Oral evidence: Countering extremism, HC 428Tuesday 1 December 2015

Oral evidence, 1 December 2015.

Witness

Sir Charles Montgomery, Director General, Border Force, gave evidence. Q120 Q121 Q122 Q123 Q124 Q125 Q126 Q127 Q128 Q129 Q130 Q131 Q132 Q133 Q134 Q135 Q136 Q137 Q138 Q139 Q140 Q141 Q142 Q143 Q144 Q145 Q146 Q147 Q148 Q149 Q150 Q151 Q152 Q153 Q154 Q155 Q156 Q157 Q158 Q159 Q160 Q161 Q162 Q163 Q164 Q165 Q166 Q167 Q168 Q169 Q170 Q171 Q172 Q173 Q174 Q175 Q176 Q177 Q178 Q179 Q180 Q181 Q182 Q183 Q184 Q185 Q186 Q187 Q188 Q189 Q190 Q191 Q192 Q193 Q194 Q195 Q196 Q197 Q198 Q199 Q200 Q201 Q202 Q203 Q204 Q205 Q206 Q207 Q208 Q209 Q210 Q211 Q212 Q213 Q214 Q215 Q216 Q217 Q218 Q219 Q220 Q221 Q222 Q223 Q224 Q225 Q226 Q227 Q228 Q229 Q230 Q231 Q232 Q233 Q234 Q235 Q236 Q237 Q238 Q239 Q240 Q241 Q242 Q243 Q244 Q245 Q246 Q247 Q248 Q249 Q250 Q251 Q252 Q253 Q254 Q255 Q256 Q257 Q258 Q259 Q260 Q261 Q262 Q263 Q264 Q265 Q266 Q267 Q268 Q269 Q270 Q271 Q272 Q273 Q274 Q275 Q276 Q277 Q278 Q279 Q280 Q281 Q282 Q283 Q284 Q285 Q286 Q287 Q288 Q289 Q290 Q291 Q292 Q293 Q294 Q295 Q296 Q297 Q298 Q299 Q300 Q301 Q302 Q303 Q304 Q305 Q306 Q307 Q308 Q309 Q310 Q311 Q312 Q313 Q314 Q315 Q316 Q317 Q318 Q319 Q320 Q321 Q322 Q323 Q324 Q325 Q326 Q327 Q328 Q329 Q330 Q331 Q332 Q333 Q334 Q335 Q336 Q337 Q338 Q339 Q340 Q341 Q342 Q343 Q344 Q345 Q346 Q347 Q348 Q349 Q350 Q351 Q352 Q353 Q354 Q355 Q356 Q357 Q358 Q359 Q360 Q361 Q362 Q363 Q364 Q365 Q366 Q367 Q368 Q369 Q370 Q371 Q372 Q373 Q374 Q375 Q376 Q377 Q378 Q379 Q380 Q381 Q382 Q383 Q384 Q385 Q386 Q387 Q388 Q389 Q390 Q391 Q392 Q393 Q394 Q395 Q396 Q397 Q398 Q399 Q400 Q401 Q402 Q403 Q404 Q405 Q406 Q407 Q408 Q409 Q410 Q411 Q412 Q413 Q414 Q415 Q416 Q417 Q418 Q419 Q420 Q421 Q422 Q423 Q424 Q425 Q426 Q427 Q428 Q429 Q430 Q431 Q432 Q433 Q434 Q435 Q436 Q437 Q438 Q439 Q440 Q441 Q442 Q443 Q444 Q445 Q446 Q447 Q448 Q449 Q450 Q451 Q452 Q453 Q454 Q455 Q456 Q457 Q458 Q459 Q460 Q461 Q462 Q463 Q464 Q465 Q466 Q467 Q468 Q469 Q470 Q471 Q472 Q473 Q474 Q475 Q476 Q477 Q478 Q479 Q480 Q481 Q482 Q483 Q484 Q485 Q486 Q487 Q488 Q489 Q490 Q491 Q492 Q493 Q494 Q495 Q496 Q497 Q498 Q499 Q500 Q501

Chair

Could I call the Committee to order and refer everyone present to the Register of Members’ Interests where the interests of the members of this Committee have been noted? Are there any further interests to be declared?

James Berry

Professor Weinberg is Vice-Chancellor of my local university in Kingston.

Chair

Thank you, Mr Berry. Sir Charles, thank you very much for coming in. This is part of our ongoing inquiry into counter-terrorism and the counter-narrative. We want to look today, especially after the events in Paris, at the Border Force and the work that it is doing to protect the borders of this country. Would you say that the borders of the United Kingdom are secure?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Chair, I have been before you on a number of occasions when I have advised you that there is no such thing as an impermeable border. What I have said before, and I will reiterate, is that the United Kingdom border is among the strongest of all the liberal democracies of the free world. I would even say that totalitarian states would never declare their borders utterly impermeable. What I would say is that our border is among the most secure in the world. We have natural advantages. We have a very tight operating mandate and I believe the regime we operate is proportionate to the risks and the threats that we face. Of course, those have increased and so too has our posture.

Chair

You kept the promise that you made to this Committee that you would have 100% exit checks by 1 April.

Sir Charles Montgomery

You will recall that both myself and the Minister gave evidence to the former Committee at the back end of the last Parliament, I think it was, in which we made clear that the regime was 100%, with some well-publicised exceptions. Those surround the common travel area, elements of general maritime and, as you will recall, elements of coach traffic where we conduct discreet checks on those passengers who we consider to be proportionate. Those checks have been increased as a result of Paris.

Chair

What else have you done as a result of what has happened in Paris?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Could I start by saying that we had already raised our posture since the threat level was raised to severe some while ago and we have been in that posture now for about 18 months or so. That means that we have been doing a lot more targeting of both freight and people coming across the border. We have invested a lot in the capacity of the targeting centre and its particular technologies. Exit checks are a component part of this, as too are the at-gate outbound and inbound checks we do on selected and targeted flights, and members of the Committee may well have been on some of those flights where you will meet my people at the border.

Chair

But that was all happening prior to Paris?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Yes. Since it went to severe, we have been doing some profiling on arrival and making very significant numbers of referrals on a weekly basis to counter-terrorism police for them to take forward. That was the posture even before Paris. I wanted to set that out because Paris builds on that. Since Paris, within half an hour of the news of the attacks, we had instituted increased checking of both freight and passengers on selected routes inbound to the United Kingdom and, on request, very shortly thereafter on outbound routes from the United Kingdom. We have done CTA checks, we have redeployed our cutters to higher risk routes, and we have operated with the Royal Navy, embarking our people in Royal Navy ships to do likewise. I offer you a range there to give you a flavour of what we have done.

Chair

That is very helpful, but does that include better checks on those coming from Dunkirk or the Hook of Holland? The concern that we had was that although Calais seems to be secure, if you look at a country like Holland they have only two sniffer dogs available for immigration purposes in the whole country. The worry is that in the containers that go to Harwich there are weapons that could be used by those who seek to cause an attack against the British people.

Sir Charles Montgomery

Chair, for reasons you will understand, I do not want to go to specific routes, specific times and specific modes. What I can say, as you would expect, is that we are working very closely with our close European colleagues. I am advised and guided by the work of the special intelligence agencies and the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, among others, and we are targeting our effort on those routes that they judge to be of the highest risk.

Chair

Did you see last week’s evidence session with the Security Minister and this Committee?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I read the transcript.

Chair

You did? So you know that I raised the case of Trevor Brooks and Simon Keeler, two individuals who are subject to a Home Office travel ban and who were both on extremism watch lists. They managed to leave the country and get all the way to the Hungarian-Romanian border before Romanian police apprehended them. How is it possible, considering that we have 100% checks, we have watch lists, we have travel bans, that they are able to get through the Border Force and make their way all the way to Hungary and Romania?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Those two individuals have been arrested, of course, and I am not going to talk about them specifically.

Chair

Yes, but not by you.

Sir Charles Montgomery

No, they were not by me, but because they are under that process, I cannot talk specifically about that case. What I can say, Chair—

Chair

Do you mean there are other cases of people who have managed to get out who are subject to travel bans?

Sir Charles Montgomery

No, I didn’t say that either, Chair. I simply said that I am not able to talk about those two individuals.

