Nationality and Borders Bill

David Davis Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate, once again, the delay in the Lobbies. This is an anti-democratic practice. It may not be obvious to the House, or to those who observe our proceedings, that the effect of delaying these Divisions is to deprive the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary of the ability to speak on Third Reading of the Bill. That is unacceptable. It is right that this House should hear from the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary, and others on Third Reading. The delaying tactics, if one can use that term, that appear to be being used are unacceptable and contrary to good democratic practice.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Is it about the Division?

[Mr Davis]

It is.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Then I can accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order.

[Mr Davis]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the anti-democratic nature of the obstruction, is it possible to name the people who are causing it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly reasonable question. I am considering the answer. At present, I have no proof of the identity of those who are obstructing these Divisions. I will endeavour to obtain that information, and then I will consider what to do with it.

Nationality and Borders Bill

David Davis Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Perhaps I should give a little bit of guidance. There are two groups of amendments this afternoon. If colleagues wish to speak to the second group of amendments, they should wait until we get to that group. Obviously, many colleagues will want to speak in various parts of the debate, so it might be wise for colleagues to prioritise the groups that they wish to speak to. I shall prioritise those who have tabled amendments in this first group. I call David Davis.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask a question with respect to your ruling? I take it that I will be able to speak to my amendments in the second group in debate on that group, and that I do not have to address them now. Is that correct?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that very careful consideration will be given to the tabled amendments, but some people may not get in on both groups. If there are votes on the first group, that will eat into the time for the second group.

[Mr Davis]

Thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not looking for a promise.

Before I talk about my amendment, for which I have a one-minute speech, let me address questions that my hon. Friends on the Government Benches asked the Opposition spokesman. He was asked whether he agrees with the idea of withdrawing citizenship, full stop. My answer is that the British Nationality Act 1981 gives too much power to the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I will answer, if I am not interrupted. It gives too much power, without sufficient early judicial intervention. It allows for a right of appeal, but it does not require the right of application to court first, and given that we are talking about something as serious as citizenship, it should.

We should not give the state the power to take every right away from erstwhile citizens of the country. That is not just my view; it also happens to be that of our biggest ally. In my time in this House, I have only once had a visit, as it were, from the State Department of the United States, and that was on this policy. In some people’s view, we are leaving our “human detritus” out in the conflict zones of the middle east. Most of our allies, having started with that policy, have withdrawn it and are taking back their people to put them on trial in their own country. From a security point of view, this policy does not stand up in the view of our allies.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly strong point. Does he think it is quite inappropriate for one of the leading nations at the United Nations, with the privilege of a veto, not to accept its international responsibilities, when all other members of the permanent five do?

[Mr Davis]

I do think that, but I was focusing on the security element, and I do not think that the security argument stands up.

Amendment 12, in my name, would remove clause 9 from the Bill. That would not take away the Home Secretary’s right of rejecting citizenship, but it would take away her right to do so without notification. Of course, that matters. I go back to judicial rights. Say that someone does not know that they have had their citizenship withdrawn. They cannot appeal the matter for as long as they do not know, and that might be a long time.

Clause 9(2) says that the requirement to notify

“does not apply if it appears to the Secretary of State that”—

and there is a series of conditions, one of which is that notice should not be given if that is

“in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country”.

I cannot think of a weaker reason to withhold the rights of one of our citizens than to favour our diplomatic relations with another country. I do not think we are on the same page on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis]

May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and how sad I am that she will not be standing in the next election? May I also say what a particular pleasure it was to hear my old friend the Minister make such a measured and balanced case? I was very proud of him. That does not mean that we are going to agree on everything, as he will hear in a minute, but I think that he put a very good case.

The current asylum system is broken not just for us but for most of Europe; we should understand that this is not simply a national issue. It rewards smuggling gangs who prey on the desperate, it punishes those with genuine needs through bureaucratic impediments and it pushes the most vulnerable into harm’s way. We know, of course, that thousands have arrived across the channel and dozens, at least, have died as a result. We must find a system that destroys the criminal network underpinning this crisis, vigorously pursues enhanced co-operation with the French and other European parties, and distinguishes properly between economic migrants and those fleeing persecution. At present, we do not do that properly.

I believe that the Home Secretary is entirely committed to these approaches but, unfortunately, while I think that this is a very good Bill in many ways, one element of it—offshoring—sacrifices our long-term values to short-term political expediency, with fairly little chance of success.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We agree on many things, but perhaps not on this. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, unless we get rid of the pull factor, we will never solve this problem? It is not necessary to go offshore. As my new clause 23 makes clear, it is possible to ensure that anyone who enters this country illegally from a safe country will be held in secure accommodation. The reason people keep coming here is that they know they will vanish in the community and will never be deported. Will my right hon. Friend, who is so good in so many ways, at least look at what we are proposing?

[Mr Davis]

Of course I will look at it. I have said to the Ministers that much of the Bill is worth while. My right hon. Friend is right about the pull factor, and there are many other things we can do. I have had discussions with the Minister about, for example, improving our surveillance. The irony is that at the moment Frontex, using British surveillance operations, does a better job in the Mediterranean than the Home Office does in the channel. There are many things we can do, and yes, I will look at all available options, as long as they are humane.

Clause 28 and schedule 3 grant the Home Office the legal powers to create an offshore processing system. I am afraid I must say to those on this side of the House that it is based on something of a mythology. It is based on the Australian Government’s approach in 2013. Its scope would allow children, modern slavery victims and torture survivors to be detained offshore, in a place where we have little legal control. The Australian model of offshoring was seriously problematic on a humanitarian level, and the supposed deterrent effect of the policy was really down to an aggressive push-back policy. What the Australians did was push those ships back effectively into the middle of the Pacific, or Indonesian waters in the Pacific. That was the biggest impact. It relates to the point made by my right hon. Friend about the attractiveness of these things.

The Refugee Council of Australia has documented the gut-wrenching sexual, physical and mental abuse that has pushed vulnerable children toward suicide. A 14-year-old girl, held offshore for five years, doused herself in petrol and tried to set herself alight; fortunately, she was stopped. A 10-year-old boy attempted suicide three times. A 12-year-old boy, held offshore for five years, had to be medically transferred to Australia because he had tried to starve himself to death and had reached the point at which he could not even stand up because he was so weak.

Members might think that these are isolated cases, but tragically they are not. From May 2013 to October 2015, there were 2,116 documented assaults, sexual abuse cases or self-harm attempts. More than half of them applied to children. I say that more than half applied to children; only one fifth of the asylum seekers were actually children. So that is an astonishing humanitarian record for that policy.

I know there is a lot of doorstep politics involved in this, but if this were to happen on our watch, just imagine how the public would respond to serious harm being done to a child nominally in our care. Remember what happened when the Iranian Kurdish child of four was shown drowned on a Greek beach? It would be something like that, but in our own control. I do not want to see any British Government of any persuasion facing that.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I thank the right hon. Member for everything that he is doing on this. He will be aware of Madeline Gleeson, the Australian lawyer, academic and author of the book “Offshore”, who is an expert on offshoring. She said that, once we commit to something like offshoring, there is no going back, and she asked me to tell any Members who were tempted to vote for it that, even for those in Australia who opposed it, the burden on their consciences is to this day a heavy one. So will the right hon. Member join me in urging those Members tempted to vote in favour of offshoring to search their consciences and not do this to themselves or to those children?

[Mr Davis]

I think everybody in this House wants to do the right thing by our own country and the right thing by vulnerable people too. I do not except anybody from that. What I am trying to do here is to let people know what will happen, before we are fixed with the system and then find ourselves defending something that may turn out to be indefensible. That is my real concern about this element of the Bill, and in my view, the biggest argument is on humanitarian issues.

