UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE
To be published as HC 1504-vii

House of COMMONS

Oral EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE the

Northern Ireland AFFAIRS Committee

Fuel Laundering and Smuggling

Wednesday 18 January 2012

ALEX ATTWOOD and ANNE BLACKER

DAVID FORD and SIMON ROGERS

Evidence heard in Public Questions 419 - 498

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee

on Wednesday 18 January 2012

Members present:

Mr Laurence Robertson (Chair)

Mr David Anderson

Mr Joe Benton

Oliver Colvile

Lady Sylvia Hermon

Kate Hoey

Kris Hopkins

Naomi Long

Jack Lopresti

Dr Alasdair McDonnell

Nigel Mills

Ian Paisley

David Simpson

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Alex Attwood MLA, Minister of the Environment, and Anne Blacker, Head, Environmental Crime Unit, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, gave evidence.

Q419 Chair: Can I apologise to our witnesses for keeping you waiting? We did have a vote earlier, which delayed things a little bit, and then we had more on the private agenda than we anticipated. Apologies, but you are very welcome; thank you very much for joining us. I think you know we are conducting an inquiry into smuggling and counterfeiting of fuel, tobacco and whatever else we come across. You are very welcome; thank you for joining us. Can I ask you perhaps just to make very brief opening statements as to the areas of responsibility that your respective Departments have?

Alex Attwood: Thank you, Chair, and hello to familiar faces and to new faces. My role, as Minister of the Environment since May of this year, clearly has been on the environmental side of addressing issues around fuel laundering. As you know, HMRC leads in that regard; the PSNI is a single partner; and we are a partner as well with other agencies on the island of Ireland. Our role, historically, has been on the environmental side-the environmental enforcement and prosecution side-although, as I will indicate later, Chair, in some of my answers, our role more recently has escalated. That is to the benefit of dealing with this issue of fuel laundering on the island of Ireland.

Anne Blacker: I am Anne Blacker; I work in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, which is part of the Minister’s Department, and I head the environmental crime unit. The role of the Agency is one of implementing and enforcing a great deal of environmental legislation, most of which stems from Europe. That is really where we come in terms of fuel laundering, because the byproducts of that can be harmful to the environment and can be classified as waste. Some of the criminal investigations that we are involved in are to do with fuel laundering issues.

Q420 Mr Anderson: Good afternoon. Can I ask you about the scale of the problem? We have a list from our civil servants about some of the things that can happen in terms of waste-whether it is threatening drinking water reservoirs or whether it is being transported safely-but can you give us some detail, please, about exactly what is happening on the ground? Exactly how many sites do you get reports from that it is happening? How many councils are involved? How often are you asked to deal with the waste? Is there evidence from different parts of Northern Ireland that it is worse in the west or the south or wherever?

Alex Attwood: Thank you for that question. Can I make a general point to begin with? I believe that we are now entering a new phase of politics on the island of Ireland. We are on the far side of stability. We have devolution. Ireland stands against terror. The legacy of conflict, in respect of organised crime, criminals, gangs and those who are now beginning to engage in organised crime, means that for the character of the island going forward and to shape our politics in an even better image than that which we have achieved to date, which has been significant, we need to fundamentally deal with the issue of organised crime. That includes the legacy of our conflict and those who were involved in organised crime during the conflict, and new expressions of those who are gathering the legal assets. When you think about it, given the image of the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland as green and clean, given the scale of our built, natural and ecological heritage, it sends out a very incongruous message to the world: on the one hand, we have such wonderful natural and built assets; on the other hand, we have issues around organised crime, including fuel laundering and the residue of all that.

To answer your questions in the particular, there are different experiences across Northern Ireland when it comes to the issue of fuel laundering. It is concentrated in certain counties and areas. It is, and this is proven by the evidence, mostly concentrated in the council area of Newry and Mourne, where the council rightly complains that, under the law as it is currently drafted, it must clean up the consequence of fuel laundering in terms of the residue that is left-it does not have to remove laundered fuel, if that is located by HMRC, PSNI and other agencies. It has the responsibility to clean up that issue. That issue is beginning to be addressed in that there will be pilot programmes in the near future, whereby DoE may assume responsibility in terms of cleanup and costs incurred in that regard. Yes, it is located in particular areas and it has, historically and currently, been most concentrated in the Newry and Mourne council area, which is, in terms of county boundaries, South Armagh, Armagh and South Down. What was the second part of that question?

Q421 Mr Anderson: It was basically that you mentioned Newry and Mourne. Does that mean every day, every week or every month? I am trying to get some idea about how many people are involved in dealing with the waste.

Alex Attwood: Anne will give you some details about, historically, the number of sites that have been located in terms of fuel laundering, or the number of occasions when the relevant agencies have been called to where the residue of fuel laundering has been dumped. Historically that is what has happened; those who have been involved in fuel laundering, when they have made as much as they think they are going to make, will then move off the site where they are laundering fuel and then abandon the fuel waste on some highway or byway. The evidence is beginning to indicate that even those involved in fuel laundering are more just abandoning sites, and bringing that to the attention of the authorities in one way or the other. In which case, the authorities then move in. Anne, do you want to give the particular details?

Anne Blacker: Yes. There is no straightforward answer to that question. It is by no means a daily occurrence that there is a report, and also the incidents themselves range from very small deposits of maybe one or two tonnes of material, which has obviously been the result of somebody laundering not very professionally, right the way through to very largescale commercial deposits. There was one recent one in Crossmaglen, where there were about 90,000 litres of waste material dumped, but that is a rarity. We do not normally see so largescale an issue. That makes it quite difficult to actually classify the severity of what is going on.

The issue that we usually have with these, in terms of enforcement, is that whenever all you have is a pile of fuel laundering waste, there is very rarely any evidence with it to indicate who put it there or who gave them permission. What we are also starting to find now is that we are also getting fuel laundering waste turning up on sites that already hold waste management licences and authorisations from the Department. That is obviously much easier to deal with, because there is a responsible party. The other issue, as the Minister has referred to, is we are now starting to find the waste materials actually left in the laundering plants whenever the laundering plant has been abandoned or whenever HMRC detects the plant and deals with it. Again that is much more controllable, because it is contained. On most of those occasions, that material gets removed and taken away by HMRC as part of their investigation.

Q422 Mr Anderson: You might want to give us a note on the geographical spread. You are saying that it is particularly South Armagh, Armagh. Is there evidence all across Northern Ireland that this is being carried out?

Alex Attwood: We will provide evidence to the Committee working through each council area, and the scale of costs that they incur in terms of cleanup costs arising from fuel laundering. You will then see that, in many council areas-we have 26 councils currently in the North-there are no costs for many councils, and there are increased costs for a small number of councils, with Newry and Mourne being the big one. With that said, on a yeartoyear basis, the costs might not look that excessive but, when you escalate those costs over the years of fuel laundering, there is a drain upon public funds on council areas, especially Newry and Mourne.

Q423 Ian Paisley: Minister, in terms of the issue of costs, if we could just drill down a little bit further into that, I understand Newry and Mourne District Council spent £70,000 last year to clean up toxic waste as a result of fuel deposits. In the previous four years, about £135,000, which is obviously a ratchetingup in costs. What are the other costs? What is the total ballpark figure that these councils and your Department have to spend in cleaning up after these gangsters?

Alex Attwood: Currently my Department does not incur costs in that regard, not in terms of clean up costs.

Q424 Ian Paisley: Do any other burdens fall to you that have a cost?

Alex Attwood: In terms of actual clean-up costs, given that the councils, in the absence of others taking responsibility, will come in and clean up the residue, that does not fall to the Department. Under legislation that was passed by the Assembly last year, in respect of flytipping generally, in order to, in part, recognise the burden that is being imposed upon certain council areas, the DoE will have the legal power in order to assume responsibility for clean-up costs. As I indicated, we are currently in conversation with councils in order to run pilot schemes so that, in the event that an issue does arise around flytipping or, in this case, around fuel laundering waste, the DoE might step into the breach. In respect of other issues, clearly there are circumstances where the waste residue that is left may come into the watercourses. In that regard, the NIEA Water Management Unit will then get involved in respect of responsible cleanup.

Q425 Ian Paisley: Is there evidence of that occurring and the cost that falls to you?

Alex Attwood: This might surprise you, Mr Paisley, but the cost over the last five years to the Water Management Unit, in respect of costs where there has been damage caused to the watercourse, is only £17,500.

Q426 Ian Paisley: There is no damage to the water table?

Alex Attwood: In terms of cleanup costs, that is the cost to date. In terms of the damage to the water table?

Anne Blacker: In practice, it is quite inconvenient for a launderer to actually dump something so close to a river that it is an immediate risk of causing pollution. Quite often, material is dumped on roads and laybys, so that the risk to the water table is not as big as you might assume.