Chair

Well, use that as an example and tell us the policy. How is it possible for someone with a Home Office travel ban to leave the United Kingdom, go all the way across Europe and end up on the borders between Hungary and Romania, and Romanian police, rather than the elite force that you are supposed to lead, being able to apprehend them?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I go back to my answer to the first question: there is no such thing as an impermeable border.

Chair

But if you have a watch list and you have a travel ban, surely that must be looked at before people leave the country if you have 100% exit checks, otherwise what is the point? These are not people who come within the exemptions; they are not schoolchildren on a trip to Calais. These are grown-up men with a big history of involvement in terrorism.

Sir Charles Montgomery

You will know, Chair, that our maritime coast is 11,000 miles long. We are about 20 minutes by rigid inflatable from the nearest point of the Continent. It simply is not possible, as I have said before, to guarantee 100% lack of permeability at the border. It simply is not. I would point out, without referring to these individuals’ cases in particular, that of course those controls were tightened after Paris.

Chair

But are you now going to have an inquiry into how this happened? I would be very upset if I was in your position and I found out that people were leaving the country even though they were subject to Home Office travel bans.

Sir Charles Montgomery

They are in the judicial system of the country concerned at the moment. We will be waiting for that process to conclude before we conduct our investigations.

Chair

If you saw the transcript, you would have seen the evidence of the Greek Ambassador who told this Committee that he does not have the equipment to be able to ascertain whether or not a passport is a fake Syrian passport. Therefore, there is a possibility that the 400 or so people who are returning to this country, having fought in Syria, are getting through the Greek border, as happened in the case of Mr Abaaoud who then led the Paris attacks, and eventually ending up back in the United Kingdom.

Sir Charles Montgomery

That is where I come back to my point that our controls at the border inbound are among the tightest in the world. We have an extremely comprehensive suite of watch listing checks we do on people coming across our border, including on the basis of advance passenger information.

Chair

But that is if they fly here. In Mr Abaaoud’s case he crossed the border into Greece from Turkey on a false passport. Are you saying that in a similar circumstance where a British citizen is returning and has a false passport you would have been able to stop that happening? It is happening at the Greek border. They don’t have the equipment; it is not us.

Sir Charles Montgomery

No, in which case if they were arriving by air or travelling by air they would have to go through the checks to get on to the aircraft in the first place. Again, as you will recall, advance passenger information is one of the outer layers of our checks. We still do 100% checks on arrival in the United Kingdom.

Chair

But what can we do to help the Greeks, because they have the problem? It is the Greek border that is allowing people to come in and they cannot cope, can they? Even the new hotspots do not give them the opportunity to check people when they come back.

Sir Charles Montgomery

We are not a member of the Frontex organisation but we are contributing our expertise to Frontex in both Greece and Italy in the hotspots and to the Greeks themselves. We have an officer in the co-ordination centre for Frontex in Greece as well. We are providing expertise to the Greeks to help them handle the significant challenges they face.

Mr Umunna

As the Chair said, we took evidence last week from the Security Minister and his Cabinet Office lead and he said that there were around 800 UK nationals who had gone over to Syria to fight with ISIL. He said around 50 to 70 had been killed in action and half had returned. I think he settled on just over 300 as having returned. Are those numbers that you recognise?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I do, making it very clear that the higher number with which you started is an estimate, not a precise figure.

Mr Umunna

For the benefit of the record, could you explain what are the specific checks you carry out to detect people who are travelling with the intention to get to Syria or Iraq to fight with ISIL? What are you looking for? What are the common characteristics or things that cause alarm bells to go in your officers’ heads as they are going through the border?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Let me give you something of the mechanics. For reasons you will understand, I am not going to go into the characteristics that we are looking for.

Mr Umunna

Just for clarification, I am not necessarily talking about their background. I am talking about where they are going, practical things.

Sir Charles Montgomery

Yes, but that is precisely the information that I am not able to give you because those profiles are constantly being reworked and are the means by which we identify many of the unknowns. Can I elaborate a bit more?

Mr Umunna

Please.

Sir Charles Montgomery

Our first contribution to this effort on known targets of interest will be to look at advance information of travel and to wash it against those subjects of interest to determine if we know somebody of interest to another agency is travelling. That would be our first area of interest here. The second thing we do, even before any travel has been conducted, is to look at travel patterns of people who are conducting certain behaviours or who are travelling in certain ways. The first is about targeting known individuals; the second is about targeting unknowns but people who are behaving in ways that are suspicious to the authorities.

Mr Umunna

Sorry to cut in. In respect of both of those categories, in a given month, approximately how many individuals, in the known and the unknown categories, are you doing that deeper delve for information as to what they are going on to do?

Sir Charles Montgomery

It is in the hundreds.

Mr Umunna

You are checking hundreds of people every month?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Correct. We do many more than that, but for the purposes to which you are referring we do hundreds a month.

Mr Umunna

By all means complete the answer to my first question using my second question too, because I am sure there will be an overlap. I have asked you about the numbers and the kind of checks and the process you follow in respect of people going out. In respect of people coming in, could you also answer the same question? I understand you cannot give us the profile but in terms of the process, how many people are you checking, doing the deeper delve check as opposed to people just going through, in respect of people coming back? What are we talking numbers-wise a month?

Sir Charles Montgomery

It is the same scale of numbers. Can I just go back to the outbound checks, first of all, because I had not quite finished the answer? All I said was that the first stage is what we do even before somebody has tried to travel. The second stage is at the moment of travel when we or another agency might choose to intervene at the check-in or, alternatively, we do conduct profiling and screening on targeted flights on routes that we have been prompted to look at even after check-in. There is a range of things that my organisation does in concert with other organisations on the outbound journey. I hope that gives you a fair flavour of the layered approach we take before travel, before check-in, and even after check-in but before boarding the aircraft. That would be the outbound answer to your question. Inbound is very similar. We do the same degree of analysis before travel. We mount similar controls on routes that we know are risky, and those are not necessarily the direct routes. We do that again with our colleagues from counter-terrorism police or other agencies, but we do it in the main with counter-terrorism police.

Mr Umunna

When they come back, obviously you are not a prosecuting authority, strictly speaking, and although you may believe somebody has been in that region, I am presuming you will not in some cases have evidence that they have been committing wrongdoing. Once you have detected that they may have come back from that region, what on earth do you then do with them if you have no reason to apprehend them?

Sir Charles Montgomery

As you rightly say, I am not an investigative or prosecuting unit on immigration offences or immigration cases such as those, but I did say that we operate very closely alongside counter-terrorism police. We will refer those individuals for further questioning by counter-terrorism police, which may be a very straightforward one-minute discussion or it may go somewhat deeper. I should also say that on the inbound journey my officers at the desks do a fair amount of their own personal questioning and profiling, and on a weekly basis we have been on average referring over 100 people from that process also to counter-terrorism.

Mr Umunna

Every week you are referring over 100 people to the—

Sir Charles Montgomery

From the process of referrals from the desk to the counter-terrorism police and, again, let me make it clear that the vast majority of those are not of interest to counter-terrorism police—the vast majority. A percentage get taken forward for further investigation.

Mr Umunna

Commonly, what are the ways that people use to get round you and your people, to avoid being detected at the border? What are, say, the top three or four ways in which people try to get round you detecting them?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I do not want to go into what my assessment of that is, for self-evident reasons. Needless to say, look, the controls at our points of entry are among the most rigorous in the world. It follows, therefore, that the areas that I would regard as being the highest risk are those for which we have no obvious point of entry control.

Chair

Thank you very much. Just to clarify, how many people did you refer to the counter-terrorism police last year?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I can come back to you with that when I have the figures from the counter-terrorism police.

Chair

Would you write to us?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Yes, indeed.

Mr Jayawardena

Sir Charles, the Immigration Minister recently signed a joint agreement with his counterparts in Belgium and the Netherlands to enhance co-operation and share expertise, particularly around organised criminal activity at the border. What kind of relationship do you have, at an operational level, with your Dutch and Belgium counterparts?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Absolutely first class. I have been out to both countries twice this year. That is personally. My teams have been out there quite regularly during the course of the summer taking forward the Minister’s initiatives at the ministerial level. Of course the collaboration does not just confine itself to organised immigration crime, although that was a key theme of the moment. The collaboration extends to joint action, so we will co-ordinate action on both sides of the North Sea or the Channel at times when we wish to, when we want to—

Mr Jayawardena

On that point, you are clearly satisfied with the co-operation you are getting from your border security counterparts. Would you also elaborate whether that includes police and intelligence agencies over the Channel?