Also, as Conservatives, we should think about the cost. By any measure, this will be eye-wateringly expensive. At the moment, we spend £1.4 billion annually on asylum costs. That is about £11,000 per asylum seeker. Australia has spent £4.3 billion on just over 3,000 asylum seekers. That is about £1.38 million per person. As an ex-Public Accounts Committee Chairman, I looked rather askance at that and went through it with a fine-toothed comb, and I can tell the House that it is right. If we applied that cost to our asylum situation, we would be talking about something like £34 billion or £35 billion, which is the size of the Government Department. Let us imagine that we were twice as effective as that: the cost would still be £17 billion. Are we really talking about doing something like that? The reason for this is, of course, that we would effectively have to bribe the country that would take the asylum seekers.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend not overlooking the deterrent effect that this would have?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

I hear lots of cheering. That was the argument with respect to the Australian system, but the real deterrent effect of the Australian system was the pushback. The fact is that nobody got to Australia. That was the main effect.

In the past, we have had an argument within our own party about the hostile environment. Remember the hostile environment policy that we lived with for a long time? It did not work. We tried it and it brought our reputation down, so thank you for that. My hon. Friend is right to talk about the pull effect and the deterrent effect. They are all important, but we have to do this in such a way that we can stand by and be proud of it at the end of the policy. That is why I am saying to the House now: this is what it will look like, come the day, and it is not something that I will be proud of. For that reason, I urge the House to support my amendments.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am in favour of a number of amendments, but for the purposes of time I will largely keep my comments to new clauses 12 and 13 in my own name and new clause 14 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). New clause 12 would provide recourse to public funds to everyone holding a valid UK residence permit. New clause 13 would repeal the sections in the 2014 and 2016 Immigration Acts that restrict undocumented migrants’ access to work and services. New clause 14 seeks to abolish the immigration health surcharge. I am pleased these new clauses have received lots of support from Members across the House.

It will perhaps be obvious to colleagues that these new clauses are about addressing the unjust suffering caused by the Government’s hostile environment, a term used to describe all the policies that make life difficult for migrants living in the UK by explicitly and deliberately treating them as less deserving of dignity and humanity than British citizens.

My new clause 13, in particular, seeks to overturn the denial of basic human rights. Members will know from their constituency casework that the consequences are brutal and wide-reaching. The hostile environment deters people from reporting crime to the police or from calling out unsafe conditions and exploitative practices at work. It undermines trade union rights and pushes people into poor-quality and dangerous accommodation and homelessness. As new clause 14 highlights, the hostile environment even denies access to healthcare by scaring people from going to the doctor for fear of being charged or being reported, detained and deported.

No recourse to public funds, which new clause 12 addresses, abandons some migrants to having no safety net. It leaves children hungry, it pushes families into poverty and unsafe, overcrowded housing, and it means women, in particular, who flee abusive partners are not entitled to access mainstream refuges. It is breathtakingly cruel and unjust.

The disproportionate suffering that has been inflicted on migrants during the pandemic is well known, if apparently forgotten by this Government. Not only does the hostile environment produce a culture of fear that often risks the NHS being unable to do its job, but it puts all our communities in danger. Although such policies try to incentivise us to be suspicious of one another, they are not in the interest of the majority of people. It should be no surprise that the Bill is another horrifying extension of such an approach. It undermines human decency and must be opposed in every way.

The fact this is all in the context of the ongoing tragedy of people drowning in the English channel is chilling. That such people now potentially face jail sentences if they survive such precarious journeys, as well as an even more hostile environment, is catastrophically wrong.

I emphasise the humanity that runs through the amendments I am supporting today. We have to stop the political immigration game of misinformation and cynicism that has such horrendous human cost. There is no doubt that one of the reasons we are seeing scenes of desperate people trying to cross the channel is the lazy but deadly anti-migrant political agenda that closes off safe routes to the UK.

One of the biggest myths perpetuated by politicians is that they are too afraid to talk about migration when, in fact, the opposite is true. The more politicians talk about being tough on migration, the more they just talk about being tough on migration. For decades the rate of lawmaking in this area has exceeded the rate of lawmaking in every other social policy area.

When people repeat half-truths and inaccuracies and attempt to utilise society’s fears, prejudices and anxieties for opportunistic so-called political gain, a climate of acceptance is created for such ideas at all levels of society. The mainstream media must also reflect on the role of their focus on numbers and their use of words such as “flood,” “influx” and “waves.” I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) used the word “tsunami,” which is a disgrace.

Yet it is simply untrue that Britain takes in more refugees than everywhere else, and research shows that two thirds of asylum seekers crossing the channel in boats, for example, are finally granted asylum by the Government’s own measurements. Yes, we need solutions to the soaring inequality, the suffering and the frightening covid death toll over which this Government have presided, but we do not need suspicion and scapegoats. Wherever we are from, we all need a roof over our head, food to eat, healthcare and basic human kindness and solidarity. Surely the true measure of a civilised society is not in its hostility but in its humanity.

I commended these new clauses to the House.

English Channel Small Boats Incident

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I have to say that I am very disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s tone and comments, and by his inability to understand what is taking place or the issues and challenges of global illegal migration. First, if the hon. Gentleman thinks there is a simple solution, I will restate for him that there is no simple solution. If he thinks that settlement schemes that have existed previously are the answer, I can tell him that they are not. If he has bothered to read the Nationality and Borders Bill, he should also look at the new plan for immigration and, importantly, at some of the wider reforms that are required to our asylum system, so that it becomes fit for purpose and meets the needs of people who are claiming asylum, and so that we have a differentiated approach to stop economic migrants masquerading as asylum seekers and elbowing women and children who need help and support out of the way. That is effectively what is happening right now.

This is about safe and legal routes—absolutely. If the hon. Gentleman has joined in previous debates, previous statements and questions—I am not sure whether he was in the House on Monday—he will have heard me say, not just on Monday but when I launched the new plan for immigration back in February, that the very purpose of safe and legal routes is to create the right kind of resettlement paths for people who are fleeing persecution and oppression in countries for a whole host of reasons. The world is changing and there is a great deal of instability out there. In doing so, we will create a legal path for them to make their claim from outside the United Kingdom, so that they will not have to come here to do so, and we will ensure that when they come here, they are supported in the right way in terms of accommodation and resettlement so that they can start their new life in the United Kingdom. That is exactly how safe and legal routes should work. That is why I am working with the International Organisation for Migration, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other partners on that.

It is such a shame actually, that once again, the Scottish National party, which has failed to support asylum seekers in its own local authorities—31 out of 32 local authorities have not even—[Interruption.] SNP Members might sit there and yell, “Shame!” at me, but 31 out of 32 of its local authorities do not participate in the voluntary dispersal scheme for housing and asylum seekers. There is an inconsistency in their approach. I absolutely agree about the need for safe and legal routes. This Government will do that properly. We recognise the type of instability, uncertainty, persecution and oppression experienced by people who need and should be claiming asylum in our country, but who are currently not getting it, and we will change that.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I think the whole House knows that my right hon. Friend has strained every sinew since her first day in post to prevent the sorts of tragedies that we saw in the last 24 hours. My right hon. Friend is right to point to the pan-European nature of this problem. Frontex, for example, has quadrupled its expenditure on surveillance alone in the Mediterranean in the past year. She has accurately pointed to her ongoing co-operation with the French as central. Will she tell the House what additional measures she has offered the French in order to crack down on these evil gangs and to cut down this deadly trade?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend makes some very important points. On the role of Frontex, it has accelerated surveillance and border patrols, and it is even supporting activity in the Mediterranean to stop boats entering territorial waters illegally—I have seen those patrols. It is a complete myth and fallacy to say that we should not look at all options. We are doing so and will continue to do so.

