Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (Business of the House)

David Hanson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak at the start of what will be a long day’s debate on this important piece of legislation.

I understand why the Minister has tabled the programme motion, but I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), share some of the concerns about the fact that this problem and challenge first came to light in April, as has been mentioned, when the European Court of Justice struck down the Data Retention (EU Directive) Regulations 2009. I know from my time serving in government that that may not necessarily have come as a surprise to the Government—they may have anticipated such a challenge before April—so since the challenge in April, they have had a considerable time both to prepare a Bill and to introduce one for us to consider in dealing with what I accept is an emergency. In my view, there are good reasons why the legislation must now be passed very quickly, but it is incumbent on the Minister at least to recognise that he could have prepared legislation for the eventuality of the regulations being struck down in the European Court of Justice, and that he could have brought in legislation post-April.

From the new clauses and amendments that we have tabled, the Minister will know that we have some concerns and require some changes. First, we must ensure that provision for a wider review of the Investigation of Regulatory Powers Act 2000 is added to the statute book, with a guarantee that the whole House can understand. Secondly, we must have a regular examination every six months of the operation of any legislation that this House and the other place pass this week. I want to get on to those matters before the day is out, because we will have an opportunity to deal with them today. I am disappointed with the time scales, but the programme motion effectively gives us one and a half days of legislative time to consider such matters. As the Minister said, it is important to get on to discuss those matters.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

On the six-month period, I understand that Opposition Front Benchers have accepted the Government’s argument that the Bill will do no more than clarify the previous situation and will not extend the Government’s powers in any way. If we pass the legislation and subsequently have doubts about whether powers have been extended, will it be possible for the six-month review to look at the legislation, or are we stuck with it once we have it? What are Opposition Front Benchers trying to achieve?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which is important on two fronts. We have tabled new clause 2 to provide a six-month review, which would be some time in December this year or in January next year. It would look at how the Act passed by this House and the other place had operated up to that time, as well as at other factors that the Minister may have examined following the European Court of Justice’s consideration and the lapsing of the current legislation.

We will then be into a general election campaign, and my hon. Friend will know that in the event of our being elected to government, we will look at some of the wider issues as a matter of course. I hope that we can accept the Government’s understanding of the emergency and help them to cover that emergency, while also leaving scope for looking at how the Act operates in practice. If other new clauses are agreed to today, we would also then be able to consider the wider issues about which I know right hon. and hon. Members have concerns.

Bluntly, investigations into online child sex abuse, major investigations into terrorism and into organised crime, the prevention of young people from travelling to Syria and many issues relating to attempted terrorist activity have depended on and will continue to depend on the type of access that we need through the Bill.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the right hon. Gentleman provide some clarification? In the event of a Labour Government —it is very hard to predict what will happen—will he assure us that if the review recommends changes to provide more privacy and civil liberties safeguards, he will want to implement them?

[Mr Hanson]

We are currently discussing the programme motion and the allocation of time, and I am trying to indicate to the House—including the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, Ministers—that we will support the motion, even though we are disappointed that there was not an earlier and more thorough examination of the Bill.

We recognise that, in the interests of fighting terrorism, child abuse and serious organised crime, the Government are seeking powers to meet their current obligations in the light of the judgment in April. On this occasion, the Government will have our support, and we hope that there will be an opportunity later today to consider in detail some of the new clauses that we have tabled.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

David Hanson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I know the clear position that my hon. Friend has enunciated on many occasions in the House. There will be wider debates and discussions on the position of the European Convention and a British bill of rights, with which my hon. Friend is very familiar and which I personally support to ensure that our domestic law is framed properly in the context of convention rights. However, we have reflected carefully on the judgment—the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) described it as dense and complicated—which the Bill reflects on in the nature of the obligations set out therein. We have judged that primary legislation to avoid any uncertainty is appropriate and necessary, given the huge reliance that is placed on communications data and the right to be able lawfully to intercept for the prescribed purposes. I am sure that the wider debate—and the Select Committee that my hon. Friend chairs—is focused on the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over matters that are opted into and the position post-December 2014. We have reflected carefully on the application, scope and enforceability of the Bill and its compliance with relevant legislation of whatever kind, and we are confident that it meets that challenge.