Q427 Ian Paisley: Are you saying there is honour amongst these thieves then?

Anne Blacker: Yes.

Q428 Oliver Colvile: First of all, thank you very much for coming. When they do actually dump it that can get into the water table, can it not? It can go into the water that way round.

Anne Blacker: It would be completely possible, if it was sitting on a surface that was permeable that would actually let the oil go through the ground and into the ground water. Yes, it is perfectly possible.

Q429 Oliver Colvile: In a previous life, I also did a little bit of work on waste management and how things can get into the water table and things like that. One of the questions I would quite like to know: how many incidents would you say there are of this kind of activity?

Anne Blacker: Because of the way the Agency records incidents of potential criminal activity, there is not an actual figure for that. We would receive about 1,000 reports a year of illegal dumping of waste, and I would not even think 5% of those would be related to fuel laundering. The fuel laundering deposits tend to get a lot of media attention and local interest, and you tend to hear a lot about them but, in actual numbers, they are not that numerous compared to some of the other issues that we are dealing with.

Alex Attwood: Just to confirm, Oliver, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency is very attentive in respect of improper materials getting into the watercourse system. For example, in the course of the last six or seven months, I have run a series of beach summits because of the risk of discharges getting into the watercourse or getting into the water system generally. Therefore, the NIEA, in terms of the Water Management Unit, is very attentive. But, in terms of the scale of substances getting into the watercourse, this is a smaller issue for government of the North, but that in no way is to diminish the scale of the issue for the governments of the island.

Q430 Oliver Colvile: Do you talk to your counterparts here in England, Wales and Scotland? Do you think you have more examples of this than they do?

Alex Attwood: In terms of fuel laundering?

Q431 Oliver Colvile: In some of the incidents to do with environmental issues.

Alex Attwood: Anne can answer in terms of the liaison with the authorities in Britain. In terms of the island of Ireland, the issues around the environment lend themselves most easily to management on an allisland basis. That is why, arising from the Good Friday Agreement and the Strand Two structures that were created, part of that was the environmental sector of the North South Ministerial Council. It is arguable that the environmental sector of the North South Ministerial Council has been the most vibrant and vigorous area of life of politics, on an allisland basis, since 1998. The working relationship between myself and the Minister for the Environment of the South, now Phil Hogan, released a wide range of watercourse matters, water basin matters, even fracking in Fermanagh, the disposal of waste targets, the disposal of plastics on the island of Ireland. There is a scale of opportunity in terms of allisland management of those issues and economic opportunities arising from those issues, which we are exploiting but we have yet to exploit fully.

Q432 Dr McDonnell: Alex, you are very welcome, and Anne. Thank you for your evidence so far. There is a sense that there is a bit of, to some extent, passing of the parcel in terms of waste. Are you now saying that, while the Department had few resources to deal with it in the past, going forward, the Department will take over the full responsibility? When it comes to landowners, will the Department pursue the landowner rather than pursue the council to pursue the landowner?

As well as that, in the broader sense of the thing, have you the power, will you have the power or will you have to go through the councils to pass on or attempt to pass on costs to landowners? How do you differentiate between landowners who are compliant with the generators of the waste and landowners who are totally innocent? In other words, you go to that waste plant or you discover this stuff in a waste plant; do you, therefore, in conjunction with HMRC, make the landowner there who obviously-you cannot have a waste plant on a property without the landowner having some knowledge of it. Perhaps he has been coerced, but could you take us through some of that? The sense that we have had up until now is that the retribution, punishment or accountability, while in theory there is a lot of stuff there, in practice it does not work, right down even to the courts, because the courts in the end produce fairly derisory fines.

Alex Attwood: Thank you for that question, Alasdair. Anne may want to come back latterly to the second part of Oliver’s question about the relationships with the authorities in Britain. There are a number of answers to what Alasdair has been asking. The first is that I do think that there is need for and there is a gearshift now ongoing, in relation to the role of the DoE and NIEA, when it comes to its responsibilities and its working relationships with other relevant agencies. If you were to examine, as I am sure you have or will, the number of convictions and the amount of penalties being imposed by courts, in Northern Ireland for environmental crime over the last eight or nine years, you will see a decline in a) the number of prosecutions and convictions, and b) a decline in the amount of penalties being imposed by the courts. That could in one way look worrying, but in another way it is reassuring, because the ongoing strategic shift, in terms of the work of the Department, the police and HMRC, is toward targeting the big serious organised criminals and crime gangs, which are involved in fuel laundering on the island of Ireland. There has been a strategic shift.

Without going into any particular detail, there are four very serious ongoing investigations in respect of the upper end of the hierarchy of criminality, in respect of fuel laundering on the island of Ireland. That is very important. Rather than going after the lesser players, we are now targeting, in co-operation with the other agencies, led by HMRC, the much more serious criminal gangs.

Q433 Lady Hermon: Minister, could I just interrupt? It is very nice to see you here, Alex. Could I ask you to confirm, if you are able to, whether any of the four major corporates and gangsters here have paramilitary links?

Alex Attwood: I am not going to inform the Committee about the background to any one or other. It is quite clear, and there has been evidence even in the last couple of days, that those who are fuel smuggling and tobacco smuggling can have and have relationships with Republican dissident organisations. There are definitely relationships, but I am not going to betray whether, in respect of the four ongoing investigations, that is the character of those who HMRC, ourselves and others are interested in.

In respect of Alasdair’s point about the landowner, I have a number of comments. The first is that there is an urgent responsibility upon members of the community to report this type of crime, and all crime, to the relevant authorities. Heretofore, for reasons that the members of this Committee, and in particular the Northern Ireland members of the Committee, will understand that the shadow of fear or the potential of threat militates against people reporting certain or all crime. I am glad to say that there is evidence beginning to emerge, including in respect of fuel laundering, that individual citizens are now beginning to pass on information. Mindful of that development, in the near future, Crimestoppers, an independent charity with whom you will be familiar, will be running a campaign in particular to encourage people, on an anonymous basis, to provide information to Crimestoppers in respect of fuel laundering. I do think there is a changed pattern of behaviour, but it is still the case, and I know this from recent experience, from information that has come across the desk of my office, that the shadow of fear still endures. It is also the case, Alasdair, that in many instances individuals simply are not aware, or it is not possible to demonstrate that they were aware, that there was fuel laundering going on in respect of property that they might have ownership of. In the absence of knowledge or in the absence of proof of knowledge, it is very difficult to pursue a prosecution.

Q434 Oliver Colvile: Just coming back to the question that I asked you earlier, you were going to give your-

Anne Blacker: Yes, the links to agencies and DoE. The environmental crime unit and NIEA have good ongoing relationships. There are similar crime units now in both SEPA in Scotland and the Environment Agency in England and Wales. We would be in regular contact to discuss ongoing developments. Anecdotally, fuel laundering does not seem to be the issue across the water that it is in Northern Ireland. We would have similar waste crime issues between Northern Ireland and the mainland, in that there is a lot of construction and demolition waste that would be illegally managed in all those areas. We are all using similar techniques to deal with that, in terms of better criminal investigation, proceeds of crime investigations and working between all the areas so that we are all in contact.

Q435 Oliver Colvile: Would you tip off the HMRC once you have found those cases?

Anne Blacker: Any intelligence that we arrive with, in the Agency, that is relevant to fuel laundering, we share with HMRC and other relevant agencies as well. That goes for all environmental offending, not just fuel laundering; and that is part of the key to us all working better together and, as the Minister referred to, being able to target the serious operations in these areas and the people who are involved.

Alex Attwood: Chair, can I just follow that up? As I indicated earlier, I do think there is a gear change underway, certainly from my perspective, in terms of the importance of pursuing environmental crime. The unit in my Department that Anne leads up is currently recruiting 11 new specialist posts in order to demonstrate and deploy resources against those on the serious end of environmental crime. In my view, and I made this clear to the Department, there is more to come, in terms of more staff being deployed, through the environmental crime unit, to pursue those at the serious end of environmental crime. The model of the environmental crime unit should be deployed with respect of crime as well.

With that said, the relationships between the relevant agencies that are part of the Organised Crime Task Force fuel group, in my view, are embedding and more deeply embedding a wanted knowledge. The work that Anne and her colleagues do is very difficult work. They are essentially environmental police officers, trained to policing standards, recognised by the police as having been trained and having that capacity. It is Anne and her staff who now work with HMRC and the police in real time, going to the sites of alleged fuel laundering operations, so that the environmental interest is there at the time that offences are being detected and being pursued, rather than coming down the track later on.