In terms of the measures that have been offered to France, I have asked it today for an honest assessment of its numbers on the beaches, whether or not there are gaps, if more officers are needed and for a realistic assessment of the number of migrants that are coming through from Belgium, in particular. Minister Darmanin specifically mentioned the pressures from that border and that the boat that led to the fatalities yesterday came from Dunkirk, so clearly there are more flows there. But this is absolutely about more police officers, more intelligence co-operation and more on technology. We have put forward a very significant technology offer that includes enhanced surveillance and automatic number plate recognition on the roads coming up to the beaches. We have also offered to put in more officers—unwarranted, because they will not take warranted officers. These are the things that I will be working through specifically, because the status quo cannot persist. There is a full understanding of that on the French side.

We absolutely are a Government that are incredibly propositional to France, in particular. We have to find joint solutions. If that means doing more with France and persuading it to take on more support, we will absolutely strain every sinew to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

We on the Conservative side of the House will take no lectures on bypassing democracy or local councils. For the record, 31 local authorities out of 32 in Scotland have refused to participate in the dispersal scheme. I say to the hon. Gentleman and to all Members of the House that, when it comes to changes to asylum accommodation, the whole of the United Kingdom needs to step up and play its part. That is how we will address the long-term issues with accommodation more widely. [Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Gentleman say, “You need to play your part.” On the funding side of matters, it is absolutely correct to say that the Home Office, working with the former Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, has been doing everything possible to provide local authorities with financial support and assistance, but certain councils around the country still say no.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to attract international workers with science, technology, maths and engineering qualifications to the UK.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

Attracting international talent is a key component of our global, points-based immigration system, delivered as we promised the British public at the 2019 election. This system is designed to attract global talent, sponsored by employers, bringing the best scientists, engineers, academics, and other people with skills to our country.

[Mr Davis]

Last week, I met the chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, to discuss the challenges facing Britain as we seek to become a leading science superpower. He spoke of the need for cross-departmental support, including from the Home Office, to ensure that Britain is competing in the marketplace of global excellence. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on what conversations her Department has had with UK Research and Innovation with respect to the global talent visa route, and how well she expects it to work?

[Priti Patel]

This is an important area in developing global talent and making sure that we, as a country, are attractive and can become the science superpower that we aspire to be. The chief scientific officer has indeed been leading this work with the Home Office and with the Treasury. In response to my right hon. Friend’s question, I can say that there is a great deal of work taking place, that these routes are open and that he will hear a lot more about the applications and the numbers that are coming through, but I can assure the House that the Home Office and this Government are absolutely dedicated to making sure that we get the brightest and the best over to our country through this new route.

Salisbury Incident 2018: Update

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of important points, including on today’s ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. He is correct that, as we have always made clear, the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was a blatant and unacceptable breach of international law and civilised behaviour—he used similarly strong language. Successive Governments have taken a robust approach, including following the publication of the Litvinenko inquiry, and this Government will always pursue every available means to bring those responsible to justice, and we will not let go of that. We will continue to deter such reckless and malign actions in future.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the UN General Assembly is meeting this week, and obviously there will be security meetings with our P5 partners. I assure him and the House that the Foreign Secretary and the FCDO are undertaking a range of diplomatic engagements in UN forums right now, as everyone would rightly expect, in relation to this and other associated matters. I also highlight the wider bilateral and diplomatic work and handling on the AUKUS agreement, which he also mentioned.

The right hon. Gentleman and I both mentioned the serious and important issues of dirty money, money laundering and the facilitation of Russian money that comes through the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware and has sight of the Government’s work on unexplained wealth orders, investigations with law enforcement and the work with the economic and financial institutions, which takes place in a very detailed and strategic way. That work continues, and the Security Minister and I will be meeting many of our counterparts within financial institutions tomorrow to continue to up the ante and focus on what more can be done on money laundering, following the money in every way and dealing with the routes and where that money leads to assets being purchased and investments being made in the UK, all of which, clearly, we need to change.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s response today, which I have to say contrasts with the responses of previous Governments to the Litvinenko murder on Putin’s orders, including that of our own Government under David Cameron, who tried to prevent an inquiry and I am afraid subordinated justice to trade interests. They were overruled in 2014 by the High Court, which is how we end up today with the European Court of Human Rights ruling against Putin’s Russia on this killing. After that, the Skripal attempted killing happened. The lesson is very clear: if we do not act very firmly, they will do it again. So we should act, not just against the GRU officers the Home Secretary has properly highlighted, but against all the manifestations of the Russian mafia state. I am afraid that that includes some of the oligarchs in London who act as proxies for Putin’s Russia; whether they own property, companies, newspapers or football clubs, it does not matter; we should act to make sure they do not corrupt our state. The Home Secretary is doing the right thing pursuing the perpetrators of this evil crime, but will she talk to other members of the Cabinet to find other ways in which to punish this evil Government who gave these orders? If our Government do not act more firmly now than we did after the Litvinenko murder, this will happen again.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and suggestions. He is correct in the proposition he has spoken of; there is much more to do. That is partly the purpose of my statement today, not just in providing the wider update, and rightly so, but in illustrating that the Government will not tolerate these types of malign activity—state sponsored terror that has taken place on the streets of the UK. Importantly, as a Government we have to do the right thing in protecting our citizens and our domestic homeland. He is right about this and that work will continue across the whole of government.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill

David Davis Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

In conclusion, there are elements of the Bill that we welcome, but the Government have undermined the parts of the Bill that we support by including a series of disproportionate and draconian provisions that risk undermining human rights and dividing communities. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was right when she said that there is a fine line between being popular and being populist. It is time for the Government to decide where they draw the line. We are debating this Bill after a difficult and turbulent year, but it is a year in which people from this country came together. I urge Members across the House to come together and vote to improve this flawed and divisive piece of legislation.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). I will return to one of her points in a moment, but I shall start by focusing on the amendments tabled in my name—amendments 118 to 121.

In 2017, we reformed pre-charge bail—that is police bail in the jargon—to introduce time limits on how long suspects can be held on bail before being charged, and we introduced a general presumption against the use of pre-charge bail. These changes came after the terrible treatment—I reiterate, the terrible treatment—of some people, the most famous of whom, I guess, was Paul Gambaccini, in the spin-off from the Savile affair. Gambaccini’s career was destroyed by the effective presumption of guilt in the treatment of him.

Even with those 2017 reforms, we still see a large number of people on pre-charge bail today and, indeed, for excessive lengths of time. In 2019, the number on pre-charge bail was 84,000. In 2020, it was nearly 154,000. The effect of the 2017 legislation, therefore, was not to suppress pre-charge bail, so the logic behind the changes in the current Bill are flawed to start off with. Worse than that, the number of people held on pre-charge bail for more than 12 months is 2,344, which is itself an increase on the previous year. These are people for whom there is not enough evidence to charge—not to convict, but to charge, which is a much, much lower threshold.

Currently, I have a case where the National Crime Agency has kept an individual on bail for almost six years. That is six years of being unable to live anywhere but her home address; six years of being unable to see her family because her passport has been withheld; six years of being without a bank account; six years of being without a job or career; and six years of being unable to lead a normal life. When I took it up with the National Crime Agency, I got a letter in response, which, frankly, would have done justice to an episode of “Yes Minister.” The most interesting point in it was a comment making the point that investigations took a long time. It said: “Investigations of this length are not uncommon when dealing with complex cases.” Six years is not uncommon in a justice system where the presumption of innocence is paramount. That is the problem that I am addressing with my amendments. For someone who has not even been charged, the NCA’s actions in this case make a complete mockery of the principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty. By the way, as an aside—separate from the Bill—we cannot find out how many people the NCA has under these circumstances. It is not subject to freedom of information requests and we know nothing about its operations, yet it still does these things.