Given that the European Court was considering only the data retention directive and not how member states implemented it, it did not take into account the rigorous controls in place in the UK as part of its judgment. Access to communications data in the UK is stringently regulated and safeguarded by the Regulatory and Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Data are retained on a case-by-case basis and must be authorised by a senior officer, at a rank stipulated by Parliament, from the organisation requesting the data. The authorising officer may approve a request for communications data only if the tests of necessity and proportionality are met in the particular case.

Our system was examined in detail by the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill, and it was satisfied that the current internal authorisation procedure is the right model. However, to ensure that communications data cannot be accessed using information-gathering powers that are not subject to the rigorous safeguards in RIPA, the Bill ensures that data retained under this legislation may be accessed only in accordance with RIPA, a court order or other judicial authorisation or warrant.

Hon. and right hon. Members who followed the discussions surrounding the draft Communications Data Bill will be aware that communications service providers are also able to retain communications data on a voluntary basis under a code of practice made under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. This clause ensures that the regulations made under this Bill can apply the same security safeguards and access restrictions to data retained under that code. I therefore believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I welcome you to the Chair of this important Committee, Sir Roger. I shall not detain the Committee for long because, given that we broadly agree with the Government’s approach on this key issue, the Opposition have not tabled any amendments to clause 1.

As the Minister said, the stated context for the Bill is the continued threat from serious organised crime and potential terrorist activity. Given that the European Court of Justice struck down the regulations because they were neither proportionate nor objective, we have taken the view that we need to look at how to frame legislation that will be proportionate and objective in respect of the retention of data.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I would be interested to know the Opposition’s view on the issue of our laws being trumped by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in the report of the European Scrutiny Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, in the event of a Labour Government, there might be a case for passing legislation to proclaim the supremacy of Parliament so that we can protect ourselves from European legislation?

[Mr Hanson]

I take the view that we are part of the European Union, so we have to respect our obligations within it. I come to this particular piece of legislation, however, on the basis of what will best prevent activities by terrorists, child pornographers, paedophiles or serious organised criminals. Given the actions of the European Court of Justice, we have to examine our obligations as the United Kingdom Parliament and to frame legislation that we believe will have the support of the Government—and, in this particular case, of the Opposition—to ensure that we meet our European obligations but in a way that also meets our obligation to tackle the serious and organised criminals and others who would damage the fabric of our society. I will probably have disappointed the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) with that answer, but I believe it is consistent with our positive approach to Europe and our involvement in the European Community.

I believe that clause 1, which is the main focus of our debate, meets those obligations. It gives the Secretary of State powers to issue a retention notice requiring organisations that have data to hold those data, with which they will have to comply. Strict criteria are set out in subsection (2), which specifies who the operator could be, what the data being retained should be, for what periods the data should be retained, and whether there is different proportionality within different types of data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Let us assume for the sake of argument that all the provisions in subsections (1) and (2) are desirable, although some people will disagree. Surely what is most important from the Opposition’s point of view is to judge whether the provisions will be effective. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants all this because it is a good idea, but if—as is more than likely—the provisions are challenged in the European Court, where will the Opposition stand if the European Court judgment that follows the implementation of the Act eventually overturns the Act itself?

[Mr Hanson]

I think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to say that if we were the Government and the legislation were in force, we would defend it in the European Court, and would put up a case for our arguments. Ultimately, however, we are part of the European Union, and the European Court is considering the impact of legislation of this kind throughout the EU. We must defend our parliamentary procedures, defend the decisions that we make and defend the legislation that we have, and we must argue for our the position in court. Ultimately, however, we must also take on board our European obligations.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I wonder whether, at this point, we are pursuing the personal obsession of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). This is emergency legislation. Surely, if it were struck down, a Labour Government would introduce, in a timely manner, properly considered legislation that would deal with the problem.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. As the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) will observe, further amendments have been tabled, and I hope that the Government will consider them. We cannot discuss them now, but they would ensure that the provisions in clause 1 would be reviewed regularly, and that we would have an opportunity to make representations to the European Court if it chose to mount a challenge. However, let me respectfully say that I think we are being sidetracked into issues that do not concern the Bill as such. I consider that it fulfils an obligation to ensure that we give powers to the police and other authorities to check data and examine the conduct of that data. It establishes a definitive time scale for the holding of the data, and enables us to frame in legislation, in this United Kingdom Parliament, the mechanisms that are required to achieve that through court orders. That is why I support the clause and why the Opposition have tabled no amendments to it.