I can also just, Chair, respond to a further comment that Alasdair McDonnell made. It is simply this: he touched upon the issue of courts, and about whether it is the case that, having pursued individuals or gangs for prosecution, having gone through the prosecutorial process, they end up with inadequate fines in the view or the perception of people outside. There are two points I would make about that. The first is that I do not have any particular issue with the legislative weapons that are available to the police, HMRC or the DoE in respect of offences that might be committed. If you look at the capacity of courts to impose serious crime prevention orders, the possibilities of POCA and the general waste legislation, whether it is in the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court, the scale of opportunity to impose severe penalties on those who offend against the law exists, but there are issues around how the courts then process that.

That is why I was encouraged, in the summer of last year, when there was an exchange of correspondence between myself, as Minister, and Sir Declan Morgan, who is the Lord Chief Justice of the High Court in the North. Arising from that and his other thinking, the Lord Chief Justice, in his address at the beginning of session in September, named environmental crime as a priority, in terms of the courts going forward. I know that the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary generally have been taking some advice, and working with the Judicial Studies Board and information provided to them from the Department, in terms of the profile of all convictions, in all courts, for all environmental crime going back a number of years, in order to try to better inform judges about the capacity they have to impose penalties that fit the crime. I think, as Alasdair indicated, there is some sense that there are occasions, and may be too many occasions, when there is a view, as a view that I concur with, that the penalty does not fit the crime.

Q436 Oliver Colvile: It was really to you: civil confiscation orders, have you had very much use of them? Do you use those with SOCA?

Anne Blacker: We do use two things. The first thing now that we do is we have financial investigators, accredited by the National Policing Improvement Agency, to use proceeds of crime powers for criminal confiscation and for money laundering. The criminal confiscation, once we have someone convicted in the Crown Court, we can then carry out a financial investigation and ask the court to make a confiscation order for the benefit that, we believe, they have made from their criminality. That is working quite well for us.

Q437 Oliver Colvile: That is quite successful, is it?

Anne Blacker: It is quite successful. We view it as a very useful tool that we are seeking to develop. We are still to develop; we are currently doing our first money laundering investigation, which is a first for the Agency, money laundering being a set of criminal offending by itself, never mind the environmental offences. The other thing that we do is we will refer cases to SOCA for civil recovery, in the event that we perhaps fail in a prosecution or, for some reason, we cannot prosecute or we feel we have information that we cannot proceed with, but that SOCA may be able to look at civil recovery. We do those two processes in parallel, and we very much feel that depriving the offenders of benefit is a key tool in dealing with this. That is why they are offending: to make money. If we can stop them making money and take that away, that should assist with deterring the offending.

Q438 Oliver Colvile: Do you do that prosecution through the equivalent of the Prosecution Service?

Anne Blacker: The Public Prosecution Service takes our environmental cases, which are our criminal offences, themselves, and there is another section of the Public Prosecution Service, called High Court and International section, which looks after all things to do with proceeds of crime. Those two parts of the Public Prosecution Service also work together, once those cases arrive.

Q439 Oliver Colvile: We have had some discussions here about the how effective the Prosecution Service is.

Alex Attwood: As you know, there is a new Director of the Prosecution Service in the North. That is the PPS. An Assistant Director in the PPS is our point of reference when it comes to environmental crime. I will attempt to meet with the new Director-he has only been in place a number of months-in order to hopefully create greater mutual practice between what we are doing on our side and whether a dedicated team within the Public Prosecution Service, beyond the Assistant Director, should have responsibility for environmental crime. It does seem to me that the Lord Chief Justice is rightly making an issue about environmental crime. If we have escalated what we are doing in the DoE in terms of environmental crime and in the ECU with staffing, is there an argument that the PPS should similarly have dedicated people, not just the Assistant Director, who are a point of reference in respect of all these matters?

Anne Blacker: On an operational basis I would meet regularly with my colleagues and my equivalent in the Public Prosecution Service to discuss both specific cases and general developments in our work. We have also had staff from the Public Prosecution Service come and give presentations to the environmental crime unit, about case preparation and how to put cases together. Certainly over the last year, we are getting many more cases being directed for prosecution in the Crown Court, where there is the potential for unlimited penalties and prison sentences, than the magistrates’ courts, where traditionally environmental offences would have been heard. That is moving in a positive direction.

Q440 Oliver Colvile: On a scale of one to 10, how successful do you think you are?

Anne Blacker: I think, at the minute, it is probably about an eight. That is not due to the fault of the Public Prosecution Service or ourselves. It is moving along.

Chair: Eight seems quite good.

Q441 Nigel Mills: Just going on from that point, can you just run us through what the range of penalties are for environmental crime? It clearly just starts with a small fine and goes up to quite a serious prison sentence.

Anne Blacker: All the possible penalties? There is the possibility, first of all, of a mere warning letter for something that does not merit a criminal prosecution. Then there are the offences to do with depositing waste without a licence or keeping waste in a manner likely to cause environmental pollution. They are criminal offences, and they can either be heard in the magistrates’ court, where there is one set of penalties, or in the Crown Court, where there is a higher set of penalties. Depending on the scale of the case and all the individual factors, the Public Prosecution Service will direct whether a prosecution is appropriate and to which level of court it goes. There are also several notices in the legislation that can be served, requiring waste to be removed. That will come back to Dr McDonnell’s question about landowners and how they are dealt with. There are separate powers at the moment that the Department holds and that councils hold that soon will become unified between the two bodies. Those are available. Building on from that, after conviction, there is also the potential use of the proceeds of crime. There is also the potential to use money laundering legislation and to ask the court to consider serious crime prevention orders, after conviction, to impose conditions to deter or prevent further offending.

Q442 Nigel Mills: The most serious punishment I could get in terms of a custodial sentence would be-

Anne Blacker: I think the longest custodial sentence that has been awarded, not for fuel laundering but for waste crime, was a gentleman who got nine months’ imprisonment. His wife received a suspended sentence. They actually were landowners who had permitted waste to be buried on their land.

Alex Attwood: The maximum penalty is five years in the Crown Court and two in the magistrates’ court. There is an unlimited fine in the Crown Court and £50,000 in the magistrates’ court.

Q443 Nigel Mills: One thing the HMRC seems to say to us is they are a bit concerned that the penalties handed down in Northern Ireland were less than on the mainland. Is that something you find for environmental crime generally or is more comparable?

Anne Blacker: It is quite hard to generalise, because the individual circumstances between cases vary so much. You see some surprising results for the Environment Agency cases, as much as you do for Northern Ireland cases. I do not have any statistical basis, at the minute, to actually say whether it is lower or not.

Alex Attwood: As I indicated earlier, we shared with the authorities, claims and the Judicial Studies Board a record of all convictions for all environmental crime, going back a number of years, including some details around the nature of the offences, and the magistrate or judge who was sitting, in order to give intelligence to the relevant authorities on the judicial side about what the practice was, if there was any differential practice, inconsistency of practice, inadequacy of practice, or, on the other hand, adequacy and consistency. I think that work has been taken forward by the relevant authorities on the judicial side. I get a very strong sense from the Lord Chief Justice that he has a professional and personal interest in this matter, and I would like to think that that will work itself through, where appropriate, to more appropriate penalties and fines being imposed.

Q444 David Simpson: Chairman, I apologise for being late; I had another meeting to go to. You are very welcome to the Committee. In relation to the whole issue around penalties, is it not the case that, no matter what your Department, Minister, hands out, it is not a real enough deterrent, because there is so much money to be made out of this? Whether it be materials being dumped, obviously it is to do with fuel laundering, cat litter, acid, whatever the case may be, there is just so much money to be made out of this. If there is somebody put away for nine months, there is somebody coming in behind to take their place, because there is so much revenue. Is it an impossible task for your Department to minimise this or have you evidence to the contrary? Maybe it is working.

Alex Attwood: Coming across in the plane, Anne said to me that there was a sense among those who are involved in these sorts of activities that the penalties that might be imposed by the courts are by way of a business cost, as opposed to a deterrent. Whether that is completely the case or not, nonetheless, if there are people involved in this activity who see what they end up having to pay for this activity as a business cost, rather than something that fundamentally deters them, then that is something that all of us need to deal with. If it is an impossible task then it is an impossible task for HMRC, the police, DoE and all of those involved in the Organised Crime Task Force fuel laundering group and for the authorities in the South as well.

My sense is that, as we escalate the resources, the manpower and the specialisms in the ECU, as we begin to target, pursue and hopefully take out some of the masterminds behind all of this activity, as the authorities, North and South, more and more integrate-that is why I welcome this sort of hearing, because it advertises, in my view, that the circumstances in the North are different, because we share a land border, and then consequently there are many issues, including this, that led to SouthtoNorthside co-operation and implementation. As those relationships embed themselves further and further, and they are already in a very strong, good state, I do think you will be able to pick away at the activities of organised crime gangs, including those involved in fuel laundering.