Sir Charles Montgomery

In the Belgium of course it is the police. It is an arm of the police that I am dealing with. In the Netherlands not quite so, but my relationships with the police in those countries on these matters are dealt with by the really excellent relationship we have through the National Crime Agency secondees into the embassies in those two countries. We have links in through both the HMRC and NCA individuals we have in the embassies, and we have a very good direct link with the officials of both customs and immigration in those two countries.

Mr Jayawardena

What benefit would you and your staff derive from the Government’s proposals to implement Prüm and in doing so facilitate multilateral sharing of DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration information?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Second order, really. What it would give me, via those agents who have a primary interest, is a richer target list of individuals and perhaps routes that my officers would need to focus on, so I would not be necessarily a direct recipient of the information from Prüm. I would be an indirect recipient of information that other agencies wanted me to take action on.

Mr Jayawardena

What can we do to encourage border officials and other EU nations to check the passports of those entering their countries against watch lists for wanted people, as Britain does?

Sir Charles Montgomery

We already have; the United Kingdom, the Government already has. The European Council have directed that there should be now systemised checks of all people coming across the external Schengen border.

Mr Jayawardena

Is that happening?

Sir Charles Montgomery

It is starting to happen.

Mr Jayawardena

It is not happening yet?

Sir Charles Montgomery

It is not happening, no, no, it is still—

Mr Jayawardena

What more can we do to make sure it does?

Sir Charles Montgomery

We are continuing to keep pressure on the process to make sure it does, but the fact that these controls are being done at the external Schengen border is in itself, of course, both absolutely vital and the fact that it is starting to happen is very welcome. We are putting pressure on the European Union institutions. We are already getting more data on key commodities, like firearms, from European Union countries as well. There is a range of things already underway within the European Union, and much of it is being pushed by the United Kingdom.

Mr Jayawardena

Essentially, what you are saying at the moment is that the European Union nations that are part of the Schengen area are not following their own rules as they are at the moment?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I am not exactly sure of the timescale that was given for the implementation. It has started and that is the first and most important step. Likewise—and just picking up a point I think the Chair made earlier on, of course—another area where we are really pressing, and indeed making a practical contribution, is to the institution of hotspots in both Italy and in Greece.

Chair

You are glad that the Government has now joined Prüm?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Of course the Government hasn’t joined Prüm yet.

Chair

It has indicated it will join Prüm, you are glad about that?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Naturally, as a securocrat, I am delighted to have yet more information that enables me to take more action to ensure the security and stability of our country.

Chair

You would have liked them to have joined when they had the chance to a year ago?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Chair, I don’t fall into traps like that.

Chair

What about the I-Checkit programme, are you fully engaged with the Interpol I-Checkit programme?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I beg your pardon. We are fully engaged with Interpol. I think we are one of the most active contributions to the data that Interpol give us; I am just not recognising the programme you just referred to. You will recall that I gave evidence to the Committee before about the amount of information we are taking from Interpol in terms of lost and stolen passports and on movements across the border. We have the ability automatically to use Interpol data to take interventions.

Chair

On the question of profiling individuals, I have raised with you the case of Ayan Mohamud, an 18 year-old American citizen, who was detained by your officers for 13 hours, and she told the BBC that she felt she was detained because, “I’m a Muslim” and she believes that the reason why she was stopped was because she was wearing a headscarf. Thirteen hours for an 18 year-old girl sounds like an awful long time, considering she was just coming to a wedding.

Sir Charles Montgomery

Thank you, Chair, and thank you also for giving me forewarning you would raise this issue with me, but I had already initiated an investigation into this case. I am absolutely satisfied there is nothing either of an ethnic or racist dimension to this intervention, absolutely satisfied that that is not the case.

Chair

So you do not routinely stop women who come in with headscarves?

Sir Charles Montgomery

We do not routinely stop them, no. What we do of course is take targeted interventions at the border. In this case, Chair, it was initially a straightforward case of immigration status and it became an issue of my officer’s concern for her wellbeing. If you can engineer the permission of the individual, what I would like to do is to write to you with a more fulsome background to the case.

Chair

Of course. But you are enquiring into this? You have started your own investigation?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I have investigated it. I am satisfied there was no racist or ethnic dimension to it.

Mr Winnick

One recognises the sensitivity of this because, if this particular person had come in and committed a terrorist crime, you, Sir Charles, would be asked, “Why didn’t you stop her?” so one recognises the sensitivity. I am going to be a little critical but I prefaced it because you should not think that any of us—regardless of what political party we happen to belong to—do not understand how difficult it must be for your organisation to get it right. But it is a fact, is it not, Sir Charles, how absolutely crucial it is that those who do have Islamic faith and wear clothes accordingly, perhaps even more so with a male, should not feel in any way that because of his or her faith there is going to be discrimination. It is a very difficult one, which I have already said. It is sensitive but to get it right is not only important for public safety but for a general feeling of confidence in your organisation.

Sir Charles Montgomery

Yes. I would just like to reiterate that, having investigated, I am satisfied there was no racist or ethnic dimension to this. I am satisfied, incidentally, that it was not a pre-targeted intervention either. It was simply a question of in discussion with my officer when she had arrived, my officer being concerned about her immigration status, which needed to be clarified, including with some phone calls to the United States, which is one of the things that took the time, and in the course of that some concerns about her wellbeing.

Chair

But you will write to me?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I would very much like to.

Mr Jayawardena

On this point, it is a slightly wider suggestion I would like to make to you. Would you not agree that the customer service provided by your officers at the UK border could be interpreted differently by different people and, perhaps, it is the case of comparing the what with the how, and the how might need to be improved to ensure that people who are in a minority group do not feel that they are being victimised, even if they are not.

Sir Charles Montgomery

Of course it is important, and I am always looking for ways in which I can improve, not only the element of security at the border but the manner in which my organisation interfaces with the legitimate travelling public. I absolutely get that. Can I just make a point about Heathrow, which may not be widely known? 53% of my staff there are from the ethnic minority communities.

Chair

Excellent.

James Berry

Picking up on something that you said in response to Mr Jayawardena’s question. Do you think the hotspot programme is the right approach to secure external borders when they come under intense pressures at places like Lesbos?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I think it is a very, very important part of it, and it is very important to understand the scale of the challenge that the Greeks and the Italians, in particular, face. I have talked about our 11,000 mile border. Of course the Greeks and the Italians have a comparable challenge in many ways, so I think it is very important to understand that, one, the hotspot programme is an important contributor to improving the manner in which these migrants are being handled and the security of the external Schengen border is being managed. It is also important that the European Union in the wider sense, not just the Schengen countries but the European Union recognises the need to help those countries through Frontex with some expertise that it can provide.

James Berry

Yes. I think that the Greek ambassador’s view was that there simply were not enough Frontex officers there, but you are saying we do not contribute to that?

Sir Charles Montgomery

We do.

James Berry

We are not part of it but we contribute expertise.

Sir Charles Montgomery

We are not part of Frontex. We are not a member of Frontex but we have over 20 people deployed to the Frontex operation in the Mediterranean on land, and of course, as many members of the Committee will be aware, we have the VOS Grace, a ship in the Mediterranean patrolling at the moment with Border Force members on board under the Frontex umbrella.

James Berry

Now you say we have one of the strongest borders in the world. I think that is your evidence. It is better, is it not, than the external Schengen border?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Without a question.

James Berry

Would you agree that it is right, certainly at the moment, for us to be outside the Schengen agreement in order to protect us from domestic terrorism?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I am going to answer this question only from a security perspective.

James Berry

Of course, yes.

Sir Charles Montgomery

From a security perspective we are able, by not being a member of Schengen, to exert the controls that we as a nation choose to. That gives us an enormous advantage in the flows of both passengers and goods. I would also say that as an island nation, we have a particularly unique strength with our maritime border. Hence my answer to your first point: do we have a stronger border than the external Schengen border? Without a question.