[Sir William Cash]

The European law on which this legislation is ultimately based is a retention directive. We anticipate there will be replacement regulations, but it does not matter whether the original regulations or replacement regulations are involved. Ultimately, the authority on which this Bill is based, and on which the whole of this general issue is based, is European law and the charter of fundamental rights and principles of European law which apply. As the shadow Minister just said, it so happens we have voluntarily accepted the obligations imposed under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 in respect of compliance with a directive and any further directives that may or may not be made, and we have also voluntarily accepted that the United Kingdom will accept all judgments of the European Court under section 3 of that Act.

It so happens that we are providing in our own domestic legislation for certain safeguards, modifications and changes—based, it would appear, on the fact that we are now discussing a Bill of this Parliament—which interfere with, cross over, interweave with and—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I will make a short contribution in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who I think made some extremely valid points in relation to amendment 1. I believe that the Government should at least look at it favourably and give a positive response covering the issues he raised. He indicated that issues such as defence contracts and national infrastructure are crucial to the United Kingdom’s infrastructure. I simply want to endorse his points.

I have one question for the Minister on clause 3. I think I know what it means, as I think most people do, but it would be helpful if the Minister outlined what he believes the statement

“relevant to the interests of national security”

means in practice. The clause gives the Secretary of State powers

“in circumstances appearing to the Secretary of State to be relevant to the interests of national security”.

An explanation from the Minister would be helpful, because I have received some representations on what it means, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) has made the point that it could be defined very widely. I think that it would help to reassure those outside the House if the Minister could give some clarity today by putting on the record what I think we already know.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for tabling the amendment and giving us an opportunity to look in detail at clause 3 and at the importance of the economic well-being purpose currently retained in RIPA. Let me set out a little more context. Clause 3 translates into primary legislation a constraint—it is intended to be a constraint—on the exercise of this purpose that is already provided for in the codes of practice issued under section 71 of RIPA. It effectively puts those statements into primary legislation. It requires that an interception warrant is only issued, and access to communications data only authorised, for the purposes of economic well-being where there is also an independent national security justification for the authorisation. It is intended to be read in that context. I hope that explanation is helpful as we explore some of the language in the Bill.

Clause 3 does not mean that economic well-being for the purposes of RIPA is synonymous with national security, but the amendment gives us the opportunity to underline the fact that there has to be that connection between the two, which obviously is relevant in determining whether or not the powers under RIPA can be exercised for the statutory purposes. Along with national security and the prevention and detection of serious crime, protecting the UK’s economic well-being is one of the statutory functions of the security and intelligence agencies, which are set out in the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

I understand and recognise the points made by the right hon. Member for Knowsley. I think that this debate has been quite useful in airing some of the cyber-security and cybercrime issues that I know he has raised in the House on a number of occasions. It has also highlighted our reliance on information communications technology, which is now a core part of our national infrastructure. I think that there is read-across into other legislation. I understand that he tabled the amendment on a probing basis, but I think that it requires careful thought.

A definition of economic well-being is reflected in the legislation I have mentioned—RIPA being the key focus for this evening’s debate—but it is also important to acknowledge its context as a well-established principle in law. Its origins lie in the European convention on human rights, which provides for exceptions to article 8—the right to a private and family life—when it is in the interest of the economic well-being of the country. Many aspects, therefore, are wrapped up in the broad context of how the definition has come about and the interpretations of it. Case law may also sit alongside this provision in determining the scope and ambit of the definition, so seeking to clarify it may have unintended consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Clause 5 is a simple but necessary part of the Bill that puts into law an important clarification. Today people communicate using a range of web-based services and applications. As the scale and diversity of these services have grown, there should not be any uncertainty about whether a communications service provider to users in the UK is covered by the definition. RIPA was written in a technologically neutral way to allow for developments in the way in which services are delivered. We believe that web-based services such as web-based e-mail, messaging applications and cloud-based services have always been covered by the nature of the definition. Clause 5 simply clarifies how this definition should be interpreted and makes it clear that these services are covered by the definition of a telecommunications service.