Do I think that we can turn this around in a short space of time? Far from it; I think this is a 20year commitment of governments across these islands, because these practices have developed over a long period of time. They conclude a legacy of the years of conflict and the years of terror. Unless there is a will at the highest levels of government and in the relevant agencies to single-mindedly pursue those historically and currently involved, then it will be part of the legacy of conflict and part of an unfortunate future.

Q445 Lady Hermon: You have actually, Minister, given this Committee some encouragement this afternoon, in that you have provided evidence to us that, I am using your words, there is a gearchange towards environmental crime within your own Department. I am quoting here, because this is not something I would say of the Lord Chief Justice, but you said the Lord Chief Justice is making an issue of environmental crime, both to be welcomed.

I was very taken by a phrase that you used earlier in evidence to the Committee, which was that the shadow of fear of retribution hangs over many people who are aware of fuel laundering, and none of us should underestimate the thuggery of those involved in this, particularly with the crime. In those circumstances, where the Lord Chief Justice has given a priority to the environmental crime unit and your Department has given a significant priority to it, could I just ask if any thought has been given to actually using the Criminal Justice Act of 2003? As a well-taught lawyer, you will know the provision, I am sure, that I am talking about, which is Section 44, where we can have a nonjury trial-and nothing to do with the Diplock courts-where there is a real and present danger of jury tampering. That includes intimidation or attempted intimidation of witnesses. Is this not precisely the sort of crime where we could make maximum use of this provision, without the connotations of Diplock courts?

Alex Attwood: I hope the Lord Chief Justice considers that I have faithfully reflected his views. I think I have. Unfortunately, the Criminal Justice Act (2003) was passed after my time at Queen’s, so you did not teach me it.

Q446 Lady Hermon: That is no excuse.

Alex Attwood: It is only my excuse today, because I am not quite sure what you are asking me.

Q447 Lady Hermon: It is about the use of nonjury trials where there is intimidation.

Alex Attwood: That is my problem, not yours. I do not favour a return to Diplock trials.

Q448 Lady Hermon: It is not a Diplock trial.

Alex Attwood: Even the appearance or the reflection of a nonjury court is something, in principle, that I do not think would best serve our community and is best practice when it comes to-

Q449 Lady Hermon: Even if there is intimidation of witnesses? We have had this provision on the statue for over eight years. Could I just ask Ms Blacker, who was nodding her head in a completely different direction from you, Minister, what she feels about that proposal?

Anne Blacker: At the risk of embarrassing the Minister, it is not what I feel about it. I just wanted to let you know we actually do have one case at the moment, which we are investigating, where we have been in discussions with the Public Prosecution Service, where that very issue may arise. It is being taken very seriously and the justification for having to go down that line would also have to be considered very seriously. It is not something that is not in the thinking about how some environmental crime cases progress, but I will not name the case or any of the circumstances.

Q450 Lady Hermon: I would not expect you to do that. Having given the evidence that he has today, about how seriously his Department is taking this issue, the fact that we have had evidence of how weak the prosecution cases have become, and the fact that he himself identified clearly to the Committee that the air of intimidation is what is preventing people giving information about this particularly wicked crime, I would like to ask the Minister to commit to raising it when he meets, as he has told the Committee he is going to meet, the new DPP very soon? Would he please have it on his agenda, so at least this issue is discussed openly?

Alex Attwood: A number of comments. The first is that, as you will appreciate, Lady Hermon, the North is in a period of transition from the view it had on police and justice issues before to where we have travelled. It is very important that, in travelling that path, as fully as possible, we, at all times, apply the best practice and the rule of law and proper process. That will have much wider benefits. It is simply this: there will be people who will say that, if you routinely use a nonjury court to pursue an environmental crime matter, that actually is a reason why you should not be giving information to the state, because that is a throwback to the past. That is how, in some communities, these sorts of issues will get mangled and distorted. What I would rather do in the general approach to things is to ensure that we create opportunities for people to give information, anonymously if necessary, through Crimestoppers’ campaign and other interventions. Anne has been given information anonymously.

I would like to send out the message that, if Mr Big round the corner thinks that he can get away with a breach of the law, the state is going to bear down on him in a way that gives people to think that those Mr Bigs are not going to exist anymore. I would like to think that there are other ways of creating an environment whereby people would be inclined to give information. There may be very rare exceptions, as Anne has indicated, but I do not want to send a message to the Committee that I think, on a routine basis, an option of a nonjury court is the right approach. It may be, in extreme circumstances, that that option may be interrogated, as Anne has indicated, in a particular circumstance at the moment, but I do not think that, in the broad political justice world, in the North and where we have come from, that that is something that I would actively or routinely entertain.

Lady Hermon: Unfortunately, Minister, what you have said, if I summarise you correctly, is that the big fish can go ahead and intimidate witnesses, knowing very well that the actual letter of the law-this is on the statue book and has been available to the courts of Northern Ireland since 2003, but you as a Minister in the Executive would not make use of the provision. It is the rule of law.

Q451 Chair: Can I clarify this? I do not want to get too deep into a philosophical argument about the rights or wrongs of jury trials. Is it your responsibility to make that recommendation? Is it the Minister’s responsibility for justice at the DPP? Whose responsibility it is to recommend for a nonjury trial order?

Alex Attwood: It is a recommendation of the Public Prosecution Service.

Anne Blacker: Based on the circumstance.

Q452 Chair: That option is open to them? Because there is a great deal of frustration in this Committee about people not being prosecuted.

Lady Hermon: Yes, it is.

Anne Blacker: To maybe alleviate some of your concern also, it actually would be the exception in environmental crime cases that we would use evidence provided by independent witnesses. Usually in environmental crime cases, the evidence is still there, usually in a large pile. It is not really contradictable, so the need for us to use members of the public as witnesses in court is quite a rarity. That issue of witnesses being intimidated actually has not come up for us so far, to my knowledge.

Q453 Lady Hermon: I am sorry; I thought the Minister gave evidence to the Committee, earlier today, about the shadow of retribution.

Anne Blacker: We obviously depend on getting information from the public to assist us in our investigations. That information we treat as intelligence, and we handle it totally confidentially. That information does not feed its way back into court.

Alex Attwood: There are clearly, Lady Hermon, circumstances where people may know but do not have the confidence to tell. That can happen with a fuel laundering case or a repatriation of waste case. People may have seen activity and might have seen individuals known to them but, at that point in time, do not have the confidence to say, "I am going to tell." In a rural community, for example, where there are not many houses about, others might make a calculation about who the likely suspects were. In those circumstances, people inevitably develop a sense of fear and anxiety. That has to be the case because, given the scale of fuel laundering or of issues around the legal waste coming North, which is likely to be repatriated to the South, there must be people who are aware of things that are going on. The shadow of people militates against them telling.

Q454 Mr Benton: Minister, I want to refer for a moment to the road haulage and taxi businesses. I pose my question against the background of various reports going back to 2006, including one from this Committee. I would like to ask, in terms of the licensing aspect, precisely what your responsibilities are in terms of licensing the road haulage and taxi industry, and if you have made any assessment of the effectiveness of the impact of these licensing regimes in countering fuel smuggling and laundering.

Alex Attwood: I can confirm, Joe, that I am responsible for both the licensing of road haulage and taxis. In respect of licensing of road haulage, legislation was passed by the Assembly, and commencement orders in respect of that legislation created a new licensing regime. That means that the legislation will come into effect in March or April, and there will be a short transition, up to July of this year, before the life of that legislation is fully enforced. The consequence of that new licensing regime, when it comes through, to haulage is that, in the first instance, vehicles will have permits and thereafter will have to apply for licences. The purpose is that we will reduce the number of operators acting without proper vehicles, operating to proper standards, not going about their business in a proper way.

In that way, over a period of time as we move from permits to licences, there will be an opportunity to identify rogue operators, whatever they might be involved in, including if there are rogue operators who may, in one way or another, be facilitating smuggling or fuel laundering. It will be another part of the weaponry that we have to deploy, because we will be in a situation where we may be able to identify-and I think this will be on the smaller operator-those who are not on the right side of the licensing regime and, consequently, are not entitled to conduct trade. Consequently, if that is brought to the attention of the enforcement authorities, action can be taken. As a consequence of that, that might impact upon people who are involved in fuel smuggling and laundering.

Q455 Mr Benton: This Committee’s report on organised crime from 2006, together with concerns expressed by the Independent Monitoring Commission, made reference in a concerned way about paramilitaries using legitimate businesses, such as taxi firms, and forcing taxi drivers to undertake tasks for the benefit of the paramilitaries. Of course, it is with that particular reference in mind that is the point of my questioning. I wonder whether, in addition to what you have answered in terms of the first question, there had been any other measures taken to reduce the scopes for taxis and road haulage first to be exploited by fuel fraudsters.