The Bill seeks to undo the 2017 reforms, eliminating the general presumption against pre-charge bail and amending time limits. Although reform is clearly needed, this is not the correct way to do it. As the Law Society has said, changes to pre-charge bail may lead to people being kept “in limbo” for long periods of time, impacting their civil liberties. I entirely agree. The Government, of course, argue that their proposed reforms have public backing, but the consultation responses were starkly skewed. Police and law enforcement agencies accounted for 65% of the responses, compared to the legal professions at a mere 3%. Nobody should take at face value the Government’s claim that that backing reflects the consultation; it reflects the interests of the agencies involved.

My amendments 118 and 119 would introduce a two-year absolute limit on the use of pre-charge bail, ensuring that agencies had time to investigate properly but promptly. We should remember that the test is the ability to charge, not the ability to convict. That is how far it has to get in two years; that is the primary aim.

Amendments 120 and 121 would prevent the Government from reversing the presumption against the use of pre-charge bail. That would prevent a return to the practice of bailing suspects for lengthy periods with strict and unacceptable curbs to their civil liberties.

I would like to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), because clearly she got some pushback from the Government Benches. As it stands, the Bill actually does pose a grave threat to the fundamental right to protest that this country has had enshrined in our national fabric for, I think, some 800 years. The Bill does address real issues, but the Government want to have the power to arrest people who cause “serious annoyance” or “serious inconvenience”. These are incredibly vague terms, frankly. It is clearly a breach of the normal reasoning behind a demonstration when somebody glues themselves to a train with the direct intention of inconveniencing everybody else, but demonstrations do lead to inconvenience.

It is not just the leftie, liberal, legal fraternity that has been worried about the proposed power; there was a letter to the Home Secretary, elements of which were published in today’s edition of The Times, from a number of police chiefs, who are concerned that the effect of the provision is twofold. First, it puts the police in the position of making judgments that they should not be making; that should be specified by this House, not by the police chiefs themselves. Secondly, that puts them in a politicised position, and that is really problematic. We have an apolitical police and every law we write must be written on the presumption that it will be a Government very unlike ours who oversee us at some point in the future. What if, in 20 years’ time, we have an extreme right-wing or extreme left-wing Government, and this sort of vague provision is in place? I ask the Government to pay attention to the precision of this measure, so that we get it exactly right.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is an incongruence in the Government saying they want to defend free speech in universities while effectively attacking the right of freedom of expression on our streets by criminalising activities that will cause serious unease?

[Mr Davis]

The hon. and learned Lady has a point.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just to say I really am up against the time. I want to hear a lot more free speech.

[Mr Davis]

I take your point, Mr Speaker. I will be finished in less than a minute.

I was the person who brought in the 10-minute rule Bill, the precursor to the Government’s Bill, but there is a balancing issue and the House must be precise about that balance.

Given Mr Speaker’s injunction, I will bring my comments to an end. The Bill does some important things, but it needs to get some things very much closer to right than they are now.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I bring in the SNP spokesperson, I must warn people that it is looking like speeches will have to be three minutes or a maximum of four minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

On the deadline, I will repeat what I said earlier: the critical thing is to encourage constituents, very strongly, to apply by that deadline. If somebody misses the deadline, of course they can apply where they have reasonable grounds to do so. Guidance is about to be published on precisely what will happen to those who miss the deadline. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government intend to take a reasonable and proportionate approach, and I ask him to wait just a short time until that guidance is published.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

What steps she is taking to ensure that interpreters who assisted British armed forces overseas will be included as part of reforms to the immigration system.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

The Government owe an immense debt of gratitude to the brave interpreters who worked alongside our armed forces overseas. In April we launched the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, under which any current or former staff members in Afghanistan who are at risk are offered priority relocation to the United Kingdom, regardless of their employment status, rank, role, or length of service.

[Mr Davis]

It is a real pleasure to submit a question asking for a change in policy, and for that to happen one week later, so I congratulate the Government, and particularly the Home Secretary, on this long overdue change of heart. It is right that we accelerate the relocation scheme for Afghan interpreters and their families—people who have protected us and our country so well for so long. In view of worrying reports in the press last week, will my right hon. Friend clarify that not only Afghan interpreters directly employed by the Ministry of Defence but sub-contracted interpreters will share the right to those Afghan relocations?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the entire House should pay tribute to those who worked alongside our armed forces in Afghanistan, in harrowing conditions. The Defence Secretary and I were determined to ensure that this policy went through. In light of what is taking place in Afghanistan now, with further withdrawal and drawdown, it is right that we reach out to those who, as my right hon. Friend said, are part of that wider support network and have worked with our armed forces.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

As I said in a previous answer, I am meeting, certainly, a Conservative MP to talk about what more we can do to support Cleveland, and I think it is very unfair of the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the experience of his force in that way. We have put significant extra funding into Cleveland police to allow it to uplift the number of police officers. It is benefiting from wider money that we are spending across the whole country on things such as county lines—from which Cleveland sadly suffers, along with other parts of the country—to deal with that particular drugs problem. That is against an overall spending commitment for UK policing that is the largest we have seen for a decade and has been for two successive years, so I do not think anybody could accuse this Government of skimping on investment in the police; quite the reverse. I hope and believe that, as Cleveland police emerges from a difficult period in its history, with a strong chief constable, the hon. Gentleman will start to feel the benefit on his streets quite soon.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement following the incidents over the weekend, and particularly the anarchic and violent scenes that we saw in Bristol last night. We have been clear that to save lives and fight this pandemic people must not currently hold large gatherings. Too many this weekend selfishly decided that this did not apply to them. We will always give the police the support and protection that they need. It was sad that, as we saw last week, the Opposition voted against measures to protect our police and also introduce longer sentences. The scenes in Bristol yesterday were utterly shameful. We saw criminal thuggery and disorder caused by a minority who put lives at risk. Our exceptional and brave police officers put themselves in harm’s way to protect the public. For them to face criminal violence against themselves while upholding the law is completely unacceptable. My thoughts are with the injured officers and their families. I hope that every single Member of Parliament in this House will join me in condemning the shameful actions of the criminal minority involved.

[Mr Davis]

I am sure that everybody will join the Home Secretary in condemning what were evil and shameful acts yesterday—there are no two ways about that. The simple truth is that those evil and shameful acts demonstrated only too clearly the need for the police to have powers to deal with disruptive, dangerous actions masquerading behind the right to demonstrate, and she is right to promote that. That being said, many of us, I suspect including her, view the right to demonstrate peacefully as a foundation stone of our democracy. Can she give the House an undertaking that before we get to Report stage we will make sure that the right to demonstrate peacefully is absolutely guaranteed in our law?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the right to protest peacefully is in fact a cornerstone of our democracy, and it is one that this Government will always defend. He references a point in relation to the Bill that is coming forward. He will know my views. I will work with everybody to make sure that when the police need the powers to tackle the type of appalling thuggery and criminality that we saw yesterday, we will achieve that, while absolutely protecting the right to protest peacefully in our country.

Extradition Act 2003

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Before I enter into the subject, it was amusing to see the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) rush to his place. He is a friend, but he is also standing in for a great friend of mine, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who is an old friend and old protégé of mine. As we all know, he is away ill, and I take this opportunity to wish him the best of luck in his treatment and a rapid return to the Chamber.

As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have consulted with the Clerks, and what I have to say will skirt very carefully around the sub judice rules.

Since we agreed the UK-US extradition treaty in 2003, it has been abundantly clear that the British Government of the day struck a truly dreadful deal. Asymmetric, ineffective and fundamentally unfair on British citizens, it is a terrible flaw in our own justice system. The previous Labour Administration approached the treaty as though their duty was first and foremost to support the wishes of our American friends, not to safeguard the rights of UK citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Mr Davis]

Perhaps that was understandable in the context of the terrorism sweeping the world at that time, but friends must be honest with each other, and now we must say, “Enough is enough.”