Some have asked whether this is extending the definition in some way. I want to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case. We are not changing the existing definition, which remains absolutely as it stands in RIPA. The Bill clarifies how the current definition should be interpreted, but a clarificatory provision of this kind cannot change or extend the meaning of the definition in RIPA to capture new services. This provision simply makes it explicit that the existing definition includes so-called over-the-top services such as webmail and instant messaging for the purposes of that interception. In many ways, it has been the industry itself that has welcomed this clarification and restatement of the existing legislation, which is why I think it is important to give that clarity to the House and to the industry generally. It does not extend the scope of RIPA; instead, it restates and provides clarification in terms of the existing definition, which remains as it was before.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Commencement, duration, extent and short title

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 6, line 41, at end insert

“and is subject to a reporting requirement as set out in subsection (1A).

(1A) The Commissioner for the Interception of Communications must report on the operation of this Act six months following commencement of this Act, followed by subsequent reports every six months.”

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment 4, page 7, line 1, leave out “5” and insert

“(Half-yearly reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner)”.

Amendment 5, page 7, line 2, leave out “5” and insert

“(Half-yearly reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner)”.

Government amendment 7.

Amendment 2, page 7, line 2, leave out “2016” and insert “2014”.

Clause 6 stand part.

Government new clause 7—Review of investigatory powers and their regulation.

New clause 1—Review of the powers, regulation, proportionality and oversight for communications and interception—

(2) The Secretary of State must arrange—

(a) for the operation and future of the powers, regulation, proportionality and oversight for data retention, access and interception to be reviewed, and

(b) for a report on the outcome of the review to be produced and published.

(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent the review from also dealing with other matters relating to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Intelligence Services Act 1994, oversight of the intelligence agencies and data privacy.

(4) The arrangements made by the Secretary of State must provide for the review to begin as soon as practicable, be carried out by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and include public consultation.

(5) The full terms of reference must be established in consultation with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and relevant Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament.”

New clause 2—Oversight by the Interception of Communications Commissioner—

(1) The Interception of Communications Commissioner must report on the operation of sections 1 to 5 of this Act within six months of this Act coming into force and on six-monthly intervals thereafter.”

New clause 6—Half-yearly reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner—

(1) Section 58 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner) is amended as follows.

(2 In subsection (4) (annual reports) after “calendar year” insert “and after the end of the period of six months beginning with the end of each calendar year”.

(3) In subsection (6) (duty to lay annual reports before Parliament) after “annual report” insert “, and every half-yearly report,”.

(4) In subsection (6A) (duty to send annual reports to the First Minister) after “annual report” insert “, and every half-yearly report,”.

(5) In subsection (7) (power to exclude matter from annual reports) after “annual report” insert “, or half-yearly report,”.”

Amendment 6, in Title, line 7, after “Act;” insert

“to make provision about additional reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner;”.

Government amendment 8.

[Mr Hanson]

This goes to the heart of the key amendments that the Opposition seek to impress on the Government to improve the Bill. The Minister will know that we have supported the Bill to date at Second Reading and in the discussions we have had so far, but we have had, and continue to have, some concerns over the need for two aspects in particular. The first is to ensure that there is in place a mechanism for a review of the role of the Act that may or may not be passed ultimately by this House and by the other place shortly. That review lies with the interception commissioner for communications, who could look at the Act and see whether the intention of the House was being met and whether there were developments or amendments that needed to be brought to the attention of the Government.

You will note, Mr Hood, that several amendments relate to this aspect. My initial amendment 3, which I tabled with my right hon. Friends this morning, would add the following at the end of clause 6:

“The Commissioner for the Interception of Communications must report on the operation of this Act six months following commencement of this Act, followed by subsequent reports every six months.”

That was intended to ensure an element of review to meet some of the genuine concerns raised by hon. Members of all parties. You will also see, Mr Hood, that we tabled new clause 2, which is a variation on the same theme. We did so to ensure parliamentary debate, given that we were not sure at that stage what amending provisions would be selected. The new clause effectively provides for the same activity.