Chair

There was a report by the Chief of Staff of Europol, Brian Donald, who said that around 1,000 British people are letting migrants travel illegally in the boots of their cars to smuggle them into the United Kingdom. Indeed, I think your own figures suggest that between April and July of this year, 30,000 stowaway attempts have been discovered compared to 2014 when the total figure was 39,000, so it has gone up enormously as a result of, presumably, you would say your officers who are detecting more, but it could well be that there are just more people coming.

Sir Charles Montgomery

It is both, Chair. I think I gave credit last time I was before your Committee to the work of the French as well. Those numbers are indeed higher. Those numbers—

Chair

Indeed, but I am concerned about the 1,000 British citizens who are involved in smuggling people in to this country. How many prosecutions have there been in order to send out a message that they should not do this kind of thing?

Sir Charles Montgomery

That is not an issue for me to answer.

Chair

No, I know it is not an issue for you but, presumably, you would like to know this kind of figure. I realise you are all separate organisations, but wouldn’t you like to know? Wouldn’t you be in a position to tell us how many people have been prosecuted for trying to get people over—not your personal border—the border that you are supposed to be protecting?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Yes, of course, all of the people in the juxtaposed controls are subject to French prosecution not British prosecution.

Chair

Sure, but how many have been prosecuted here? Would you not know?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I am afraid I don’t know. No, I don’t know. I am more than happy to answer your question by correspondence.

Chair

Are you telling this Committee that the fact that more have been discovered means that you are putting a greater effort into looking into people’s boots than perhaps you were a year ago?

Sir Charles Montgomery

We are. But it is not just looking into people’s boots, Chair, as you will know because you have been to the juxtaposed controls on several occasions. We use state of the art technology, as well as the more manual processes of search as well. The dynamic, of course, is that: one, there have been many more people in this year in the Nord–Pas-de-Calais seeking to come across the border, and we have strengthened our controls, physical and human search, and we are finding many more people between the French authorities, law enforcement and commercial, and Border Force.

Mr Winnick

When you appeared before us, Sir Charles, you were asked about staff morale and you said it is improving and then inevitably you added there is still work to do. That was when? 22 July 2014. I am wondering about the latest situation because there was a survey of 490 staff, who were all members of the PCS, the survey was between 10 and 24 November last year, so there was some four or five months difference. One officer told ITV, “Staff are demotivated, angry and resentful of the circumstances they find themselves in”. The Minister said, as Ministers will say, “The results of this survey are not representative of the views of staff across Border Force”. Now that may or may not be so, but it does seem to be a good deal of dissatisfaction, and that was, as I say, near the end of last year. Are you going to tell us that in the year since the improvements have been so substantial that, if there was such a poll, it would be nothing like the figures I have quoted?

Sir Charles Montgomery

There has been a more recent poll than the one you referred to and the figures remain stubbornly low. Let me explain a bit of the context to that. I naturally am very interested in the feedback of all the members and my people. I have said to this Committee before, my people are my crown jewels in Border Force and their morale matters to me a very great deal and, therefore it is a matter of real concern to me that my two trade unions have on the one hand advised them not to complete the staff survey, and on the other hand advised them that, if they did complete the staff survey these are the points they might want to register. You will understand why I am concerned with that situation, for whatever reason, because the information would be really valuable for me and the way in which it is handled makes it very much less valuable for me. I get a low return rate from my people because of that, and the feedback has got to be offset by the guidance that the unions give them by way of feedback. I am concerned about that but neither do I want to pretend that there are not underlying issues. I remember in my very first appearance before this Committee I did say that this was going to be a five-year transformation programme. It was going to take five years to shift attitudes that had been deeply ingrained.

Mr Winnick

To make virtually everyone happy in the Border Force will take five years?

Sir Charles Montgomery

It is a five-year change programme is what I said, and it is the people line that will take the longest, about training, and so on. Naturally, I am concerned about the feedback that this gives. Naturally I am concerned that the feedback has been somewhat tainted by the way in which it has been handled, but I would say this. Members of the Committee will have been to see my men and women in the frontline, and I would doubt any will not have picked up on the sense of purpose and clear commitment that they hold to do a very difficult job in sometimes very testing environments and circumstances. It is tangible. To my mind that is one of the greatest proofs of high morale in any organisation, commitment to the task and the sense of purpose in conducting that task. There are underlying issues in Border Force, which I absolutely acknowledge. The issue of legacy terms and conditions is a corrosive one. It is a very difficult one for us to work out with the trade unions to try to find some way through this. It has been extremely difficult and it still is extremely difficult. There are some longstanding issues here, which really do pick away at the sense of cohesiveness. That is why I say it will take time to sort this out.

Mr Winnick

Yes. I understand that. When the survey was conducted it was on some aspects of the work. For example, 98% said they believed there were not enough staff to check vehicles, while 48% said they could not check passports as a result of staff shortages, almost 65% of staff revealed they had been removed from Custom checks to check passports and 80% said this happened on a weekly basis. Those sorts of aspects of very, very testing work, as you rightly say. There is no doubt about that. Would you say that on those aspects that I have quoted there is less dissatisfaction?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I don’t think there would be, actually, because I think there is a very deep rooted commitment in my former customs people to get more customs work done and the same is true on immigration. What I can say is that my organisation has become more adept over the last 12 months in managing the resource we do have on the frontline between the customs and immigration controls. It has become more adept at doing that, and that is demonstrated in the much improved performance that we have achieved in some of our seizures in the customs channels at airports.

Chair

Thank you. An undercover reporter working for BBC South East, disguised as an illegal immigrant, was offered 12 jobs when he went looking for jobs in the Kent and Sussex area. The Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey has commented that there are many illegal migrants who are, in his words, “Hanging around Cobham services”. We understand that enforcement is a matter for the UK Visa and Immigration Service, for—

Sir Charles Montgomery

Immigration enforcement.

Chair

Of course. Your job stops at the border but, clearly, these people have managed to evade you and your staff and, as you have said, the border is not 100% secure. You would like it to be secure but nothing is perfect in life when you are dealing with so many miles of coastline. Anyway, they got through the border. They passed through your staff, whether their morale is high or not they got through, and they are wandering round Kent and Sussex being offered jobs. Where does your responsibility end and why are these people not being tracked if they enter the country?

Sir Charles Montgomery

My responsibility as Director General Border Force is to make sure that none of these people get across the border. Of course, many of these that you are referring to, Chair, have come across the border from the juxtaposed controls where the sheer weight of numbers over the summer months just simply made it a very, very difficult operation and you will be aware of the—

Chair

It is not just the summer months. We have been holding inquiries for seven years. This has been going on for years.

Sir Charles Montgomery

Yes. But the numbers, Chair, you will recognise, increased enormously over the summer.

Chair

Sure. Anyway, they got through. They evaded you, by whatever method, and they have come into Kent and Sussex. They are wandering around Kent and Sussex, maybe some in Mr Loughton’s constituency, looking for work and nobody seems to be doing anything about this.

Sir Charles Montgomery

They are. It isn’t me, but they are, I can assure you. My responsibility doesn’t just end as Director General Border Force.

Chair

No.

Sir Charles Montgomery

As a member of the departmental board, of course, I have a corporate responsibility to do all we can to align resource—

Chair

Yes. Shall I send you the film, so you can see this for yourself?

Sir Charles Montgomery

By all means do.

Chair

They are walking around with impunity being offered jobs and being given advice by shopkeepers in these counties as to how to evade people like you, and it is all on open camera. This is happening not in a clandestine way, quite openly.

Sir Charles Montgomery

Of course I would be grateful for the video. The second point that I want to come back to, Chair, is that what I want from the interviews that occur when people are apprehended by immigration enforcement or others, of course, is intelligence about the routes and the traffickers that enable them to get here. I do get that and it does help me identify routes that are being used.

Tim Loughton

As somebody who obviously has a constituency in Sussex where this is happening, what I am most concerned about is on several fronts these people appear to be missed. Either they have come in clandestinely, in which case you would not be responsible unless you had been able to find them in boots or whatever. Secondly, they have come in having gone through your staff, juxtaposed controls or whatever. Then thirdly, apparently they are being employed well below the minimum wage in exceedingly illegal and dodgy circumstances. Various different agencies, Border Force, immigration control, trading standards and so on, should have an interest in these people, yet, as the Chairman says, they appear to be wandering around with impunity. Are there any joint roundtable discussions or strategic planning going on about how to deal with these groups of people?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Within the Home Office—and I am part of that of course—we do join up the operation between UK Visas and Immigration out of the country, immigration enforcement on organised immigration, crime, National Crime Agency, Border Force and then the in-country agencies. We do that on an end to end basis. I am afraid that since I am here as an expert witness, as it were, I cannot talk about what is happening when those people are in the country.