Alex Attwood: First of all, it is a long time since 2006, and there have been uncertainties around devolution, in the first instance, and then the quality of devolution, since 2007. With that said, part of the legislative achievement of the last Assembly, the 2007 to 2011 Assembly, was to pass legislation that created new regimes, both in respect of taxiing and haulage. The advice of the Committee, back in 2006, has worked its way through in terms of new legislation on both issues, in order to create new regimes. The purpose of the new regimes is to regulate and regularise both sides, the taxi industry and the haulage business. Out of that will come, we would like to think, that those who are on the wrong side of the new regimes, be they individuals, companies or people in one way or another associated with illegal organisations, because of the new regime, if the new regime is then forced, that will have a payback in terms of driving out business and closing down those operators that have caused most offence and violence to the law.

The legislation in respect of the haulage side, in terms of its commencement and enforcement, is more advanced than the taxi side, where there are some remaining issues that I have to decide in terms of the precise detail around the architecture for taxi licensing. The direction of travel-just this week, I met representatives of the haulage industry in the North, and there are issues now, no longer the content and character of the legislation, or the timing of when it might be commenced. It was: will it be adequately enforced? In that regard, I have to ensure that the vehicle licensing end of the North is adequate, and that concerns me.

This morning, I met with Mike Penning in the Department of Transport in order to try to keep in place the vehicle licensing regime and staffing in Northern Ireland, not least because, as Ms Hoey has been nodding, here in Britain the Government has made a decision that will see centralisation of the vehicle licensing function, with the loss of more than 1,000 jobs across the island of Britain. If that were to be duplicated, as the British Government might be minded, that would have economic and job impacts for people in Northern Ireland, but it will also remove from us the opportunity to do what we need to do in respect of vehicle licensing, whether in road haulage, taxis or in respect of new proposals for road haulage and foreign contractors. If we do not have the capacity to do all that we need to do on an enforcement side, as a consequence of this government decision in respect of vehicle licensing generally, I think we are cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Mr Benton: I take your point. Thank you, Chair.

Q456 Jack Lopresti: What are your Department and district councils doing specifically to educate the public about the link between environmental damage and illegal cheap fuel? Are you working in conjunction with the Organised Crime Task Force on this matter?

Alex Attwood: Anne can also come in on that. As Anne indicated, there is a lot of profile in the North around illegal fuel laundering, even a disproportionate profile compared to the range of other environmental crime. That in itself educates people. Because the media are regularly reporting on the latest dumping of fuel waste or the latest closure of a fuel laundering plant, that in itself is getting through. As I indicated, because of a slight change in people beginning to report information to the relevant authorities, in the near future we will run this Crimestoppers campaign, through that independent charity, in order to encourage people to become aware of the issue.

Let me make this point clearly, Chair. Anne said that she would give everybody a mark of eight out of 10. I, being more political and ruthless, would not actually go that far. I might go as far as six going towards seven, because I can see the scale of how people, in all the relevant agencies across the island, are beginning to tie themselves closer together in terms of tackling environmental crime. It is quite clear that, because of the cost of laundered fuel, people who drive see the benefit of the cost saving without appreciating the deeper damage they are causing to the mechanics of the car and the higher costs that they will have to incur as a consequence of that. Consequently, given that this is in part demandled, people are not recognising the damage that they are causing to their own property and to the wider environment. Therefore, there is much more that we need to attend to in that regard, in terms of the wider education function.

Anne Blacker: HMRC obviously is the lead in fuel laundering. I am aware that they ran a Crimestoppers campaign not that long ago. The campaign the Minister has referred to, which we are planning to run, will cover waste crime. That will obviously include fuel laundering, because it is a waste. Their campaign was to try to educate the public that it is not a victimless crime. That perception that fuel laundering and environmental crimes are victimless is a widely held thing, because there is an education job to be done there. We are using Crimestoppers as a basis to try to use that to get a lot more media coverage about things environmental generally, and the damage that is done-the indirect costs that the public basically has to fund. As well as that, we are engaged in working with the other agencies and also trying to build up trust with the public, communities and people in industry, who are able to give us valuable information. That is very much an ongoing, evolving process.

Chair: I am afraid we are going to have to draw this session to a close. It was very interesting. Thank you very much for joining us.

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: David Ford MLA, Minister of Justice, and Simon Rogers, Deputy Director of Protection and Organised Crime Division, gave evidence.

Q457 Chair: Thank you very much for joining us. Sorry to keep you; we were delayed by a vote earlier on, and then we had a few things we had to go through in private session. Apologies for that, but you are extremely welcome. Thank you for being with us. Perhaps I might ask you just to give your general assessment of the level of the problem of fuel laundering in Northern Ireland. Is it getting worse? It is receding? What is your take on it?

David Ford: Thank you very much, Chair, for your welcome. Perhaps I will just do the formal introduction, although I think I have probably met most members of the Committee. I am David Ford, Minister of Justice and, therefore in that capacity, also Chair of the Organised Crime Task Force. With me, I would like to introduce Simon Rogers, who is the Deputy Director of the Protection and Organised Crime Division within the Department. Can I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the issue of fuel fraud and some of the issues about it?

Members will have seen the memorandum that we submitted, but I will just go through some brief points on it. Clearly assessing the extent of fuel fraud is difficult at this time. I believe that the best guidance we have is that developed by HMRC, which estimates that fuel fraud losses to the Exchequer are down from roughly £150 million in 200809 to £70 million in 200910. That may be something to do with the effect of enforcement, for which obviously OCTF and its agencies would claim a share of credit. It may also be to do with economic conditions, because the aspects of it that relate to legitimate crossborder trade, nonetheless being a loss to the Treasury, have diminished somewhat because of the changes in pricing between the North and the South. Still, £70 million is a very significant loss to the Exchequer. It is also the unquantified loss to legitimate trade, the damage to the environment and the unpalatable recycling of criminal profits into other enterprises.

I believe that the OCTF is representing a significant step in dealing with that, in the way that agencies, both UKbased and locally based in Northern Ireland, are able to come together, both in regular quarterly meetings that I chair and in a number of subgroups looking at different aspects of organised crime. The agencies most directly involved include HMRC, SOCA and UKBA at one level, and PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service and DoJ officials from the regional level. The attempt is to get together to share the necessary details that we have to commission analysis by an OCTF-funded officer within the PSNI to agree the strategies, whether they are across the agencies or singleagency, that have the most effect. Also, we are seeking at this stage to develop a degree of a pilot project on changing the mindset to deal with the issues of those who provide the market of this kind of trade. It is certainly relevant, given the evidence that you have just had, that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency is involved in two of the subgroups on criminal finance and crossborder fuel fraud. I believe that the OCTF has to continue to facilitate those links to make some moves more to better coordinate the agencies. I would be happy to talk about some of the issues that appear to be before the Committee, around issues like sentencing, crossborder working and the mindset issues that I have just highlighted. Perhaps, Chair, I should leave it there, and leave it to members to ask.

Lady Hermon: We had some mention of nonjury trials as well.

Q458 David Simpson: You are very welcome, Minister, and your colleague as well, to the Committee. I know you are very busy, but maybe you have been following some of the evidence sessions and research papers that we have been having over the past number of weeks. I am sure you would have gathered from that the frustration, I suppose from Committee members, and also frustration from members of the general public, who see leniency, in their opinion, of sentencing-the inadequacy of sentencing-for crimes such as fuel laundering, and from the aspect of the huge amount of money there is. HMRC gave us some evidence previously, and the figure they told us was something around £3 million last year or something in that realm. I cannot remember the exact figure. When we take the tens of millions that are taken out of the Exchequer because of revenue not being paid, it seems a very minute amount of money. There is a frustration, and I said this to Barra McGrory last week, that in the public’s opinion-and I speak to a lot of the public and I am sure other members do-the law sometimes is an ass when it comes to the sentencing of crimes. Do you share, as Justice Minister, the frustration that is held by the general public when they see certain sentences being handed down for these crimes?

David Ford: I think you correctly summarise that there is a significant frustration on the part of the public. The Committee will be well familiar with the statistics that, since 2001, we have only seen four cases of immediate imprisonment out of 47 prosecutions. It should however be noted that there have been 32 suspended or immediate custodial sentences, so it has not been treated as lightly as the 4outof47 figure would suggest. Nonetheless, it is clear that there is an issue that the public do not see significant deterrents. That is why I welcome the fact that the Chief Justice has highlighted, as one of the areas where he is developing guidance, this point. It is an issue that I have discussed with him as part of his programme of work with his colleagues. I need to be very careful, as Minister, that I do not interfere in the sentencing issues in individual cases. I believe that we do have adequate sentences where cases are prosecuted through the Crown Court, but there is a further difficulty of the relatively sentences that are given when cases are taken in the magistrates’ court. The fact that aspects of these crimes can be prosecuted in the magistrates’ court makes it not possible, at this stage, for the PPS to refer cases as being too lenient. There are issues there that we are seeking to address in discussions with the Chief Justice and with the PPS.