We have helpfully tabled new clause 6, too, which provides for half-yearly reports by the interception of communications commissioner. It is linked to amendment 6 and to amendments 4 and 5, but all have the same purpose in life: they are all designed to ensure that the communications regulator is able to review the Act and has a statutory responsibility to do so, not just in six months’ time, following Royal Assent—given the Government’s timetable, that could be as early as Thursday this week—but formally. That would enable the commissioner to examine some of the concerns raised across the House, including by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson).

There is a menu of options for the Government to look at and for the Minister to comment on. I would be happy if he supported any of those amendments; I have tabled three options for him to examine in detail and to establish whether any of them meet his particular obligations. He has an opportunity to give a commitment to establishing that one or all of them would be appropriate.

The second aspect relates to new clause 1, which I tabled this morning with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. Friends. It would establish a “review of the powers, regulation, proportionality and oversight” and other issues that have been of concern to Members of all parties. Members were troubled about a number of longer-term issues, which need to be resolved before any action by a future Government on the storing of data and proportionality. We wanted to ensure that arrangements would be in place as soon as practicable for a review to be carried out by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson. It should include public consultation, and we need to ensure that the full terms of reference are published in consultation with not just Mr Anderson but the relevant Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament. That means the involvement of, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the Home Affairs Committee and, indeed, that of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and the Intelligence and Security Committee, which could contribute to the discussion.

Since we tabled that new clause this morning, the Government have helpfully examined it and tabled their own new clause 7, which covers many of the long-term issues that I feel are necessary for us to consider. Crucially, it covers areas that my right hon. Friends and I are concerned about, particularly the point that the independent reviewer of terrorism must review the operation and regulation of investigatory powers and take current and future threats into account. We accept that there are current threats and there will be future threats. We need to examine our ability to deal with those threats, and, crucially, to think about how we can safeguard our privacy, given the challenges of new technologies.

I have been in the House for—dare I say it?—22 and a bit years, and when I was first here, we did not even have mobile phones. Now, time and pressure are moving on. I arrived late at Twitter, which I took up after the 2010 election, and I arrived at Facebook even later. There may be other technologies out there which I am not yet aware of.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Instagram?

[Mr Hanson]

My daughters tell me that I should get involved in Instagram, but it is a foreign country to me at the moment.

The point that I am making—perhaps in a jocular way—is that new clause 7 refers to “changing technologies”, which include technologies that we would not have envisaged even a few years ago, and others that may be coming down the line over the next few years. Those are the technologies that the independent reviewer should be considering.

I am warming to new clause 7. It also refers to “proportionality” in relation to

“the effectiveness of existing legislation”,

and requires the independent reviewer to make a case

“for new or amending legislation.”

Helpfully, the new clause requires the independent reviewer to report to the House by 1 May 2015. Mr Hood, I suspect that you and I will be focusing on other matters on that day, given the potential date of the general election, but it is handily placed in that any incoming Government, of whatever colour and composition, would be able to pick up the report. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East. The report would be published by the Prime Minister of the day, it would be possible to ensure that it was open to the public and laid before Parliament, and any new Government could act on it in a way that I hope would be proportionate to whatever Members wanted to happen at that particular time.

Let me say, in summary, that there are two issues that I want the Committee to examine. First, may we have a regular review of this Act? There are many options, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to one of them shortly. If we can agree on that, we shall have taken a major step towards meeting some of the concerns that have been expressed by people outside the House who have contacted us today.

The second issue relates to the longer-term review. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled new clause 1, and the Home Secretary has tabled new clause 7. My warm feeling towards new clause 7 suggests that the Minister could persuade me to support it. All that remains is amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East, which would shorten the life of the Act by changing the welcome sunset clause date of 2016 to 2014. I do not want to say too much at this stage, because my hon. Friend has not yet spoken, but I will make one point that I think deserves consideration and a response from him.

We are engaging in what is admittedly a very speedy procedure, involving a day and a half of debate, and the House of Lords will do the same when it debates the Bill over the next two days. My hon. Friend is proposing that the sunset date should be, effectively, December this year. That means that we would go through this procedure again in December, and in January and February next year, after only a short period during which the new arrangements will have been in place.