Tim Loughton

Okay. Sir Charles, you made the very valid point just now that you are obviously interested in the intelligence when they are apprehended—

Sir Charles Montgomery

I am indeed, yes.

Tim Loughton

—or when people are after them as to how they got in, in case it is on your watch, effectively, that they have been able to get into the country. How actively is that information coming back to you and how have you changed or adapted your methods in order to do something about it, because apparently it is as big a problem as it ever has been?

Sir Charles Montgomery

The intelligence comes back to me on a very regular basis, mainly through the immigration enforcement but also through the National Crime Agency. I do adapt my posture and you will probably have seen some of the intensification exercises we are doing on certain routes at certain times to respond to that intelligence that we receive, so the intelligence is coming back on a regular basis. Of course, it isn’t absolutely comprehensive because, as you pointed out, there are still some people in the country who have yet to be apprehended. But I do get sufficiently good intelligence to enable me to understand the routes on which I should be concentrating my effort.

Tim Loughton

Are you aware of how many of them have been prosecuted and how successful they appear to be prosecuted?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I am not, no.

Tim Loughton

Again, although that is not your direct responsibility, as you said before, surely that is a key part of intelligence to be able to inform you as to how successful you are being at apprehending or preventing these people coming into the country in the first place?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Intelligence doesn’t require the prosecution. The intelligence requires the interview process that precedes the prosecution. It is that that I get in sum that enables me to take intelligence-led interventions.

Tim Loughton

With respect, wouldn’t it enhance your understanding of the situation if you see a big increase in the number of people being prosecuted in this arena? It might suggest to you that either you are not doing your job well and they are getting into the country but somebody else is doing their job better in order to apprehend them or you are choking off their ways of getting through and that shared intelligence is working rather better?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Yes, absolutely, and of course the answer to your questions are: yes, yes, and yes, not least of which because more successful prosecutions in the country is a deterrent to stop people from making the journey in the first place, so of course that is the case. The point I am making is that it does not require—and you would not expect it to—the prosecution to trigger the intelligence that allows me to take intelligence-led interventions on routes into the United Kingdom.

Naz Shah

Sir Charles, you mentioned two points earlier. I am going to ask two questions, very different ones. First of all, have you had any more resources out of the Spending Review or the Autumn Statement?

Sir Charles Montgomery

You will have seen that the police and some of the counter-terrorism institutions received some enhancements and, if not enhancements, then at least real cash.

Chair

I think Ms Shah is asking about your area not the police.

Sir Charles Montgomery

Yes, but it is important I think to see it in context because—

Chair

Well, what about you and your programme?

Sir Charles Montgomery

—I operate very closely with those organisations.

Chair

We know about them. We want to know about you.

Sir Charles Montgomery

Then for myself of course you will know the core Home Office has received a reduced allocation over the CSR period of something in the region of 25%. That of course has yet to be allocated across the various areas of the Home Office. That process will conclude sometime in the springtime and I will no doubt be part of that negotiation and that discussion with the Home Office to determine what Border Force eventually settles on.

Chair

Excuse me for interrupting, Naz Shah. You have had 25% less?

Sir Charles Montgomery

The core Home Office. You will recall that the—

Chair

Ms Shah is asking about the Border Force.

Sir Charles Montgomery

But I didn’t say Border Force. I said—

Chair

No, but that is what she is asking about. You are not head of the whole Home Office. She is asking specifically about Border Force. Tell us about your budget in Border Force.

Sir Charles Montgomery

I thought I had answered the question. I have given you the fullest answer that I could, which is that we have departmental allocation that is yet to be disaggregated among the operating areas, so I cannot tell you what my budget is going to be over the CSR years.

Naz Shah

Would it be fair to say that you expect it to be decreased not increased?

Sir Charles Montgomery

I am simply saying that I do not have my allocation. I cannot answer the question honestly.

Naz Shah

Thank you. You referred earlier on to 53% of your staff being of BME—black and minority ethnic—communities. How many then are in your leadership positions at board level, director level and so on?

Sir Charles Montgomery

There aren’t any. I only have three directors in Border Force and that is one female and two male. I don’t have any of the ethnic minority communities in there. We are actively looking to bring our ethnic talent in through leadership positions in the frontline. There are some outstanding individuals; including those running I think two of the terminals at Heathrow at the moment. Those are the sorts of opportunities that people can take to work their way through the organisation. But the answer to your question is I don’t have any.

Naz Shah

Would you say it is acceptable for an organisation of that magnitude not to have any BME staff in senior positions?

Sir Charles Montgomery

No, clearly not; clearly not. If I could say so, it is an issue for the Home Office as a whole as well as Border Force. I am the diversity champion for the Home Office. I believe deeply in it. I will not rest until I start seeing some real improvements in this and, at the moment, Border Force is one of a number who simply don’t have enough ethnic minorities at a higher level. Of course you cannot just simply click your fingers and create an ethnic minority director. There is of course a process of selection, but there is a process of feeding through and it is that feeding through process that we are so working on at the moment, if that helps to answer your question.

Chair

We are grateful for that commitment, since you are the diversity champion for the Home Office. Just to clarify, you said that there is going to be a reduction overall of 25%. You do not know what the allocation is for Border Force. Given the very difficult situation and the difficult climate we find ourselves in, and the crucial role that Border Force plays in all this, in my view, just as much as counter-terrorism you have a very, very tough task and very difficult challenges in keeping our borders secure. When do you expect to know what your budget is going to be and where these cuts are going to fall? I accept that you don’t know the amount but when do you expect to be told so you can plan your measures?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Clearly, I would expect to know before the start of the business year, which is when I would need the allocation to set out a business plan for the next four business years. Can I just make a point here, Chairman, because I think it is a vital one? I am indeed a very important instrument of national security, or should I say more accurately my organisation is. I also in the last two years have managed to achieve respectively 8% and 10% productivity gains over those two-year periods. I expect the taxpayer to look to me to do better with the public money that I am being given. I would expect, therefore—building on that kind of track record—that I should be producing productivity gains in each of the next four years as well.

Chair

Basically you are saying, “We don’t mind. We will take the cuts because we have done this in the past and we have improved productivity, even though we have reduced numbers”?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Of course I did not say that, as you will only be too well aware. But what I am saying is that I do expect to be held to account for not only the effectiveness of my organisation but its efficiency too. The capital investment that I am putting in to modernise my organisation, whether it be through this hugely dynamic programme of e-gate rollouts, the replacement of the IT systems at my frontline, whether it be systems like the “registered traveller” and so on. I do expect those to generate real efficiency for the organisation and I expect to be able to do my business for less.

Chair

Excellent. Now you have exited Mr Loughton on that and he wants a final supplementary.

Tim Loughton

On a point of detail, how do you define productivity gains within the Border Agency? What sorts of things are we talking about?

Sir Charles Montgomery

Within Border Force? Well, a straightforward measure of output against input. In other words, input costs—the money I am given—against the outputs. The outputs are largely volumetric but, of course, must be also offset against the success we have in terms of meeting our operating mandate, our Cyclamen mandate and our control strategy for the seizure of commodities coming across the border. The majority of that productivity is, therefore, based on the output volumes that we handle coming across the border set against the costs. There is an element then of the achievement of outcomes—

Tim Loughton

Where is the qualitative outcome—

Sir Charles Montgomery

The outcomes are the qualitative element as well.

Tim Loughton

In what sense?

Sir Charles Montgomery

In terms of the amount of drugs we might seize. In terms of the amount of cigarettes we might seize. In terms of the amount of firearms we seize. In terms of the numbers of forgeries we detect.

Tim Loughton

As applied to persons, how do you define the qualitative outcome?

Sir Charles Montgomery

First of all, of course, the headline requirement is to meet the operating mandate that Ministers put upon me for 100% checks at the borders, as I am mandated to do, and the Cyclamen mandate as well. That would be the first point. In terms of people it would be about the numbers of imposters, forgeries, refusals we make at the border as well, so there will be a number of metrics.