The 2003 treaty paved the way for British citizens to be handed over to the US authorities, with minimal safeguards against injustice. Numerous examples down the years have shown this, from the NatWest three to Christopher Tappin. The recent decision to block the extradition of Mr Assange did not add to the list. However, the judgment earlier this month was a human rather than a legal victory. Although we cannot, of course, discuss the substance of the Assange judgment here today, the House must note the worrying development more generally in our extradition arrangements—extradition for political offences. This stems from an erroneous interpretation of Parliament’s intention in 2003. This must now be clarified.

Article 4 of the UK-US extradition treaty provides that extradition will not be granted for political offences. In the UK, the treaty was implemented in the Extradition Act 2003. It has been claimed that, because the Act does not specifically refer to political offences, Parliament explicitly took the decision to remove the bar when passing the Act in 2003. That is not the case—Parliament had no such intention. Had it intended such a massive deviation from our centuries-long tradition of providing asylum, it would have been explicit.

When the Extradition Bill was debated in the Commons, Members raised concerns about extraditions in relation to political offences. In responding to those concerns, Minister Bob Ainsworth gave a clear and unequivocal answer:

“The Bill will ensure that no one can be extradited where the request is politically motivated”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 115.]

The Government today have also recognised that. In October 2019, the Home Office confirmed that such a bar was implicit in UK law and that it would be down to judges, on a case-by-case basis, to decide whether to apply the bar. However, recent cases before the courts have shown that an implicit bar is not enough. We must have clarity on this issue. It is vital that our extradition arrangements have appropriate protection for political offences, not least because political asylum seekers may seek the protection of British justice in the future.

But that is not all. When the 2003 extradition treaty was introduced, it was sold on the basis—I remember this because I was the shadow Home Secretary—that it would be used principally for paedophiles, murderers and terrorists. But the people we are extraditing to the US today are, mostly, white-collar businessmen who pose no physical danger to United Kingdom or US citizens. Between 2007 and 2019, the UK surrendered 135 individuals to the US, 99 of them for non-violent offences. Instead of seeking justice against dangerous criminals, the United States is seeking to be judge, jury and executioner for global commercial deals.

In 2012, the Select Committee on Home Affairs said that the US

“has the power to reach out around the world and—provided there is a very, very tenuous connection with the US—it generally has the power to prosecute.”

That has been shown in case after case, including those of Ian Norris the former head of Morgan Crucible, the NatWest three, Christopher Tappin and numerous others. Those cases all have common themes: they are all British citizens; the alleged crimes all took place on British soil; and the UK authorities did not see them as having a case to answer, but the UK system failed to protect them and the US authorities ultimately got their way.

Of course, people must be brought to justice when they break the law, but the problem at the heart of this extradition process is that it is fundamentally asymmetric and unbalanced in favour of the United States. This lopsided treaty allows US citizens to evade justice, while exposing UK citizens to miscarriages of justice.

In a 2011 report on our extradition arrangements, Lord Justice Scott Baker concluded that we did not need to change the rules to ensure that London-based offences are dealt with here in the UK. He was wrong. He failed to give enough weight to the US ambition to extend its extraterritorial jurisdiction of commercial crimes. He also made no allowance for the incredibly one-sided nature of prosecution and trial of foreign suspects in the US justice system. An American citizen facing extradition to the UK can challenge it in a US court on the basis that there is no “probable cause”, but a UK citizen facing extradition has no right to a reasonable grounds hearing. That is what the Joint Committee on Human Rights called in 2011 a

“lack of reciprocity in the Treaty”

when it called for reform of that treaty.

In the case of political offences, the treaty allows a US Executive to determine what is and is not a political offence. In the UK, we rightly leave this to the courts. What is more, the US Secretary of State has far greater discretion to refuse an extradition than our Home Secretary. The British Extradition Act states:

“The Secretary of State must issue a certificate”

for extradition. The equivalent US code states:

“The Secretary of State may order the person....to be tried”.

Such a seemingly minor change in language has a dramatic effect. With the US being a larger country, and with the UK being closer to the frontline on terrorism, we would expect the numbers being extradited from the United States to the UK to be greater than those going in the opposite direction. The reverse applies. The US has surrendered only 58 individuals to the United Kingdom since 2007, with only 11 of them American citizens, while 135 have gone the other way.

There is no starker example of the inequity and imbalance than the case that you mentioned, Madam Deputy Speaker, of Anne Sacoolas and the death of Harry Dunn. In that case, the US Secretary of State used the discretion afforded only to the US under the treaty to prevent extradition. The Prime Minister has recognised this imbalance. On 12 February last year, he said:

“I do think that elements of that relationship are unbalanced, and it is certainly worth looking at”—[Official Report, 12 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 846.]—

yet nearly a year on, we remain in the same position.

The courts may be starting to recognise the imbalance. In the wake of the decision to block Gary McKinnon’s extradition, UK courts were given the power to bar extradition on forum grounds so that crimes committed primarily in the UK against UK citizens could be tried in this country. The absence of the forum bar in the 2003 Act highlighted just how cavalier the Blair Administration were with the rights of British citizens. The safeguard had existed previously in the 1957 European convention on extradition, and citizens almost universally elsewhere in Europe could count on its protection.

Since 2018, in the cases of Lauri Love, Stuart Scott, Robert McDaid and Christopher Taylor, the courts have used this bar in a partial attempt to even up our extradition arrangements. This asymmetry is not an inevitable outcome of being an ally of the US. It is a policy choice. Countries such as France and Germany both refuse to allow their citizens to be extradited and for good reason.

David Bermingham, one of the NatWest three, described to the House of Lords how he and his co-defendants were extradited to Texas and

“put in…hand chains, foot chains”—

restraining “belts and everything else”, and then “strip-searched”. This is designed not only to intimidate the accused, but to score a PR victory for American prosecutors. Those extradited to the US face this treatment whenever they are dragged into and out of court in front of the television cameras and the paparazzi. All this comes at the expense of the presumption of innocence.

It is often the case that once extradited to America, the accused is refused bail. This is on the basis that they are a flight risk. The result is that they are thrown in a cell, often shared with a fellow inmate—possibly a hardened criminal—and their access to legal papers is massively restricted. Their ability to contribute meaningfully to their defence is totally handicapped. This is particularly damaging in all those white-collar cases, where the relevant evidence can stretch to millions of pages and the prosecution face no requirement to tell defendants which pieces of evidence they intend to rely on.

Defendants then face enormous pressure from the US authorities to agree a plea bargain. They are told that if they refuse a deal, they will be denied bail and face decades in a maximum-security prison, but if they plead guilty, they will receive a much lighter sentence in an open prison. They are also reminded of the huge financial cost in America of protracted and complex trials, often running into the millions or tens of millions. It takes a brave person to turn down the easy route.

David Bermingham has described how he had to negotiate his punishment before he had even settled on the crime he would be pleading guilty to. That is repeated across the US legal system, where a massive majority of cases are settled by a plea bargain—I think the number is 97%. Take the case of Jamie Olis, an employee of a US energy firm who stood accused of fraud. He refused a plea bargain and protested his innocence in court. He was handed a 24-year sentence. His boss at the firm—presumably more responsible—took the plea bargain route and co-operated with the Government. He was sentenced to just 15 months; 15 months for the boss and 24 years for the subordinate.