I suggest to my hon. Friend that the amendment that we have tabled, in three forms, proposing a formal review by the independent reviewer in December and every six months thereafter, would meet the concerns about the legislation and any flaws and faults that we see in it. I accept that my hon. Friend may not take the same view, but I am making him that offer. I think that there is a mechanism that can enable a report to say, in six months’ time, “This has worked well”, or “This it has worked badly”, and to suggest tweaks that can be made.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 was also subject to a six-monthly review, but it went on for 10 years having six-monthly reviews before eventually being replaced by the Terrorism Act 2000, so that did not actually end the Act at all.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend has done long service in this House and will have been through many debates on that topic, but I say to him again that there is currently a sunset clause in the Bill until 2016. The two amendments and new clauses that I have tabled give a review in December 2014 and a six-monthly review after that on this legislation. If the Government are minded to move new clause 7—they must be as they have tabled it—we will have a wide review of the legislation to report by 1 May 2015. We will have a general election presumably on 7 May 2015 after which a new Government can look at the review new clause 7 will bring forward, and they will have the benefit of an independent review, if any or all of the relevant amendments are approved by the Government today, after six months of the operation of this legislation. Both of those give an opportunity in nine months’ time for any new Government to review the whole gamut of this legislation and the operation of this Act should the Bill be passed in both Houses of Parliament shortly.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East that the effective impact of his amendment 2 would be to bring the sunset clause forward to December of this year, but that would not give sufficient opportunity for us to consider the impact of this legislation or the implications of the very difficult issues the Government face. Although he may not heed me, despite the fact that we went to the same university and have known each other for a long time, I urge him—[Interruption.] I am just trying my best on this. I urge him at least to consider whether the two measures we have brought forward would meet his objections. At least he can say I have tried, if nothing else!

[Mr Watson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, and to take part in this debate and speak to amendment 2, which has been tabled by about 25 MPs across the House, representing seven different parties.

We have been told that there is a legal emergency and this Bill needs to be passed through both Houses of Parliament in three days. This huge Government steamroller has revved up the engine and driven into town with my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) in the back seat and Liberal Democrat Members in the passenger seat, and we have been told we have very little choice. It has been hard to have time to consider this Bill, to pass amendments and to have proper debate and scrutiny, yet a curious thing will happen when this Bill is finally steamrollered through on Thursday or Friday, which is that the Government will take out the keys of the steamroller and say, “Relax, this legal emergency will only last for two and a half years.” That seems peculiar to me.

A little earlier the shadow Minister, who went to the same university as me, but many years before—I will not share the rumours about him that were passed down for many years—said he was new to social media and that his metadata footprint was smaller than those of many other citizens in this country, but many people are deeply concerned about their data being held in this way and they are following this debate. What they might not know is that if we do not complete this debate by 9 pm, even on the timetable we have, the amendments we are discussing now will fall, so I cannot speak for too long without jeopardising an amendment that has been supported by MPs representing seven different parties and a significant minority in this House.

What our amendment does is say to the Government: “Okay, we’ve not seen what you’ve seen; we will compromise with you. We will let you say you have a legal emergency and give you these powers for the summer.” That would allow the time for proper debate and scrutiny in the normal way that this House debates legislation. Earlier my good and hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a powerful case for why we have the systems we do in this House—proper Bill Committees that can scrutinise, pre-legislative scrutiny, Select Committee scrutiny, Second Reading followed by a period in which people can reflect on the debate, a decent time for people to table amendments, Third Reading, and the like. A six-month sunset clause would allow for that.

A six-month sunset clause might also allow for a little bit of research to be done over the summer and for civic society to engage in a public debate. The shadow Home Secretary declared that this was the start of a debate in the country about the lines that could be drawn between privacy and liberty, and security. For me, six months is a long time for us to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

We are going back over ground addressed on Second Reading and in the programme motion debate, but it is worth restating the fact that the Bill does not extend powers that this House has already granted through RIPA. It effectively restates what is already existing law. The legislation does not, therefore, seek to create something new, but simply restates what is already being operated, giving it clear legal underpinning in the context of the ECJ decision and the pressures from industry and others in terms of challenge.