Tim Loughton

Are there targets within that in terms of—

Sir Charles Montgomery

Yes.

Tim Loughton

Right. So you have a target for the number of people you should apprehend, regardless of whether some of them turn out not to be apprehendable?

Sir Charles Montgomery

There is a judgment of course about all these targets, but we do have an increasing degree of apprehension at the border over the last two or three years.

Chair

Thank you. Sir Charles, as always, thank you very much for coming in. I will send you the video and you will send me a letter with the information that we have requested.

Sir Charles Montgomery

I will, including the letter about your constituent.

Chair

Thank you very much. If you could do that by Friday I would be most grateful. Thank you for coming in. Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses

Haras Rafiq, Managing Director, Quilliam, and Farooq Aftab, Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association UK, gave evidence.

Chair

Mr Rafiq and Mr Aftab, thank you very much for coming. We are most grateful to you for coming to give evidence on the Committee’s ongoing inquiry into the counter-narrative and counter-terrorism. I want to start with a question about matters that are before the House and will be voted on tomorrow. It is possible that the House of Commons might vote to go to war in Syria to have limited airstrikes. Given what you have said in the past about these issues, Mr Rafiq, in other words the radicalisation of young Muslims in this country and others as a result of foreign policy issues, what effect do you think airstrikes against Syria will have on radicalisation? We don’t want a whole discussion, yes or no—

Haras Rafiq

Sure.

Chair

Is it going to have an effect?

Haras Rafiq

I don’t think it will have a direct effect on increasing the numbers of radicalisation. Currently there are people who will blame defects in our foreign policy as the only root cause of people being radicalised, and I still feel and agree with the majority of experts that it is very, very rare for somebody to actually travel thousands of miles to go and take Yazidi sex slaves and also kill other Muslims because of our failed foreign policies. However, I think that there will be recruiting sergeants available. There will be narratives available for charismatic recruiters who will hone in on the whole crusader narrative—

Chair

As a result of airstrikes being—

Haras Rafiq

Yes. I think there will be more manipulation.

Chair

That is what you mean by indirect? Not direct, people won’t suddenly decide, “I am going to go and fight” but others might use it as an opportunity to radicalise?

Haras Rafiq

I expect others to use it but it won’t necessarily be the reason why people go and join groups like ISIL.

Chair

That is very clear. Mr Aftab, do you think that, as a result of launching airstrikes on Syria, members of the community might be radicalised further and decide to go to Syria, or do you agree with Mr Rafiq that it will happen but it will be indirect, because others will use that in order to radicalise?

Farooq Aftab

I think it depends on the nature of the airstrikes. If it is going to be in general population areas where civilians are killed then, obviously, that is going to give rise to people to feed on this, particularly IS. But if you are targeting specific targets, like oil tankers, ammunition, storage, and so on, that I think is more sensible. But a more sensible approach, we would say, is to work with the neighbouring countries and military action alone is not going to solve this.

Chair

Yes. That is your personal view but I am just talking about the effect it might have on young people, since you are coming to give evidence on this issue and foreign policy issues are important. Do you think it will have an effect?

Farooq Aftab

If it is targeting civilians and the innocent population we think that will have an effect.

Chair

A negative effect?

Farooq Aftab

A negative effect. It could lead to further radicalisation.

Chair

Do you think that will lead to more people going abroad?

Farooq Aftab

We hope not but it gives ammunition, so why give them the ammunition? It is better to prevent it.

Chair

You are saying people should be careful as to what they are doing out there?

Farooq Aftab

Yes. I think a more sensible and wise strategic approach needs to be adopted.

Chair

Do you accept there is a foreign policy dimension to the radicalisation of young Muslims?

Farooq Aftab

I think there is an element to that but it is not the sole element, but it is a factor and we think there is a debate that needs to happen.

Chair

That is very clear. Thank you. Mr Rafiq, you are a firm believer in Prevent. You are almost a poster boy for the Government, in terms of their policies. Why do you like Prevent so much?

Haras Rafiq

If we look at, first of all, the origin of Prevent, I was on the Government task force after 7/7 where the Government came up with a contest strategy and the four Ps and Prevent was one of them. Prevent was always designed to do two things. The first thing was to deal with people once they have actually expressed sympathy, empathy or direct support for—in those days—al-Qaeda inspired extremism and, in that case, either de-radicalise them or, if they are about to commit a crime or they are dangerous, to arrest them. The other half of Prevent, which was always the bigger part of Prevent or PVE—preventing violent extremism, as it was called in 2006 when it was launched—was all about building resilience within our communities, both from a far right perspective and from an Islamist extremist perspective, so that, when youngsters have these recruiters, have these narratives pushed on to them to say, “Come and join our gang and there is the other, the other that hates you, there is a dehumanisation and you have to stand up for oppression against our gang” they have the ability to push back.

Chair

But you are aware that a lot of people have criticised that view, people like Shami Chakrabarti, Commander Del Babu and others.

Haras Rafiq

I think what they are criticising is what Prevent ended up as. Prevent evolved in a number of different ways and, in 2010, what actually happened was that the coalition Government decided that they would separate the sharp end that I have mentioned, in terms of arresting and de-radicalisation from the resilience building, and in the Prevent review, which was finished in 2011, asked DCLG, the Department for Communities and Local Government, to come up with a strategy to build resilience. That didn’t happen.

Chair

I am sure that other members will want to question you on that. I want to ask Mr Aftab about his statements concerning the media and Islamophobia. In particular you have said that the media should use its power with responsibility and not create divisions and hatred but promote and foster peace in society. What role do you think the mainstream media has in radicalisation?

Farooq Aftab

The media has a huge role. If you see the portrayal of Islam in the media generally it is really sensational. The wrong images, the wrong concept of Islam is given. If the right voices came forward to give the right message of Islam we think that would help in the fight against radicalisation.

Chair

What effect do you think a headline like this would have on the Muslim community? Because I know it has had more complaints than any other newspaper article. Would this create a lot of concern and tension within the community?

Farooq Aftab

It is clearly sensational. It is not going to help matters. You don’t see positive stories on the front page. That is what we should be promoting if we want to create community dialogue and cohesion in society. But we don’t see that so we think from our end the media has a huge role to play and we work and we hope that will happen.

Chair

Do you think it is just positive stories? Because you cannot create positive stories when they are not there. Do you think they are there and they are just not taken up?

Farooq Aftab

I think there are hundreds of positive stories. We work daily with youngsters throughout the UK. We raise money for British charities, we feed the homeless, do blood drives. All these things work against radicalisation, engagement with youngsters. Those stories are not really picked up as front page. If they were that would help.

Chair

You have given some practical examples. You want to see young children in schools give a pledge of loyalty in school assemblies, because you think that will mean they will be totally integrated and that would make them, in your words, ingrained at a very young age?

Farooq Aftab

Yes, we believe it will help. Our youth organisation, be it the ladies’, the men’s, we call it the youth group, we have pledges of loyalty. We have had them for 100 years since the inception of our organisation. We think this will help to foster the unity and loyalty to your country, which Islam promotes. Islam completely promotes loyalty to your country and we think this will help.

Chair

You are here because you are one of the very few people who are prepared to put out a counter-narrative, as opposed to specifically supporting other initiatives. You had an original list of six suggestions to try and put a counter-narrative out. Do you think the Government and Parliament, and those who make these decisions, are failing to get that counter-narrative across? You talked about making imams and Muslim leaders issue sermons condemning ISIS. You have said that Muslim parents should play a role in answering the questions put forward by their children. You want to see a crackdown on hate preachers. Is that your counter-narrative? Do you think that we are just not pushing this counter-narrative strongly enough?

Farooq Aftab

We have suggested a number of things. We applaud steps and initiatives taken by the Government to handle this issue but it is going to take a lot of investment, a lot of energy, a lot of dealing with the grassroots issues on the ground, to have the right counter-narrative. You need to look at unemployment. You need to look at educational issues. You have hate preachers. This has been going on for years. You have preachers from Pakistan, other countries, coming here under the radar who preach, and you have—

Chair

You would like to see them banned?

Farooq Aftab

We think anything that affects the law and order of the country that should be clamped down on.

Chair

Thank you.

Mr Winnick

You are no doubt aware that the poll mentioned by the Chair in The Sun has been the subject of a good deal of criticism. That it wasn’t done in the way one would expect. That is your view about that sensational headline?

