons and mechanisms. The police ombudsman’s full menu of powers will apply to the NCA, so they will be able to take complaints in the devolved and the non-devolved sectors, in so far as they relate to the NCA’s conduct or activity in Northern Ireland.
The powers that the Policing Board has in respect of policing and the PSNI have now, in essence, been created over the NCA. The primacy of the Chief Constable, in terms of overseeing the operational life of the NCA, has also been established. That is a significant achievement, and there has been great progress, although that does not mean that all the issues have gone away. Of course, people want to see full and successful implementation.
We have a number of questions about how some of these matters have been dealt with up until now. When this matter went through the Northern Ireland Assembly, even our critics in the Democratic Unionist party—who dedicated an Opposition day debate to, essentially, beating up on the SDLP for our position on this issue, saying that everything was sufficient and nothing else was needed—now extol the virtues of the super-accountability that we have and are saying that people in Great Britain would be jealous of it. Indeed, they have pointed to the words of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, who described himself as jealous of the levels of accountability attached to the NCA in Northern Ireland, which do not hold elsewhere.
In the context of those debates and the criticisms aimed at the SDLP, DUP Members have rightly raised questions about the performance on assets recovery historically and, indeed, currently. We share those concerns, which leave us with questions about the performance of the Serious Organised Crime Agency to date. In the pursuit of recovery, a lot of secret and private deals have been done between the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the individuals whose assets it has been pursuing. There have been deals that have simply amounted to pennies in the pound being recovered, and deals that we were told nobody else can get accountability over or transparency on because they have been signed off by the High Court.
One reason why we have endeavoured to ensure that level of accountability is to make sure that the performance on assets recovery is indeed somebody’s business, so that people are not scandalised by deals that appear to be done and blind eyes that appear to be turned to swathes of illegal activity in particular localities. There is very obvious evidence, some of which has been turned up time and time again by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs; but again, there seems to be
some means by which some of those criminal activities are set aside. People seem to be allowed to take their gains as some sort of allowable profit and there seems to be some kind of write-off. All parties that have had misgivings, concerns and questions about that will be able to use the new levels of accountability to pursue those questions. It is not only people in the SDLP on the Policing Board, coming from our perspective, or other party political members who might use the powers of accountability to ask questions of the PSNI and the NCA, but other members as well.It is important to set out the significant changes that have been made since the original Act was introduced in 2012. Originally, we were told that it would be enough for the Policing Board to hear the annual plan of the NCA in respect of functions in Northern Ireland. Now, of course, the Policing Board will have the power of monitoring the functions of the NCA in Northern Ireland. The Policing Board cannot just ask the Minister to request Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to carry out an inspection. The Minister of Justice will have that direct power, as well as being able to respond to the committee—a power that the Minister of Justice did not previously have. I have already made that point in relation to important aspects of the code of ethics.
On the role of the ombudsman, the NCA will be under a statutory requirement to supply the ombudsman with information and documents that the ombudsman may require. That was a key issue for the SDLP. We tried to raise those issues previously in respect of MI5 powers. When the previous Government moved to significantly change the role in relation to national security and where the burden of accountability rested, or to remove a burden of accountability on security policing, we tried to press those issues but we found no takers in the then Government. That was why we did not sign off, as other parties did, on the arrangements in annex E of the St Andrews agreement.
We are glad that we were able, through some difficult noise and odd positioning around the legislation, to find dialogue with the Home Office and that Home Office Ministers were able to listen to salient points, while being firm and adamant about their requirements and the requirements of the NCA. We have arrived at an outcome that most parties in the Assembly have been able to endorse. I hope that all parties and independent members of the Policing Board will be able to exercise the powers that they have under the order in ways that will commend the practices and standards to others, in other parts of the United Kingdom.
2.59 pm
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): It is a joy to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I welcome the fact that, after a long time, the National Crime Agency will finally be operating in Northern Ireland. In the period between 2012 and now, because the National Crime Agency was not operating in Northern Ireland, criminals, whether involved in fuel laundering, child abuse, pornography, prostitution—a whole range of criminal activities crossing international boundaries—got away with their crimes in a way that they should not have been able to.