On the need to act now, I say again that no Government embark on emergency legislation lightly. No Government seek to use fast-track legislation unless they judge that it is necessary. Our real concerns are that we have reached a tipping point regarding co-operation on lawful intercept and the risk that our essential powers on communications data, which are used day in, day out by law enforcement and the security agencies that protect this country, will simply not be available. That could occur at any time between now and the long-stop date that the right hon. Gentleman and others are suggesting in relation to December 2014. That is why the Government have judged that emergency legislation is appropriate and why we think it necessary to have a review: to ensure that this House is properly informed of all the issues to legislate carefully in a sensible way by no later than 31 December 2016, when this legislation would cease to have affect.

These are complicated matters. We need to act swiftly to deal with the particular challenge we face and to avoid the damaging loss of capability that confronts us. However, I do believe a longer-term considered approach is appropriate, hence the reason for having the review and for providing assurance in relation to the commissioner for the interception of communications and his reports on operation. There are already a number of reviews in the system. The Intelligence and Security Committee is conducting an inquiry, as is the Royal United Services Institute.

There is also the further review, which is to be led by David Anderson, of the communications data and interception powers we need, and how they are regulated in the light of the threats we face. As I have indicated, the Bill will set this out in legislation in terms, but he needs to be given some time to conduct this work. New clause 7 asks him to complete his work by 1 May 2015. That being so, I can see no point in requiring Parliament to return to these issues almost as soon as we return from the summer recess, without the benefit of the work we have set in train. Any such legislation would also inevitably require an accelerated timetable. Rather, we believe that Parliament needs to consider these issues properly after the election, drawing on the outcome of the reviews that are in train and with the ability to consider everything at a normal parliamentary pace. Accordingly, I invite the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) to withdraw amendment 2, so that we can have this process recognising the needs now and recognising the need for further review and for the House to return to these matters in the light of that informed basis.

[Mr Hanson]

We have had a useful debate on the amendments. The Opposition had two objectives in tabling our amendments and new clauses today: first, to secure a review of this Act, if passed by this House and by the House of Lords, within six months and then every six months following that; and secondly, to put it on the record that we need to have a wider examination of the whole of the intercept evidence-data collection issue. I think we have had a meeting of minds on that issue. With that in mind, I am happy to withdraw amendment 3 and to support new clause 6, and to ask the Government to accept that as they have indicated they will. We will then support Government new clause 7, which meets our objectives. There are other consequential amendments but, for clarity, that is my objective. It would be helpful, given what the Minister said, if we proceeded on that basis.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 4, page 7, line 1, leave out “5” and insert

“(Half-yearly reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner)”. —(Mr Hanson.)

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

I call the Minister to move amendment 7 formally.

The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs

David Hanson Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

For 30 of the past 35 minutes, the Home Secretary had me on board. It was only in the last five minutes that she lost me. It was almost a first. I appreciate that we have a meeting of minds on several issues. I was probably more in tune with her than she is with some of her own right hon. and hon. Friends—an unusual situation in which to find myself.

I thank the Home Secretary for her contribution, on which there is a large element of agreement with the Opposition. I also thank the three Select Committee Chairs, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) for their contributions to the discussions on these key matters.

We have been here before and I suspect, given what the Home Secretary said, that we will be here again before the end of the year. I can see from the contributions from her own side, in particular from Government Members here today who perhaps have a greater level of euroscepticism than I do, that there was not a universal welcome for her statement. There will not be a universal welcome for her projected policy positions later this year, but I want to be positive if I can and support the Home Secretary’s objectives.

The motion today is that this House has considered, not decided on, the opt-outs. My first point is one the Home Secretary touched on, but we would welcome clarification. It goes back to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood): when will there be a final package on these measures and when will we be able to not just debate but vote on them? December is looming and I would like at some point to have an indication, from the Home Secretary or the Justice Secretary, of when we can expect to have a vote. At the moment, there is no clarity on when that final vote will be.

[Keith Vaz]

Will my Opposition Front Bench colleagues support a separate vote on the European arrest warrant? It caused the Home Affairs Committee a great deal of concern.