Farooq Aftab

I think it is clearly a sensational headline. If you speak to the hundreds and thousands of Muslims in the UK they are law abiding citizens. There is an issue with some elements but clearly that hasn’t helped.

Mr Winnick

Are you aware that on that very same day there was a letter in The Times from 200 Islamic scholars who condemned terrorism and made it quite clear that what was happening, although in the name of Islam, was a total perversion of Islam. That was a very useful letter, which I am sure you saw at the time.

Farooq Aftab

I have heard of that. I haven’t seen it myself but I have heard of that letter.

Mr Winnick

I will ask the Clerk to show you a copy.

Chair

Please proceed.

Mr Winnick

What I want to ask the two of you, particularly perhaps Mr Rafiq, in 2010 apparently the organisation sent a secret list—I don’t know why it was a secret list—to Charles Farr the Director General of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, as we know. In it, it was alleged the Muslim Council of Britain had extremist sympathisers. It was an attack clearly on the Muslim Council of Britain. Do you stand by that?

Farooq Aftab

Who sent that? Who are you asking? Are you asking me?

Chair

It is not Mr Aftab who sent the letter.

Haras Rafiq

First of all, I wasn’t at Quilliam in 2010 but I do know of the particular incident that you are referring to. First of all, there was no secret list. It was a report by The Guardian. This report was published by Quilliam and is on the website, so it wasn’t a secret list. That itself was sensationalist reporting. If you are referring to the content within that report that said the Government should change the way that it worked with the MCB and the way that it dealt with them and approached them, yes, and I think that has been actioned out and evidenced by what they did in terms of signing the Istanbul declaration. What they did in terms of supporting anti-Semitism, what they have done in terms of supporting the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood Ikhwan ideology, they are an organisation that needs to be brought into mainstream traditional classical Islam and away from the politicised versions. That is an ideology that certainly this Government now has named as the root cause of producing the narratives that are driving our youngsters to become radicalised.

Mr Winnick

Are you saying that there has been little change since 2010 in your view of the Muslim Council?

Haras Rafiq

What I am saying is that the Government certainly has changed the way that it engages with them.

Mr Winnick

What about your view as an organisation?

Haras Rafiq

At this moment in time, if you were to look at some of the preachers that they support, some of the individuals that they support, they are still very much within the Salafist hate preacher bracket. For example, there is Haitham al-Haddad who actually believes in female genital mutilation. He believes that offensive jihad, jihad al qital, rather than defensive jihad, is something that should be taught to all Muslims. Yes, they are still supporting individuals such as this and, therefore, I think that this needs to be considered when engaging with them.

Mr Winnick

Could I put this to you as delicately as possible? Isn’t it very crucial that organisations that represent faith groups or generally ethnic groups, be they Islam or Hindu or Jewish, should have the broad confidence of the community? The question I would ask both of you is: do you feel that you have the confidence of the broad range of Muslims who totally reject terrorism as much as we all do? Do you feel that?

Haras Rafiq

I will answer that. First of all, we are not a Muslim representative organisation. We have never claimed to be nor are we. We are an organisation that represents British citizens. We are not even 100% Muslim in terms of our labour and staff—the senior management happen to be Muslim—so we have never claimed to be representative. Secondly, if you look at our database, and you look at the number of phone calls that we get and the number of e-mails that we get, especially with the unfortunate rise of ISIL, that particular outreach within the British Muslim communities—and I hasten to add that there is no such thing as a British Muslim community—has increased, certainly, over the last year, year and a half that I have been there.

Chair

We will be coming to some of that other stuff later. Naz Shah.

Naz Shah

Mr Rafiq, I would like to share something with you. This Committee also invited the Council of Mosques for Bradford to give evidence. The Council of Mosques wrote to the Chair and copied me in, and if I can read an extract, “Thank you for inviting us to give oral evidence today. We note that you have grouped us with Quilliam, a self-styled set-up about which there are serious reservations within the mainstream Islamic faith community regarding its integrity and legitimacy on the issue of counter-extremism”. The Bradford Council of Mosques, which is within my constituency, this week have refused to share the platform and be on the same panel as Quilliam. Quilliam have also argued that there exists a “preventing Prevent lobby” that is frustrating the Government’s counter-extremism strategy. I put it to you that there is a deep concern among British Muslims about the Government’s Prevent strategy, and that this concern is legitimately raised by organisations that work in and with grassroots Muslim organisations. While you have just said you are not representative—I accept that—how well would you say you engage with those grassroots Muslim communities that you are trying to de-radicalise?

Haras Rafiq

We have just had an approach from a delegation for between 500 to 800 mosques in the UK that want to engage with us. That is *Jamir Ali Sunna*. The trustee also happens to be a trustee of MINAB. We haven’t quite finalised that yet. As I mentioned, we are getting more and more Muslim organisations calling out and reaching out to us but, again, I just want to reaffirm that we are in the situation where we are dealing with counter-extremism, counter-radicalisation, and giving policy advice and guidance. If you look at de-radicalisation, and our reports “In and Out of Islamism” on our website, you will find anecdotal testimonies of people that have been de-radicalised.

Naz Shah

Moving on from that, let’s just look at something else from The Guardian a few weeks ago. Professor Matthew Goodwin who led our task force on anti-hatred was quoted as saying, “Instead the task force consulted widely with the Quilliam Foundation, a thinktank that, some say, lacks credibility with many ordinary Muslims, pushes theories of radicalisation that are typically not supported within the academic community, and undertakes research that is seldom subject to rigorous peer review”. That is coming from a very senior academic who advised—

Haras Rafiq

I know Matthew. First of all, we were not consulted by any taskforce on hatred. Secondly, from a Prevent perspective, Quilliam as an organisation has not received any Home Office funding, Prevent funding, since 2011. We have only really started engaging with the Government more so over the last year, year and a half. Quilliam was never engaged with the taskforce, so I don’t know where that has come from. In terms of academia, we have a number of PhDs, a number of doctors that work for us as an organisation. I was at a coalition of the 40 leading Secretaries of State, with all of their academic backroom staff, who were reviewing our work and it has been quoted by a number of universities.

Naz Shah

You just said you worked before 2010 with the Government. You have been on the taskforce, not the anti-hatred one but you have been on the counter-extremism one and—

Haras Rafiq

That was this year.

Naz Shah

—you contributed to that this year. But you have worked with this Government prior to the coalition, albeit you might not have been with Quilliam. On the back of what I have just said to you, do you appreciate his concerns around the standard of your work and the scrutiny that it is subjected to?

Haras Rafiq

I reject those comments and so do the overwhelming majority of academics that we have worked with.

Naz Shah

Can I ask you then how many individuals have you worked with specifically on de-radicalisation, and given the Tommy Robinson affair, particularly, have you altered your markers of success? How do you measure your success?

Haras Rafiq

We measure our success in a number of ways. First of all, we never claimed that Tommy Robinson was de-radicalised. We merely facilitated his leaving the EDL along with his cousin Kevin Carroll, which I think most people agreed at the time it was a good thing to do. We have never had any formal business relationship with Tommy Robinson or with Kevin Carroll. Secondly, in terms of the numbers of de-radicalisation, I cannot share them with you—I will tell you why—because we are bound by confidentiality under the Channel programme. We have mentors that work within the Channel programme. In terms of other metrics of success, the reports and the output that were produced have been quoted by leading academics around the world. For example, “Documenting the ‘Virtual Caliphate’” where we are the only organisation in the world that for one month monitored ISIL’s bespoke unique propaganda and measured that they were producing 38 pieces of bespoke unique propaganda every day, on average, and then countering it.

Chair

Thank you. That is very helpful. We are going to have a vote shortly, which means that I will adjourn the Committee. One question to you about your proposals that jailed Muslim extremists should be segregated in their own wings. Is that a Quilliam policy?

Haras Rafiq

No.

Chair

It isn’t?

Haras Rafiq

It has never been said by anybody at Quilliam.

Chair

We will come back and explore that later. Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. On resuming-

Chair

My apologies for the interruption. That, I am afraid, is parliamentary democracy in action. I was asking about prisons, Mr Rafiq. I think it was a quote from Jonathan Russell, who said that it is essential to prevent the radicalisation of other inmates in prison. Do you now remember that?