Q459 Naomi Long: It is nice to have you with us here, David. Can I just pursue that slightly with you, because the issue that has been raised with us is less about the adequacy of the range of sentencing available, but about the disparity in the sentences that are actually handed down in comparison with similar crimes in England and Wales? As the range of sentencing options are the same or similar, and are deemed to be adequate by anyone we have asked, their frustration is that the penalties tend to be at the lower end of the scale. Now, when Barra McGrory was here last week, he had set out the fact that the maximum sentence being handed out was quite rare; because of all the other factors, you would have to contest the case and so on for that to happen. Those considerations will also apply in England and Wales in terms of how sentencing policy develops.

The issue seems to be that this is not treated seriously or that there is a higher threshold that people have to cross, in terms of criminality, before sentencing becomes quite severe. The other issue that would feed into that, and on which we would be seeking your comments, is the perception that this is, in some way, a victimless crime and that that is perpetuated by light sentencing. Despite the fact that it does environmental damage, it can put lives at risk in many cases, and it is also feeding into other crime, apart from the fact that it is actually taking money away from the public purse. There is a perception that the punishment does not fit the crime, although the range of punishments available possibly could. Is there anything, in terms of the sentencing guidelines, that will address that specific issue?

David Ford: The difficulty around that point is that, when we develop a sentencing practice, that tends to inform the decisions taken by other judges in the future. Therefore, if light sentences have been given, there may be threats of appeal if sentences are made tougher in individual cases. That is where the importance of sentencing guidelines from the Chief Justice comes in: to ensure that we can up the norm, if you want to put it like that, rather than remaining at a relatively low level. This is not the only area in law in which Northern Ireland would end up differently from England and Wales because of that sort of practice. The ability of the PPS to refer cases as being too lenient would be a significant option for a step forward, which I believe would then ensure that, at higher levels of the judiciary, action was really taken.

Q460 Kris Hopkins: I think you have answered the question. You have certainly commented on it, because I was going to talk about your evidence, paragraph 22, in which you talk about you welcoming the decision by the Lord Justice to include duty evasion and smuggling in environmental crime, etc. You have seen the different agencies that have been in front of us and offered evidence. There seem to be two really similar messages that come out of those. One, they have a really good relationship with each other, but it is usually the other agency’s fault that it is not being pursued. They seem to be the common messages that come out. I am just wondering, the issue of sentencing obviously is the frustration for the public on this. How do we or how do would you think that we could try to give a common message from this group, from individual agencies, to the Lord Chief Justice that the bottomend tariff ratings that keep on coming out of this are the issue relating to public confidence? How do we get some parity with sentencing on the mainland? What is your message to the Lord Chief Justice on that issue?

David Ford: I suppose I need to comment, first of all, on your suggestion of good relationships but it is their fault. I must say, as Chair of the OCTF, I have not seen that attitude around the table. All I have seen as full co-operation. As a devolved minister, quite generally, it would be difficult to know from which agencies and whether they were Northern Ireland or UKwide agencies in terms of their relationships. You may have picked up elements of that; I certainly have not.

How we present the issue to the Lord Chief Justice in terms of sentencing guidelines is extremely fraught for all of us as legislators. At this stage, my role is to welcome his commitment to treat it seriously, to make clear that that is in line with public thinking and to see how that development goes. It may be that we will need to legislate for stiffer sentences in the future to show that there is a need for higher sentences on average, if we do not see movement from that, but I do believe that the Chief Justice is well aware of the issues and is seeking the opportunity to get that addressed.

Q461 Oliver Colvile: You do not think that you have a role to play at present in actually trying to increase sentencing as well, or do you want to wait until the Lord Chief Justice? How long is he going to take?

David Ford: One of the great advantages of the kind of approach that we have, as opposed to a formal sentencing guidelines council, but the currently relatively informal ways in which he is developing sentencing guidelines, is that that is speedier than would perhaps be the case in a jurisdiction with a formal mechanism. We will have to see exactly how that goes. It is one of those issues where we need to be careful not to overstep the mark. While we can, as individuals, express concerns about individual sentences, as Minister, I would need to be extremely careful in getting into the secondguessing area.

Q462 Oliver Colvile: Do you have any idea as to when you might be in a position? How long will you let this run for-a year, two years, three years?

David Ford: Given some of the work that has already been done by the Chief Justice’s group, I would suspect we are talking about a year or so.

Q463 Oliver Colvile: In a year’s time, we can ask you to come back and we can have another conversation about this.

David Ford: I have no doubt, Chair, that if the Committee wants me back, they will ask anyway.

Q464 Oliver Colvile: During the course of last week, the DPP told us that one of the impediments to civil recovery, for which SOCA is apparently the lead agency, is that, unlike the CPS and PPS, there is no statutory indemnity against crime costs. We were very concerned about that, as you may have read in the transcription what happened. Why does the PPS in Northern Ireland not have any indemnity and what do you think can actually be done to try to tidy that up and make sure that we can get that right?

David Ford: This is the point, Chair, where I am going to duck this one slightly, because certainly I was unaware of that position until it was expressed to this Committee last week by the DPP. Simon maybe has a bit more information on that for us.

Oliver Colvile: Thank you, by the way, for coming as well. We are very grateful.

Simon Rogers: The position on that is that, at the minute, SOCA pursues civil assets recovery, and therefore it is not really an issue for the PPS. They are highlighting that, were they to take on this area of work or, indeed, other things that SOCA is asking them to look at, there is a concern because, unlike in England and Wales, there is no parachute fund for them. As Barra McGrory said last week, that is something that needs to be looked at. As things stand at the moment, the PPS does not pursue that area of work. It is in the preserve of SOCA, and therefore it is perhaps not a major difficulty as we stand, at the minute.

Q465 Oliver Colvile: What we were concerned about was that, while you are almost certainly an assembly with devolved responsibility and all of that, what we also felt was that there should be a level playing field as well, within it. We would urge you to actually have a look at that.

David Ford: The Committee can be assured that we are following that up, given that we have only had notice of it for a week.

Q466 Oliver Colvile: Once you have followed it up, do you think you might write to us?

David Ford: Yes, certainly.

Chair: That would be useful.

Q467 Lady Hermon: I am delighted, Minister of Justice, to have you here this afternoon, and also Mr Rogers, who I know from your previous incarnation as the private secretary to the Lord Chief Justice. Both gentlemen were very effective in their jobs indeed. Could I just ask you as Justice Minister, David, to clarify for the record your attitude towards the use of nonjury trials by the prosecution, where there is evidence of a real and present danger of jury tampering, including the intimidation of witnesses, in cases of fuel fraud and very dangerous similar crimes?

David Ford: Chair, I am not going to rehearse the argument that my ministerial colleagues has just had with Sylvia. First of all, there are, as I understand it, better provisions in the Justice and Security Act, as apply to Northern Ireland, than those in the Criminal Justice Act, but, not being a lawyer, I would be cautious in simply saying I understand that to be the case. We certainly have a range of measures to protect victims and witnesses, including issues like giving evidence by videolink and so on, which I believe can go some way to protect the vulnerable in those circumstances. Fundamentally, it is an option that is open to the DPP to make recommendations on, and it is one of those issues where the DPP would expect me to say it is his responsibility. I would expect him to use his responsibility wisely to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.

Q468 Lady Hermon: Absolutely, that is what I would expect you to say. Were you therefore surprised, as a Minister in the Executive, to find a colleague of yours in the Executive, a Minister with responsibility for the environment, wheeling it out in evidence in front of this Committee, this afternoon?

David Ford: I am not sure that I am qualified, as a Minister in the Executive, to comment on a colleague in the Executive’s view on that. If you were asking me to comment as a member of political party, as to where Alex Attwood comes from as a member of another political party, then I would not be surprised, but I fear that we are getting off my former role there.

Q469 Nigel Mills: Heading back to deterrents, what do you think of the use of civil recovery or other such powers, like serious crime prevention orders and financial reporting orders? Are they an effective deterrent or really is just a custodial sentence the trick there?

David Ford: It is one of those issues where there can be a package of matters that constitute deterrents in total. There is no doubt that the successful seizure of criminally gained assets can be quite significant, but it is not always that easy to achieve the significant seizure that would be needed to do that. We need to look at both the civil and the criminal sanctions.