Plea bargains are just one of the tools used by US prosecutors to stack the deck against defendants. They also deliberately use the threat of prosecution to disable the defence’s witnesses. Witnesses willing to co-operate with the prosecution are given immunity, while witnesses who refuse to do so find themselves threatened with prosecution. For cases where the alleged crime is in Britain, no British defence witness is going to travel to a court in the US and risk being charged on arrival and never coming back. What is more, prosecutors label these witnesses as co-conspirators, which handicaps the defence’s ability but maximises the prosecution’s ability to use their evidence. These tactics are such a serious issue that in one American case—that of Mohammad Dolah—the judge described it as

“a fundamental unfairness that might well amount to a denial of due process.”

It is not just the prosecution inside the courtroom stacking the deck against the defendant. The first amendment to the American constitution allows the American media to print and broadcast sometimes frenzied coverage of trials, which inevitably prejudices their outcome. In effect, high-profile defendants in the US face trial by media, as well as trial by jury. That has been laid bare in a string of cases, most famously that of O. J. Simpson, but perhaps most perniciously in the case of the Central Park Five, which is not so well known here but is well known in the United States. That case led to a miscarriage of justice for 13 years—that person was in jail for 13 years, and he was eventually exonerated.

Let us compare that with the UK. As you reminded me at the beginning of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 safeguards the presumption of innocence by preventing anything from being published that prejudices ongoing trials. Indeed, it is those protections that prevent me from discussing cases relevant to the debate that are sub judice. My speech today is, entirely properly, sharply constrained to avoid mention of half a dozen extant cases in the interest of not biasing justice. The US justice system as applied to foreign suspects is not normal justice as we understand it here in the United Kingdom.

My argument to the Minister—and I am not expecting a great reply today—is that we must rethink the entire relationship with the United States on extradition. We must navigate a constructive path forward for both countries based on arrangements that are balanced, fair and reciprocal. We should remember that we are friends, not enemies; allies, not rivals. This is particularly important as we seek to embark on a new trading relationship. In the next decade, our two countries will develop even closer commercial relationships. Businesses developed by brilliant British inventors and scientists will look to merge and co-operate with or sell to big American companies in the bigger American market. If the current extradition treaty stands, every one of them could face American extraterritorial legal actions and a legal system stacked against them. In the interests of both countries, that must change.

The Extradition Act not only touches the lives of renowned political actors and international business executives; it also impacts families such as Harry Dunn’s. If the American Government insist on trying to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in their interest, perhaps we should mimic Israel and refuse to extradite British citizens for anything other than serious crimes of violence and terrorism. We must give our citizens the protection, certainty and justice that they deserve and that our judicial system has a proud history of upholding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis]

I had not intended to interfere with the Minister’s course, but since this point has been raised, I will say that the most fundamental thing under-pinning all extradition arrangements—whether they are with America, Europe or whatever—is a presumption that the justice systems are reasonably equivalent. This is where the weakness comes in.

Take the case of Christopher Tappin, who was extradited. He was somewhere in his 60s—65, maybe—and he was threatened with a 30-year sentence if he did not confess to a crime that he did not believe he had committed. That is an intolerable difference, and it is not just criticised here. As the Minister quite rightly says, it is the subject of massive criticism in the United States, but they are stuck with it until they change it. It seems to me that when we think about the treaties, not just for America but for other areas, we should consider trying to guarantee equivalence of justice in delivery, as well as in principle.

[Chris Philp]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. The test is not that the justice systems are identical; it is that they are just. I do not think I would accept the argument that the American system is fundamentally unjust. However, if there are particular circumstances of a case—perhaps the case he mentions would have met that test, had he advanced that defence —where a grave injustice is threatened, then the UK courts, on human rights grounds, which include the right to a fair trial, can be invoked and a UK judge, or an English judge, can be invited to prevent extradition. It was on grounds, as I understand it, very similar to those that the recent case involved the judge making precisely that finding, so if a miscarriage of justice is threatened, an application can be made to an English judge to prevent the extradition using arguments not unlike those my right hon. Friend has just advanced.

I fear we are approaching the witching hour and I should therefore draw my remarks to a conclusion. The Government will, of course, keep this area under careful and vigilant review, prompted as ever by my right hon. Friend, to whom I am extremely grateful for raising this important matter this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

David Davis Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I wish to speak also to amendments 14 to 19, which were tabled in my name and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members.

It is worth reminding ourselves at the start why we are debating the Bill and why it is being proceeded with in all the dispatch that is apparent, what with Second Reading having been just on Monday of last week. As we know, the Government had a bit of a narrow squeak—a legal term—in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and that case is now going off to the Appeal Court. We are now getting what many of us, including those in Reprieve who brought the case to the IPT, have long asked for, and that is a regulatory statutory footing on which the very difficult decisions undertaken by the police, special branch, the security services and others should be done. That is something on which there is broad consensus, which was reflected in the attitude of the House, for the most part, on Second Reading. However, as was apparent from the debate on Second Reading, many of us in different parts of the House have serious concerns about the way in which these matters are being put on to this regulatory statutory footing.

Essentially, it seems to me that the Government have been brought to this point somewhat grudgingly. They have said, “Yes, we will put these things on to a statutory footing, but we will do it in such a broad and general way that, in fact, we will be able to continue to do whatever we have done in the past.” They are seen to embrace change in a way that allows them to continue to behave in the way they have always done. I suggest that that is not, in fact, sensible for any number of reasons. It defeats the purpose of putting these things on to a statutory footing, but I am pretty certain that, sooner or later, it means we will be back here looking at a future Bill because this one is not fit for the purpose the Government claim for it.

The point made repeatedly on Second Reading is that many of the concerns that I and others have, which are reflected in the amendments, are in fact covered by the Human Rights Act 1998. One of the difficulties I have with that is that, throughout their pleadings in front of the IPT, the Government said that the Human Rights Act does not, in fact, apply to the actions of those responsible for covert human intelligence. When we eventually hear from the Minister, could he address a couple of points? First, will this new attitude towards the Human Rights Act, in its applicability to the activities of covert human intelligence sources, be reflected in the pleadings of the Government when it comes to the Appeal Court?

Secondly, can the Minister confirm that the Bill will allow these sources to operate overseas? That being the case, what view do the Government take of the application of the Human Rights Act to the activities of these sources overseas? The position of the Government hitherto has always been that the application extraterritorially—overseas—of the Human Rights Act would not cover these instances, so it is difficult to see if there would be any protection at all in relation to activities overseas.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I might be able to help the Government along with this. It appears that the power to authorise a covert human intelligence source to commit crime outside the UK as well is provided for under section 27(3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which states that conduct authorised under part II of that Act

“includes conduct outside the United Kingdom.”

[Mr Carmichael]

With help like that, I am not sure that the Government necessarily need any obstruction. Yes, I am certain that this provision is in the Bill for a reason, but we do need to hear from the Dispatch Box about the relationship between the Human Rights Act and activities that would be carried out overseas. When we hear from the Minister, I hope that he will address that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I very much agree with a great deal of what he has said. I hope the Minister will be able to prove to us why it is not necessary to pursue some of these amendments, but I think the right hon. Gentleman put his case very well and very moderately. I appeal to the Minister, who is himself a moderate and considered man, to think about whether it is not appropriate to look at some of the detail of the Bill rather than the thrust of the objective, which we all absolutely support.

I will, if I may, touch on some of the amendments. The broad principle that I have, again rather like the right hon. Gentleman, is that, of course, there will be certain circumstances when it is necessary in the national interest for the brave operatives of our security services to have the power to take actions that might not otherwise be countenanced in the ordinary run of life. I accept that, sometimes, there are people who have put their lives on the line for the country’s sake and that there are circumstances in which they are entitled to protections. I do not have any problem with that, but it is the broad breadth nature of the Bill that is a concern to many of us. Those of us who have served in Government have come across those tempting occasions when submissions come along, and civil servants say, “It will be useful to draw on this widely, Minister, because x, y or z circumstance may occur at some point in the future, so it is better to have this in reserve—in the back pocket.” When one is dealing with things that touch on the exceptional circumstance of the state or its agents being permitted to break the criminal law, or potentially do harm of one kind or another—perhaps out of necessity, but none the less do harm to others—we should be pretty tight in circumscribing those instances as far as we can. We should ensure that, at the very least, there is proper oversight either beforehand when it is appropriate or thereafter by way of proper parliamentary scrutiny—I will come back to that in a moment.