Despite what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Foyle said about why his party, along with Sinn Fein, blocked the introduction of the National Crime Agency
in Northern Ireland, to many people, what they were doing—on certain aspects of accountability, most of which had been resolved early on—seemed like dancing on the head of a pin. Many of the things that he has mentioned about the role of the Policing Board, the role of the Chief Constable, and so on, were already conceded well over a year ago, but there was this competition going on with Sinn Fein. I can understand Sinn Fein—it has always been on the side of the criminal, because many of the criminals were associated with that party—but the SDLP’s aiding and abetting of that was something that people in Northern Ireland could never understand. I suppose that what has happened is because of the political embarrassment, but I suspect that the real reason why we now have the SDLP acceding to the requirements to get this legislation through—and I am glad we have it—is because the impact on criminality in Northern Ireland, as well on the police service, became more apparent.The Opposition spokesman talked about the possible additional resource requirements in terms of the PSNI. The truth of the matter is that the resource demands on the PSNI will probably now be reduced, because some of the things that it was having to do will now be carried out by the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland. Therefore, this will be an important step forward from the point of view of the help that the Police Service of Northern Ireland requires.
I want to raise a number of issues with the Minister. There is additional accountability; whether it was the agreement with the Chief Constable for operations to take place or the reports to the Policing Board. I note that although the Policing Board can monitor and ask for reports and information, accountability still rests with the Secretary of State and with Parliament, and that is where it should be, because this is a National Crime Agency. Indeed, we sometimes wondered whether it was the word “national” in the National Crime Agency that caused the mental block for some people in Northern Ireland, but accountability still rests with Parliament and with the Secretary of State.
Can the Minister could outline whether she believes the additional accountability arrangements are likely to have any impact on the National Crime Agency’s ability to respond quickly to events where there is evidence of criminality that needs to be investigated quickly, especially in relation to the agreement from the Chief Constable? Much has been made of the Chief Constable having a veto—the term is that the Chief Constable has to “agree” to certain things—but even that can be delegated to someone of chief superintendent level or above, so I hope there is scope to get decisions made quickly.
My second point—this was raised by the hon. Member for Foyle, and it is an important issue—concerns the priority that will be given to investigations and what input there will be from the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Policing Board to direct the National Crime Agency to give priority to certain kinds of crime. I am thinking particularly of fuel laundering, which is now endemic in some of the border counties and which loses the Exchequer not millions, but hundreds of millions of pounds every year. This activity finances criminal gangs and does untold damage to the environment. Some of the most toxic chemicals are simply poured
into the water courses, some of which goes into the reservoirs that serve local communities. What role will the police and the Policing Board have in ensuring that investigation of crime of that nature is given priority?Then there is the issue of the seizure of criminal assets. One thing that strikes me—I think this has led to a loss of confidence in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and perhaps, to a certain extent, the police in Northern Ireland—is the fact that, despite the numerous fuel laundering plants have been raided, there always seems to have been some prior knowledge of the raids, because nobody is ever captured. Equipment is captured, but the fuel launderers are up and running again very quickly. Maybe that is a role for the National Crime Agency.
For most people in Northern Ireland, and certainly for the Unionist community, this measure is belated. It still does not have the agreement of Sinn Fein—and I do not suppose we are ever going to get that agreement, because many of their compatriots will hopefully be caught and brought to justice by the National Crime Agency. This is a measure that we should have had resolved a long time ago. All the elements that the Minister has described today were probably in place and had been agreed between the Minister of Justice and the Home Office well over a year ago. I cannot think of any of the elements before us that were not available to us a year ago. Maybe it was simply because of the embarrassment at what was happening in Northern Ireland, and that fact that it was more and more apparent that criminal gangs were getting off, that we now have this agreement. I welcome the fact that we have it, and I hope that, as a result of this piece of legislation, the National Crime Agency can begin to operate very quickly in Northern Ireland and that the oversight of it will not be so onerous as to stop it from doing the job that we all want it to do.
3.8 pm
Karen Bradley: May I begin by associating myself with the comments from the hon. Member for Ealing North about Lord Molyneaux? I, too, pay tribute to an individual who played an important and leading role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, including the hon. Member for Ealing North, the hon. Member for Foyle and the hon. Member for East Antrim. I will endeavour to address some of the points that have been raised.
The hon. Members for Ealing North and for East Antrim both talked about issues around borders and smuggling. There is a debate tomorrow which I understand may well cover those points so, if the Committee will forgive me, perhaps we could discuss those points then. I am sure we will have an interesting and useful debate. The hon. Member for Ealing North also raised the issue of asset recovery. I confirm that the NCA works closely with the Criminal Assets Recovery Agency in Dublin. However, the NCA has full powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—enhanced and boosted by the Serious Crime Act 2015, which was passed only last week—which can only help in the fight against criminal finances, particularly in the case of cross-border crimes.