Q470 Nigel Mills: They would not be an alternative to a criminal sanction; they would be a supplement or used if there could not be a criminal prosecution or something.

Simon Rogers: What happens in practice is that the crime takes precedent. If there is a possibility of criminal prosecution not going first, as part of that, there is a very thorough consideration given to whether any criminal recovery can be done. Those orders you mentioned might form part of that package. Indeed, there have been such orders in Northern Ireland. Civil recovery is then considered as a next stage after the prosecution turns it away, and again I know from the agencies that they would look at that in individual cases. Obviously the burden of proof is lower and, therefore, there are possibly more options available to them there. It is in the menu, if you like, but they go down the menu before they come to civil recovery.

Q471 Nigel Mills: When you go through the menu, do you look to make sure or should they look to make sure that all possible offences, like environmental ones, proceeds of crime, have all been considered?

David Ford: It is my understanding that that is generally the case. The whole range of potential offences is taken into account, including those that have a higher penalty, where possible.

Q472 Kate Hoey: Minister, welcome. I hope you are keeping up your running. You attended recently a crossborder seminar on organised crime for your counterparts. Was fuel crime specifically discussed at that? Was there a general agreement and mutual co-operation on that issue?

David Ford: I may have to leave Simon to talk about the details of that, because I am afraid what tends to happen at those seminars is that the two Ministers open, and then leave those most directly involved to carry out the work. It is certainly my understanding that there has been fairly solid engagement around the Cross Border Fuel Fraud Enforcement group, which I think featured at that seminar and certainly has been shown in a number of successful joint crossborder operations. Perhaps Simon can give you a bit more detail on that.

Simon Rogers: The conference is partly about specifically identified issues in advance and, indeed, crossborder smuggling was one of those, but it also provides the opportunity for the agencies from both sides of the border to get together, sit down and talk about strategies and tactics. Beyond the formal agenda, which would have included that, there were informal discussions and tactical discussions about particular groups, etc. Yes, it was one of a number of elements.

Q473 Kate Hoey: Are you happy enough with the general co-operation between agencies so that, if someone is arrested for a fuel fraud charge or an allegation, they can also be charged with other things that are linked? Is there a lot of co-operation to try to make the penalty and the charges as strong as possible?

David Ford: There is co-operation in terms of operational activity on the ground. There is then co-operation in terms of how measures are proceeded through. The last significant operation in September, if I remember correctly, covered something like eight or nine sites across the island. There were two counties in Northern Ireland covered and about six in the South, so there are clearly positive signs of intelligence being shared and activities carried out in a coordinated way.

Q474 Kate Hoey: Forgetting the crossborder aspect, if someone is arrested for fuel fraud, is there then a lot of co-operation to try to see if that person can also be linked in, as very often they are, with other kinds of money laundering or other issues?

David Ford: That is the operational task then for HMRC generally, as the lead on fuel, to liaise with the PSNI, because we do certainly see all kinds of other fraudulent activity, including things like human trafficking tied into those same gangs.

Q475 Dr McDonnell: As an appendage to that-Minister, you are very welcome and I am very glad to see you here-in situations where a criminal gang is based in the South, in the Republic, but is selling fuel in the North, the Revenue and Customs suggested to us that it is sometimes easier to have the taxman, the revenue commissioners and the Criminal Assets Bureau pursue an individual rather than investigate the thing through the normal legal or policing channels. Would you be satisfied with that?

David Ford: In the interests of crossborder co-operation, I want to see the maximum penalty applied against criminals, in whichever jurisdiction that is easier done. I have no hangups on how we pursue them. We have the crossborder co-operation, and that then may result in action on one side of the border or the other.

Q476 Mr Anderson: Notwithstanding what you have just said, Minister, your long experience of at least 10 years has been a really great improvement and a lot of good things done crossborder. We were concerned here last week that, in terms of sharing information, you can wait up to seven or eight months for a request to exchange evidence. Have you raised with counterparts in the Republic how to speed that up?

David Ford: I have not personally raised that. Certainly my understanding is that, at the operational and investigative level, there is extremely good co-operation, which does not require the formalities to be carried through. Obviously, if you get to the point of talking about things like extradition activity or whatever, it then becomes a significant national issue, but all the evidence I see from my day-to-day contact with my agencies and with the agencies that operate in the Republic is of solid practical day-to-day co-operation.

Q477 Mr Anderson: That is what we have been told continuously in this Committee for many years. It is why I was so concerned last week. In a sense, what we were trying to avoid was having to go down the route of extradition, if we can get evidence exchanged on a quicker basis. We were told by the PSNI that, at the moment, it could take up to seven or eight months. We want to get that down to days, as opposed to weeks and months. It is whether there is any way you can pursue that to try to make that work more quickly.

David Ford: In a sense this is Alasdair’s point about taking action wherever it is easiest to take the most effective action.

Q478 Mr Anderson: Still there are things that you could do to help them, as well as help you. If the letters go the other way, will they go more quickly than they are now?

David Ford: Clearly the issues of speeding up justice, in whatever way you do it, are very significant for me and for Alan Shatter in Dublin. The problem is you, to some extent, view it from a devolved position. The practical day-to-day quick co-operation sometimes gets caught up in international bureaucracy, when you get to things like extradition, but that does not stop the good proactive work together on the ground.

Simon Rogers: If I may come in there too, I think Barra McGrory raised this issue in respect of the international letters of request, which might be for information around a bank account or something like that. That has been reviewed by those who need to be looking at it. Secondly, the Minister raised this with HMRC earlier in the week, and their view of it is that it has improved somewhat. The arrangement is not perfect, but that might be the area you are asking about.

Q479 Mr Anderson: It was actually Drew Harris from the PSNI who raised it with us. It is something that we in Westminster need to raise.

David Ford: The more speedily any of the crossborder bureaucracy is carried through, the better it is, yes.

Q480 Ian Paisley: I, too, welcome you here, Minister. You chair the Organised Crime Task Force. I should declare that once I was a member of that Task Force for a few years when I was on the policing board. Are you happy with the resources and technology that HMRC put into counterfeiting fuel fraud?

David Ford: I suppose it is not up to me to secondguess the work being done by HMRC, with its responsibilities here. It certainly seems to me, from the evidence that I have been given by HMRC, that there is very significant work ongoing at the moment looking at the chemistry or technology, whatever it is, that is also being done in co-operation with the science service in Dublin. It is proceeding in a way that, I believe, is as positive as can be at the moment, but clearly there is a huge issue about trying to get ahead of those who are engaging in laundering fuel.

Q481 Ian Paisley: We have heard evidence from a number of parties, including HMRC and indeed from the authorities in the Republic of Ireland. They have told us that they have been working on this since about 2009. The OCTF also launched a tender for a new marker type technology. Do you not think, whenever you have evidence in front of you where major companies tell you that this technology exists, that something seems to seriously wrong in connectivity, when a Department is not able, or the HMRC division of government is not able, to link that ability to have the technology and put it in the field? Do you not think that more effort needs to be made by HMRC to really drive this, as it would seem to be sitting with us from about 2009 to the present date?

David Ford: My problem, Ian, is that you are saying companies are saying that technology exists, and the view that I have got is that it is not yet certain that we have the necessary requirements. Indeed, I was told of one substance that was supposed to be an excellent marker, which HMRC’s laboratory, in tests, was able to launder out relatively easily. There clearly is not a consensus around the science. I would certainly hope that, as soon as there is a consensus around the science, it would be put into place in both the UK and the Republic.

Q482 Ian Paisley: Finally, the prospect of a pilot programme came up at a recent crossborder organised crime seminar. Would you welcome, if the technologies were found to be there or could be there, a pilot programme in Northern Ireland or, indeed, across Ireland, to try out those new technologies to see if we can get ahead, as you quite rightly put out, of the criminal?

David Ford: As a devolved Minister, I would have no problem whatsoever with Northern Ireland being the pilot region for the UK. Whether that is a view that would necessarily be taken by Ministers in this place might not necessarily be the same thing.

Ian Paisley: It will be a testing ground for other matters.

Q483 Mr Benton: I think, Minister, that you have answered part of my question in reply to Ian, but I would like to ask, in the absence of a longterm technological solution, is the current strategy of the HMRC, in your opinion, working?

David Ford: I highlighted at the beginning the estimate of the significant reduction in fuel fraud recently, so perhaps one might suggest that it is, to some extent, working, but clearly it remains at a high level. Therefore, it is not working as well as we would hope it would. I am not sure whether that answers the question. Clearly there is a lot of work that needs to continue to be done to bear down on the criminals who carry out this activity.