That is why I do not take the line of the official Opposition’s amendment that there should always be pre-authorisation, but I do think, as a basic principle, that there ought to be pre-authorisation at the appropriate level, be that by the judicial commissioner, a prosecutor or another appropriate authority, wherever possible. That ought to be the starting point unless there is some ground, such as a matter of emergency, perhaps literally of life or death, or of the highest importance, where it is not possible to do that. I would like reassurance from the Minister on the test that will be applied as to when these powers will be used, prior to authorisation by a responsible, vetted and highly dependable individual of the kind that we are talking about. That is the first point on which I would like the Minister’s reassurance, and the point about guidance is well made, as far as that is concerned.

My second point, on amendment 20, which has been referred to, is on the position of the exclusion of civil liability. Again, there may be certain circumstances where it is appropriate for agents of the Government to act in a way that may cause some harm to others. A lot of people might not have too much concern if the target of the operation is an organised criminal or a terrorist, or someone who is a threat to us all, but I am concerned that the way in which that particular clause is drawn would also prevent the innocent victim of what might have been an otherwise necessary action—a person who is the collateral damage—from seeking civil redress. I am talking about somebody who was not the target of the steps that were taken but was caught up, literally, in the incident that occurred. Is it really fair or just to say, “Well, that’s just hard luck,” and exclude them from any liability?

The number of cases that this might engage are probably very limited, but the principle is important—someone who has done no harm to the state should not be the victim by happenstance of something that might necessarily and properly have been done in the state’s interests. If we give the state and its agents that power—perhaps reasonably enough—it is not unfair to say that there should be some safeguard for those who, through no fault of their own, might be damaged by it in some way. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that carefully.

There is also the point in the amendments that touches on the authorisation of certain very grave crimes. I appreciate what the Minister said about the intention that our adherence to the Human Rights Act—which I was glad to see the Lord Chancellor restate the other day—is protected, but if that is the case, and given the importance of the subject, why not put that on the face of the Bill? What is lost by that? Should at any time any future Government—I hope not this one—ever derogate in any way from the Human Rights Act, it would be better to have the protection there. My next point is about the scope of the agencies. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, it is pretty difficult think of what types of extreme violence might be authorised in the national interest by the Food Standards Agency? Some greater particularity around that would not be a bad idea either.

I will touch on the point that arises from amendment 13, which is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and others. It is important because, if we are attempting to adopt a similar approach to our important security partners, why not adopt the same approach that is appropriate in the United States or, I would say, perhaps even more persuasively, Canada? It is a Commonwealth and common law jurisdiction country, which has had no difficulty operating a security regime like our own, with operational efficiency but equal concern for protection against abuse. It has found it perfectly possible to work within a statutory parameter of the kind that is suggested. I would like to understand from the Minister a little better why he thinks that that is not appropriate and why that might not be a safeguard to brave operatives under certain circumstances against the bringing of an unjustified complaint or litigation against them.

[Mr David Davis]

One distinction between amendment 13 and others is that it gives the Director of Public Prosecutions the right to make a judgment. Even if a person has behaved very unlawfully and committed serious crimes, the DPP is allowed to exempt him if he was in fear of his life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right, and that is why we cannot be comforted by those assurances. They would have to be put on the face of the Bill for us to have any assurance that the Government would not move forward in that way.

It is unfortunate that the Government are laying down a Bill like this, at a time like this, without putting in place clear limitations and proper oversight to prevent what are the gravest violations and curbing the use of such powers for political reasons. Our democracy has to be protected and our rights have to be upheld. Our police and security services should exist to uphold the rule of law, not break it. I therefore urge all Members to vote for the amendments and, if they are not passed, to vote against the Bill.

[Mr David Davis]

I will pay attention to your encouragement to be brief, Mr Evans. Although I support the intent of the amendments in the name of the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and the hon. Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), I will focus solely on amendment 13.

There is no doubt that there is a need for a Bill like this. Infiltrating terrorist gangs and going under cover as an informant is dangerous and risky work which often requires breaking the law, and the Bill enables authorisation of those breaches of the law. However, amendment 13, in my name and in those of others, explicitly exempts the most serious crimes of murder, torture, rape and others from powers in the Bill. The Government argue that that is not necessary because the Human Rights Act already limits their actions. The question before the House today is this: do we believe that? Do we think that that is sufficient?

Back in the early 1990s, I was one of the Ministers who took the Intelligence Services Act 1994 through the House. Section 7 of the Act enabled MI6 officers abroad to commit crimes in the interests of the state. Inevitably, in the tabloid press, it became known as the James Bond clause, but that is precisely what it was not. It was not a licence to kill. It was a licence to bribe, burgle, blackmail and bug, but it was not a licence to kill. Nevertheless, within a decade, section 7 was being used to authorise rendition, torture and the mass invasion of innocent people’s privacy—crimes that were never countenanced when the Act was put in place. I know that, because I did all the work behind it. It should be understood that the authorisation of those crimes, often within the United Kingdom, occurred after the Human Rights Act had been passed—indeed, while the ink was still wet on its pages in some cases—and it provided precisely zero protection. Likewise, the European convention on human rights, the international convention on torture and the 1949 Geneva convention, to all of which we are signatories and some of which are absolutely binding in law, provided no protection whatever.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has huge experience in this area, both legislatively and professionally. He is an expert. If a checklist, as he suggests, is put in the Bill, is that not also a checklist for terrorist gang leaders to prove a rite of passage and loyalty to somebody who might be working covertly on behalf of our national security interests?

[Mr Davis]

I will say a couple of things on that. First, if the gangster is smart enough to read the Act, he is smart enough to read the Human Rights Act. Secondly, I put a specific reference in amendment 13 to the Director of Public Prosecutions, so that if my hon. Friend is in such a circumstance and he has to do something violent to prevent himself being killed, that is an exoneration for the DPP. So it specifically allows that clouding, if you like, of the judgment. I draw his attention to the intervention in The Times last week—I was going to mention it later, but I will mention it now—by one of the best DPPs of modern times, Lord Ken Macdonald. He is not of my politics, but he is very, very experienced and he knows all about these things. He described this as Soprano-watching judgments and Soprano-watching logic. I am afraid that I agree with him, and I will come back and illustrate why in a second.

Officers in the intelligence and policing agencies can face huge pressure to authorise improper criminal activity, particularly when the demands on the agencies themselves become enormous. We saw that after 9/11, when after the dodgy dossier we had all the rendition issues. I always said in those days that we should not prosecute the individuals, because they were trying to prevent a 9/11 happening in Canary Wharf, but it was still wrong. Those morally indefensible actions by the state and their agents occur at the darkest times in our history, and we must remember that. We must write our laws to cope with the darkest times in our history, which is what we are trying to do here today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

On the point about rendition, the right hon. Gentleman will recall the Intelligence and Security Commission, when considering the Belhaj and Boudchar cases, said that in effect our services had outsourced work that they were not allowed to do in law themselves. Does not that alone indicate that those services require proper independent scrutiny? They should not be left to mark their own homework.