The shadow Minister mentioned resources for the Police Service of Northern Ireland—a point to which the hon. Member for East Antrim referred. I think that
the hon. Member for East Antrim is right. The implications for the PSNI should be that it does not require additional resources, because the NCA will be able to deal with those serious organised crime gangs. In fact, the Chief Constable said in September 2014:“In essence, Northern Ireland does not have access to the same level of resources and expertise in relation to serious and organised crime investigations as the rest of the United Kingdom and PSNI does not have the resource capacity to fill this void.”
The NCA measure should help to make sure that resources are used as appropriate.
The hon. Member for East Antrim asked who will have priority over investigations. The National Crime Agency has priority crime types that are set as part of its strategic approach with the Secretary of State but, when it comes to determining the way in which those crimes are investigated, it is entirely an operational matter. I would envisage it working in very much the same way that it does in the rest of the United Kingdom. Where a crime has been committed by a national or international gang, the National Crime Agency would lead, but where the crime is a local matter, it would be the local police force. We have regional organised crime units in other parts of the United Kingdom—that is not quite so relevant in Northern Ireland, just as it is not in Scotland, because there is only one police force there to deal with—but I would envisage the same sort of co-operation between the National Crime Agency and local policing to make sure that the operational decision is taken to investigate crime at the right level.
Stephen Pound: This is an intensely important point. The Minister will be aware that very often we cannot define the extent of criminal gangs. They can start off as small, local ones but, before you know where you are, they have segued into a larger group—or perhaps almost a franchise of a large smuggling operation. In Northern Ireland, we see cigarette smuggling from Lithuania, but the distribution is done at a local level. Will the Minister monitor that situation and consider it from within the Home Office, perhaps in a year’s time, to see whether there has been a problem with identification, particularly in view of the lead agency role? I feel sure that it will be very, very important in the years to come.
Karen Bradley: That applies across the whole United Kingdom and, from a ministerial point of view, there are regular meetings with the National Crime Agency and the policing lead and so on, to make sure that we understand which priority—and which high-priority—groups are being monitored, who is monitoring them, and who is the lead agency. We also want to determine whether there should be any changes. The operational decisions are always taken by the police and the National Crime Agency as appropriate.
The National Crime Agency is able to operate in Northern Ireland means that, when it becomes clear that a gang is much wider than was originally assumed, the agency’s resources can be applied without any barriers. That will be a clear benefit of the order, as the agency will have full powers in Northern Ireland.
All three contributors talked about accountability. The hon. Member for Ealing North discussed the human rights adviser. It is worth making the point that the human rights adviser of the Northern Ireland Policing Board will have access to the surveillance commissioner’s
report on the NCA in non-redacted form in connection with NCA work in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Northern Ireland Policing Board, which I confirm will monitor the exercise of NCA functions in Northern Ireland and assess the level of public satisfaction. The NCA will produce an annual report that will include activities in Northern Ireland.The hon. Member asked about the NCA being able to act quickly. In my conversations with the director general of the NCA, we talked about the negotiations and the discussions that were going on in Northern Ireland and how his agency would be able to operate. He always expressed complete confidence that the negotiated settlement would enable the NCA to operate as quickly as necessary. It is worth saying that that the director general of the NCA will be answerable—not accountable—to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. The accountability arrangements will therefore not delay NCA operations. For example, the director general must attend meetings of the Northern Ireland Policing Board on request, with reasonable notice.
As for priorities, the Northern Ireland Policing Board will agree the NCA’s annual plan. That will allow key crime types, which may include fuel laundering, to be prioritised.
Mark Durkan: It is important to recognise that as well as those functions, the Policing Board will make arrangements for obtaining the co-operation of the public with the National Crime Agency in preventing organised and serious crime. It is not just a negative accountability check but positive support for the fullest co-operation with the agency.
Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He spoke about ensuring that all the work that has gone on and this agreement are in line with the culture of policing in Northern Ireland that has existed for many years. I know that everyone is keen to see that replicated with the National Crime Agency. I appreciate his comments regarding the approach of the Home Office and the National Crime Agency to the negotiations.
Finally, the hon. Member for East Antrim said that this has been a problem since 2012. The National Crime Agency was established in October 2013, so it is not quite as long as that, but we acknowledge that it has been a problem. We did not wish to see that gap, but the Government respect the devolution settlement and we wanted to ensure that the settlement reached was acceptable to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I conclude by acknowledging the work of colleagues in Northern Ireland, not least the Justice Minister, David Ford. He has led the discussions with the Northern Ireland parties and has been tireless in his efforts to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the best protection against serious crime. In making this order, we in this House will enable the NCA to become a truly national crime agency.
That the Committee has considered the draft Crime and Courts Act 2013 (National Crime Agency and Proceeds of Crime) (Northern Ireland) Order 2015.