Haras Rafiq

I have just spoken to Jonathan, who happens to be here with me. The question that I was asked was, “Has Quilliam ever said that Muslims should be segregated in prison?” He never said that. The context of the conversation that he was having with the journalist where he was quoted was where he was discussing the two different strategies, one to either segregate or one to allow into general population. The comment that he made was that prisons have a duty of care from a safeguarding perspective for the general population to consider what it does with convicted terrorists.

Chair

Yes. These are convicted terrorists who you think ought to be segregated from others, or they do not need to be segregated?

Haras Rafiq

He was not espousing a view, but if you are asking me my opinion, my opinion is that neither has worked. We have tried both. There are countries around the world that have tried to segregate, and there are countries around the world that have tried to allow convicted terrorists to mix in the general population, hoping that they will de-radicalise. What I think we need more than that is a more effective de-radicalisation and rehabilitation strategy, both here in the UK and around the world.

Chair

That is very helpful. Mr Aftab, on the internet and social media you have a lot of young members in your organisation. Clearly it is now established that social media and the world wide web is being used to recruit young people into some of these organisations. How would you deal with that?

Farooq Aftab

We have clearly defined leadership that is lacking in the Muslim community. We have had a caliphate for over 100 years and because of that our message is quite consistent and our history bears to that. When we engage with youngsters, particularly in the social media, we have programmes like “The Voice” where they can engage themselves and get their voices out on issues like this.

Chair

Sure, but are we doing enough to tackle the radicals? Are we doing enough to tackle the extremists on the internet?

Farooq Aftab

There are reports that ISIS has 50,000 websites. If that is true we should have a million. We need to look at this issue holistically, because they are very clever and the social media is affecting things.

Chair

Do we have any capabilities of doing this from within the community? Obviously the Government has dialogues with some of the providers, Google and other providers, but do you think the community needs to take responsibility in challenging some of the content on the internet, which they are not doing at the moment?

Farooq Aftab

From our experience, from the Muslim community, our message is consistent and we have challenged it from day one. We are challenging it and we are saying this has nothing to do with Islam. We are engaging with our youngsters at the grass root level, giving them the correct message. Hate preachers, like I said, we need to look at—

Chair

So do you all actively go on to the world wide web and challenge hate preachers?

Farooq Aftab

Yes, we go on to the web, we use Twitter accounts, we Snapchat, all social media.

Chair

Against specific individuals?

Farooq Aftab

Not specific individuals but against organisations like ISIS, to give the right message. We run various campaigns and we engage with youngsters on that.

James Berry

Mr Rafiq, you have outlined, or your organisation has outlined, some reservations you have about the counter-extremism strategy including banning orders, disrupting extremist speakers and restricting access to certain premises. What are the reasons behind those objections, please?

Haras Rafiq

We live in a time where there is a global jihadist insurgency, and any insurgency is not sustainable without some level of ideological support. What we need to do, and we have seen this more so recently after Paris and what has happened around Europe, is to tackle the ideology, tackle the root causes that will take people who maybe have grievances, whether they are genuine, partial or perceived, and manipulate them and turn them into solutions. If we are to tackle an ideology that is at the backbone of this jihadist insurgency we cannot do that by banning it and hoping it will go away. What will happen is that it will be driven underground. What will happen is that it will take place in places where there is no monitoring of people who are not able to effectively challenge. What we are calling for is legal tolerance against people who are not breaking the law, but civic intolerance. What we mean by that is greater challenge from civil society.

James Berry

For that to happen, don’t the events you are referring to need to happen in a relatively public setting so that there is the ability for a counter-narrative, for someone to challenge the views, to be orchestrated somehow?

Haras Rafiq

Absolutely. For example, social media is a platform that is easily viewable by everybody else. There are people providing counter-narratives and, for example, we had a video called “Not Another Brother” that had over half a billion impressions in the first seven days, with well over 100,000 views and is up for three DMA awards tonight. If the particular narratives that we wanted to counter were underground we could not have produced this particular video to counter it. Therefore we need these debates where people are breaking the law to happen in a public sphere.

James Berry

Do you think it is important that organisations that seek or purport to have positions of influence within the community condemn terrorist atrocities, such as that in Paris, absolutely?

Haras Rafiq

I think that the overwhelming majority of people within communities have condemned.

James Berry

I agree with you that is correct, but do you think it is important that they do?

Haras Rafiq

I think it is important for everybody to condemn, yes, of course, but to make an assumption that one particular group should condemn more than others is unfair. Everybody should condemn, of course.

James Berry

Mr Aftab, you were critical of The Sun front page that Mr Vaz showed you. Is this the kind of The Sun front page that you want to see more of, “United against ISIS” with a picture of what I assume to be a Muslim lady in Union Jack hijab? More positive?

Farooq Aftab

I think that would be a start. It is a more positive story and that would help.

James Berry

Yes. You are a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and your motto is, “Love for all, hatred for none” and like a number of MPs I have been to some of your events. Am I right that you are not aware of any examples of radicalisation of members of your community in this country?

Farooq Aftab

Yes, absolutely correct. We were founded in 1899. Since our inception we were founded and in the UK with over 100 years of history we do not have one incident of radicalisation extremism. The reason, we say, is because we believe we represent Islam in its true and peaceful message. We practise what we preach, we have clear defined leadership. We have a caliph, we have had a caliphate for 100 years. People have only picked up on the Baghdadi Caliphate in the last few years and they give a completely different message of what a caliphate is. We have had no incidents and we hope that because of the message that we portray that will continue.

James Berry

We heard a lot about the Ottoman Caliphate a few weeks ago, but this is a different caliphate. Your leader is a caliph and sends peaceable instructions out to your community, is that right?

Farooq Aftab

Yes. The Ottoman Caliphate is different. A caliphate is a religious terminology. It is not a political thing. It basically means you carry on the mission of a prophet, which are two things. One, to bring people towards God and secondly to serve humanity, irrespective of your colour, race, religion or creed. That is what we are doing.

James Berry

You are specifically head of the Ahmadiyya youth organisation. Do I have that right?

Farooq Aftab

I am the Vice-President.

James Berry

Sorry. What do you do with young people in your community to prevent them being radicalised?

Farooq Aftab

We do a lot of things. We engage them, keep them busy, so we have sporting programmes for youngsters, through football, cricket, whatever it might be. We do a lot of fundraising for charities, so we have the mini version of the London Marathon, which we have been doing for the last 30 years. We were the first Muslim youth group that collected for the Poppy Appeal. We work with the Royal British Legion. This year we are on target to collect around £400,000 for British charities. We also do tree planting, homeless feeding sessions. There are a lot of things that we do.

James Berry

So it is the message of non-violence and it is keeping young people active in socially useful activities, but apart from that what advice would you give to other Muslim groups or organisations to have the success you have had in avoiding any radicalisation?

Farooq Aftab

We work with other groups as well and we try to work with them, to give them the key message of Islam. Islam is peace. It is a logical religion that is completely compatible with British society. We do not see any incompatibility, and there is an identity crisis with youngsters who believe they cannot be British and Muslims. We are showing that you can, and that it is within the teachings of Islam, and we will continue to do that.

Chair

Politicians sometimes use the word “caliphate” in a negative way, as we heard last week when we were talking about the Ottoman Caliphate. We should not worry about this word, should we?

Farooq Aftab

Absolutely not. You have no threat from caliphate. Caliphate basically means you are going to carry on the mission of the prophet and that is two things: worship god and bring people to worship god, and secondly to serve humanity. You are free to choose whichever religion you want to worship or not and caliphate has no territorial aspirations. That is what caliphate is.

Chair

Mr Rafiq, should we be worried about this term?

Haras Rafiq

I think the term has been hijacked. One could argue that kings and queens of ordinary countries are caliphates, and it means different things to different people. I want to take a moment to define what I mean by that.

Chair

Not a long moment, just a very brief one.

Haras Rafiq

Islam and Islamism are different, just as social and socialism are different. For some people the word “caliphate” stirs up this impression of somebody setting up an Islamist caliphate to enforce a particular version of Sharia through law.

Chair

Yes, but Mr Aftab was not talking about domination over a country.

Haras Rafiq

It means different things to different people. That particular type of caliphate would, I suggest, probably not cause much of a problem for people in Britain and around the world, but the Baghdadi style of caliphate would.