[Mr Davis]

The right hon. Gentleman is right, and we should not forget that the clause that was used requires ministerial approval, not approval by an officer under the pressure of, as it were, almost the battlefield sometimes. A Minister in Whitehall approved it, and it still happened. There were two sets of inquiries into those problems, one by Lord Stevens, who is nobody’s softy, and one by Sir Desmond de Silva. The latter concluded that the problems required some recognised limits to the extent to which agents should become involved in criminal enterprises and a rigorous regulatory framework to prevent abuses—not a woolly reference to the Human Rights Act.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, referencing not only Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington but the late Sir Desmond de Silva, whom some of us knew personally and who came up with his conclusion from his long experience at the criminal Bar and also the experience of being a prosecutor in the international war crimes tribunals. He was certainly no soft touch, and he was used to going after bad people, but believed it was necessary to do so within proper constraints.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sir Desmond did something else in his report: he quoted Lord Atkin, who, in a landmark case during world war two, said that

“amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace.”

I am afraid that the Bill, necessary as it is, does not meet that test, and that is the problem.

[Mark Pritchard]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Davis]

You will kill me, Mr Chairman, but I will give way.

[Mark Pritchard]

My right hon. Friend rightly mentions the Pat Finucane case which David Cameron, as Prime Minister, correctly apologised for, but does my right hon. Friend recognise that since then the security services have more judicial oversight than ever before? We did not then have the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and even the powers of this House for more oversight of the security services have increased. There has been a marked difference. Times have changed.

[Mr Davis]

Well, they have changed a bit. One of the things that the Intelligence Services Act 1994 created was the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Committee tried to look into rendition and torture just recently, under its previous Chairman, and it was refused access to 15 cases, so I am now suing the Government on exactly this matter, to force them to have to have a proper judge-led tribunal. So even now, it is not good enough; after 20 years, it is still not good enough.

The trouble is that others do it better. America and Canada learned the hard way about the need to include specific limits on the crimes that agents can commit. In those countries, informers and their handlers were involved in carrying out numerous cases of racketeering and murder, and they were found out. Since then, both countries have set clear limits. Just as an aside on the overall public interest, we all want our agencies to be able to work, but the FBI investigation found that the lack of limits and the wooliness of the controls led to more crimes, not fewer, so the so-called Soprano effect worked in reverse in terms of protecting the public interest.

The Bill puts no express limits on the crimes that the agencies can authorise—not on murder, not on torture and not on rape—and it claims that the Human Rights Act provides a safeguard. However, their own submissions in court, which have already been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, showed that their own lawyers do not believe that. If Members have a bit of quiet time travelling back to their constituencies, they should read the Investigatory Powers Tribunal’s findings on the behaviour of the agencies. It is almost a James Bond novel in its own right. The scathing descriptions of the operations are worth reading.

Amendment 13, tabled in my name, addresses the most egregious elements of the Bill. It puts hard limits on the extent of criminal conduct that can be authorised by officers, and it specifically prohibits murder, torture, serious bodily harm, sexual assault and other heinous crimes. Crucially, it explicitly permits prosecutors to drop a case in a situation where an agent is truly forced to participate in a serious crime and where a decision not to prosecute is in the public interest. There is a real need for legislation in this area, but the Bill as it stands carries real risks of serious injustice. My amendments would give the intelligence services the protections they need, but stop short of giving them carte blanche authorisation to carry out the heinous crimes in the name of the state that have happened too often in the past.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and I agree with much of what he has said. I think there is agreement in this Chamber that we need this legislation, because the hallmark of a grown-up democracy is that it does not shy away from taking the necessary actions to keep a country safe, and nor does it say, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” This legislation puts on a statutory footing those practices that are part and parcel of security in this country. The question for all of us is whether it also provides the necessary accountability and oversight to ensure that they are just. I recognise that covid and the speed with which this legislation has been brought through militate against our doing our job properly on this, because we are doing it so quickly, but today I want to flag up one particular issue of concern. I suspect that it will be in the other place that we will see progress on these issues.

We know that this is a narrow Bill with a specific role around criminal conduct. I also recognise and understand the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) raised—I am sorry that she is no longer in her place—about the ongoing inquiries and the timing of this legislation. I hope the Minister will address those points in his comments and tell us what the Government would do, should those inquiries come back with further requirements for support. I also want to put on record my support for amendment 13 and for the Front-Bench amendments from my own party.

We recognise that there are genuine concerns about the Human Rights Act. In other debates in this place, people have talked about rewriting the Act, and I hope the Minister will deal with that issue. Also, it is a circular argument to suggest that the practices set out in amendment 13 and the amendments from my own Front Bench are already covered, if the Government will not accept amendments to ensure that they are part of how this legislation is dealt with.

I also hope that the Minister will talk about the equalities impact of the legislation. I represent a community that has, at best, a tangled relationship with many of the agencies that will have these powers. We are in a position of privilege in this House, so it is right and proper that we have oversight of those who do not share those same benefits.

I rise to speak in particular to new clause 8—especially the issue at the heart of this legislation, which for me is about the people who can consent to be a covert human intelligence source. It is worth looking at the definition:

“Someone who maintains a relationship for the covert purpose of providing information to another person”—

that is, not just someone who has a one-off conversation with our security services or police about something, but someone who is asked to maintain what is potentially a position of harm to support an investigation.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden talked about the James Bond code. In most of our discussions about CHIS, we have envisaged those James Bond figures—the people from our security services or police conducting covert investigations. But I want to talk about those who are not the James Bonds: the children and vulnerable people who become covert human intelligence sources and who need us to make sure in this legislation that they are properly protected.

For the last year, there has been a legal challenge to the Government about how children have been used as covert human intelligence sources. It was settled last week in the High Court, when the Government agreed to update their guidance and code of practice on how children could be involved in this legislation. It is worth taking a step back at this point to reflect on that: we are talking about young people—children being asked to do what we previously envisaged James Bond doing. I hope that I am pushing at an open door with the Minister with the new clause because that code of practice and the recognition at the High Court that there was a case to answer reflect the fact that we need to get this right.

Our first instinct may be that no child should ever be involved in intelligence work in this way, and I sympathise with that. But when we look into the cases where it has happened, we see that there may be exceptional circumstances in which a child may become an informant. It is right, therefore, that we should have incredibly strict guidelines that have the interests of that child at heart when that happens. I am open to the idea that understanding what constitutes those exceptional circumstances is very difficult, but the new clause comes from the belief that the child’s primary interests should be, as a matter of fact, at the heart of any engagement with state services.

Let us talk for a minute about the children we are discussing. For many of us who represent communities where issues such as county lines are a real problem, they are the children in the gangs and those who have been part of child sexual exploitation, who may know valuable information and have relationships with those exploiting them. For the police and the security services, they become incredibly valuable sources of information.

Those are important investigations—nobody is suggesting otherwise. But the new clause recognises that there may be a conflict of interest between the investigation and the best interests of an incredibly vulnerable person. A young child drawn into county lines who knows the people organising things and has been given a gun—I can think of such cases—is still a child. We have a duty to that child to ensure that they are not exploited, even if people feel that the investigation is merited.

The Minister will say that that happens very rarely. The Government’s own figures show that 17 children in 11 jurisdictions were used in this way in the past couple of years. One of them was just 15—a 15-year-old child being asked to continue a relationship that puts them at harm because that helps an investigation. What troubled me was that one of the other Ministers told the court that we should actually make more use of children in such circumstances—that they could be valuable because they were getting involved in criminal activity themselves.

Again, take a step back and think that through. In other parts of our legislation, we recognise that when children engage in harmful practices it is our duty to stop that. Yet in that court case and this process with CHIS, Ministers are saying, “Actually, we might want to maintain that because it will help with an investigation”—the children would have “unique access” as “juvenile undercover agents”. They are children, Minister, and it is absolutely right that we act to protect them and see them as children first. That is what new clause 8 seeks to do.