Q484 Mr Benton: It does answer it, because it is an opinion I am seeking, basically. You covered, as I said before, elements of the other concerns I was about to express when you answered Ian Paisley. At this stage now, I am merely asking for an opinion and I think you have answered that.

David Ford: My opinion is that progress is being made, but we are certainly not at the point where we could say that success has been achieved.

Q485 Oliver Colvile: We have taken some evidence from the DETINI. They say that they do not foresee progress being made on amending the Petroleum Consolidation Act, as a vehicle to incorporate diesel for licensing purposes. Do you agree with that?

David Ford: I did raise the issue of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act with Arlene Foster, the Minister at DETI. My understanding of what was put as the official view is that the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act is largely to do with the chemistry of petrol and the health and safety aspects of that, in a way that would mean that diesel would not sit easily with it. Therefore, attempting to address concerns about the laundering of diesel would not sit within that Act. It was a means that I had hoped would have had some options of success, but the advice is that it is not the right means to use.

Q486 Oliver Colvile: Do you have a view then as to how we might eliminate the loophole, which has been identified by the HMRC?

David Ford: It is difficult to see anything other than the current efforts to get proper markers. I know, for example, that there were questions asked in the Dáil not that long ago about the issue as to whether it would not be better to remove the greenmarking, in their case, and to allow farmers to buy and then reclaim the tax. That was seen to be not workable and equally liable to lead to fraud and possibly greater fraud, as well as a large amount of bureaucracy. That would be seen as the similar view to the UK as well. It is simplistic from the point of view of those of us who want to address the issue, as it currently hits us in Northern Ireland, but it does not seem to be a good idea in the longer run.

Q487 Oliver Colvile: You do not think it might be something that the Health and Safety Executive might take up.

David Ford: I cannot see the specific issue of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, on the simple basis of the chemistry of diesel as opposed to petrol.

Q488 Dr McDonnell: Thank you again, Minister, for the evidence so far. One of the things that I want to ask you is: are all the Departments across the Northern Ireland Executive cooperating fully with the Organised Crime Task Force? Could something more be done on this particular issue? Are they giving all the necessary support to counter fuel fraud or do some of them feel that it has got nothing to do with them?

David Ford: I suppose the simple answer is some Departments would feel it is nothing to do with them because it is nothing to do with them. The key partners we would have on this would be the two Ministers who previously addressed you-Arlene Foster at the Department of Enterprise and Alex Attwood at the Department of the Environment. We have full co-operation with them in their areas of responsibility.

Q489 Dr McDonnell: Do you still feel that there might be more done? You heard the discussion earlier about road haulage licensing with Alex Attwood. Do you think that more could be done to tighten up the haulage licensing to make it harder for fraudsters to transport illegal fuel?

David Ford: I need to speak cautiously as Minister of Justice and a former member of the Environment Committee in the Assembly. It seems to me that the DoE is doing its best to tighten up licensing of road haulage. There is clearly an issue in the way that road haulage, from parts of Ireland, is seen within GB, in terms of its adherence to the same level of standards as are expected as the norm on this side of the water. I am not sure, as Minister of Justice, I should go much further than that.

Q490 Naomi Long: The issue that I was wanting to raise specifically, Chair, was in connection to the issue of links between fuel smuggling and laundering and paramilitarism within Northern Ireland. Clearly there are those connections; we have received evidence in that regard. I would just be interested to know what your assessment of those connections is and whether you believe that that is something that inhibits the collection of information from the public. Lady Hermon has already referred to intimidation, witness tampering and so on, but does it actually inhibit people from getting that information?

David Ford: Without wishing to be specific about any individual case, there is evidence of strong links between paramilitary activity and a range of organised crime, not just fuel laundering. That applies in different parts of Northern Ireland and different organisations. The fuel laundering and smuggling issues are particularly issues for some border areas, where it has been linked to paramilitary activity. Indeed, I have heard people been described as fulltime criminals and parttime terrorists. There are issues there that need to be addressed, and there is absolutely no doubt that, in those circumstances, obtaining evidence can be more difficult, which is where the counterpoints that I was discussing with Sylvia earlier very much come into play.

This is not an issue that is unique to this particular problem. It is an issue that is part of the ongoing work of the Department of Justice to help build confidence. It is a key part of the personal policing agenda of the Chief Constable to ensure that police officers are going to be out, in contact with the local community, in every part of Northern Ireland. It is an area in which, I believe, the police have seen significant success, but it clearly is an area that is a major task for the police and for my Department, as we look into the future and seek to normalise society.

Q491 Naomi Long: On that issue, to what degree is this a case of former paramilitaries having moved into criminal activity as their primary motivator, as opposed to current paramilitaries funding their campaigns through fuel laundering and other crime?

David Ford: Chair, I take entirely my colleague’s point. I am not sure that I could answer it at the level of detail for which she’s asking me, but I think the answer is probably both.

Q492 Oliver Colvile: Moving on to that, just so I can actually understand it, there is some suggestion, is there not, that there is some activity that takes place here on the mainland as well, around Manchester and places like that. Do you get any feeling that there is any connection on this kind of issue between some of the more criminal people in Northern Ireland and the Manchester people?

David Ford: My understanding is that, of a reasonably significant number of organised crime gangs that operate in part in Northern Ireland, a number of them would also operate in GB; a number would also operate in the Republic; a number would also operate in mainland Europe. That applies in different directions.

Q493 Oliver Colvile: In 2010, the Northern Ireland Audit Office suggested there should be sharing of data. How is that getting on now?

David Ford: Data on specifically-

Oliver Colvile: Just generally data, information, was going to be shared across this one issue to do with fuel laundering and the whole business of cigarettes as well. To what extent do you end up sharing information with other agencies?

David Ford: My understanding is, because largely the DOJ is not directly involved, that there is a very high level of sharing between the agencies within Northern Ireland and the UK agencies, and with the agencies in the Republic as well.

Q494 Lady Hermon: I am starting to repeat myself here but, I have to say on a personal basis, I have considered you as the Justice Minister as being a very effective Minister indeed. On a slight tangent here, how confident are you that we can look forward to having you continue as the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland to see through what we have been talking about this afternoon? There has to be some continuity here.

Ian Paisley: BBC News is on in five minutes.

Lady Hermon: Why? Are you going to make some announcement?

Q495 Chair: This question may also be beyond your necessary control.

David Ford: I am sure you want me to give some kind of response to this question.

Q496 Lady Hermon: Yes, please.

David Ford: I will try not to engage in it completely. The position that is currently being put forward by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is that they would formally wish to extend the election of a Justice Minister by crosscommunity vote, after 1 May deadline this year, I think I can say without breaking any great confidences. There are private hints that they would see the incumbent staying in post. There are, however, issues of concern to my party dealing with, frankly, my party’s entitlement to one of the seats in the Executive, which they are currently proposing to remove, which means that there is a certain amount of negotiation that, I believe, may require legislation in this place. Those issues are to be explored in the coming weeks.

Lady Hermon: Thank you. We wish you well.

Q497 Ian Paisley: You do not want to tell us who you would prefer to remove. No, obviously not. Going back to the subject that is in front of us, data exploitation, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, in 2010, recommended the bringing together of all the various IT networks in Northern Ireland that hold data, which would involve a wide range of public bodies including HMRC, social security, grant claims, etc. What developments have there been in the sharing of data between the different Departments, as proposed by that report in 2010?

David Ford: I am afraid the answer to that, Chair, is I do not know. Certainly through the Causeway IT system there has been significant linkage of the justice agencies, but I appreciate that Ian’s question goes beyond the justice agencies.

Q498 Ian Paisley: Minister, I will tell you what it goes back to. I have significant doubts that crimes are actually being properly measured. I come from a view that, if it is not measured, it is not done. I think we have faced, over the last number of months during our inquiry, frankly, waffle-waffle from Government agencies that they are doing a good job. "We are doing really well. Don’t worry about it." But when you ask for specific breakdown of statistics, when you ask are they following up on any of the recommendations from previous Select Committee reports, you actually find that it has not been done and that the measurements are not being done. Therefore, we have no idea of how serious the crimes that we are investigating are in terms of their numbers, and more importantly if there has actually been a serious inroad taken. That is why I have serious doubts, going back to the tracer material, that HMRC actually knows what they are talking about. If they are not measuring these things properly, as they are being told to by the Audit Office, how do we know any of this is being done? It is really trying to cut through all of the waffle.

David Ford: I do not think I am in a position to "cut through the waffle", in your terms, if it comes specifically from HMRC. If the issue is whether the DOJ has any locus on the joiningup of information, then I will write to the Committee with the information we get.

Chair: Are there any more questions? Thank you very much for an extremely interesting session. You have been very helpful. Thank you very much. I do not know if I am entitled to say it, but good luck in the issue we have just discussed in May.