[Mr Hanson]

I am relaxed on that, but I do want the European arrest warrant put in place. We have had some safeguards, but I will outline in due course why I want to see it put in place. It would be helpful to have clarity on when the discussions will be concluded and can be voted on. I appreciate that the Home Secretary has some difficulties, but it would be helpful to the House, for the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend, to have an indication on when we can expect to have a complete package to vote on.

[Mr Redwood]

How will the right hon. Gentleman feel on 15 June next year, when some of us will commemorate Magna Carta’s 800th birthday and he will have been party to giving away a very big, fundamental principle under that charter of English law and English jurisdiction to a foreign power we cannot control?

[Mr Hanson]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that, as a Welsh Member of Parliament, I take a great interest in such matters. I will look at this from the perspective that I think the Home Secretary is looking at it from, which is: what is in the interests of reducing organised crime, child trafficking, prostitution, drug running and terrorist activities, and ensuring that we prevent future victims and have the best possible protections in place for the United Kingdom across Europe following negotiations?

[Michael Connarty]

My right hon. Friend has not dealt with the terrible accusation, which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has just made, that the EU is a foreign power. We are one of the 30 countries that control the EU. It is part of what we are. Idle talk of it as a “foreign power” shows where the right hon. Gentleman is. He should be in the United Kingdom Independence party, not the Tory party.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that nuance in the intervention by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. I regard myself as a European and British citizen and part of—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I don’t.

[Mr Hanson]

I appreciate that others take a different view, but that is my view.

I welcome today’s debate because I believe—again, I think the Home Secretary shares this belief—that crime and criminals do not respect national borders. Technology has moved on in the last 15 to 20 years, which means that a range of issues need to be addressed not just within the boundaries of the United Kingdom, but across Europe as a whole. Free movement and new forms of criminal activity, such as cybercrime, require collective action across Europe.

[Sir William Cash]

In this very interesting exchange between those on the Front Benches, who seem to be largely in agreement, let me ask the same question that I asked the Home Secretary. Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain to me and the House why we have an arrangement with the European Union on this basis and not one to deal with other murderers, traffickers and the rest of it in the rest of the world? Can he explain what is so special about the European Union in this context?

[Mr Hanson]

As I think the Home Secretary also indicated in our little tête-à-tête of agreement, there is a wider world outside Europe, but we have strong ties with Europe. We have free movement in Europe on a range of matters. We do not have free movement from outside the European Community, so there are issues that we should ensure we deal with within the European Community.

[Philip Davies]

We appear to be reaching an extraordinary position, in that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating the free movement of people all around the EU, so that criminals can come and go as they please, but then we need these ridiculous measures to try to deal with that. Why do we not just take a more simplistic approach and scrap the free movement of people? Then perhaps we would not need all these ridiculous measures in the first place.

[Mr Hanson]

Again, I think the hon. Gentleman perhaps has more in common with other parties than his own on that issue. Some of the changes that have taken place—in technology, free movement, cybercrime, new forms of crime, child prostitution, trafficking and drugs—demand a Europe-wide solution, and I think the Home Secretary has accepted that. They are international crimes that know no borders and they need international solutions. Each crime is creating new victims. I believe it is the duty of this House to ensure that we work with our European partners to reduce that crime, bringing criminals to justice and, yes, co-operating to do so.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, therefore, what exactly the organisation called Interpol does, which is supposed to be worldwide?

[Mr Hanson]

As the former Minister for policing and counter-terrorism in the last Government, I could spend the next 25 minutes giving the hon. Gentleman a whole lecture about what Interpol does. The key issue is that there is a range of measures. I believe that if he went back to south London this evening and asked his constituents whether they wanted effective co-operation to tackle drug abuse, child trafficking, prostitution and international terrorism, the answer would be a resounding yes. It is something the Home Secretary believes is right; it is something we believe is right.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

May I make the same point to the right hon. Gentleman that I made to the Home Secretary? The figure is only on average 125 people a year. He is making it sound as if the whole country will disappear down a crevasse if we do not have the European arrest warrant, but if 125 people are slightly more difficult to bring back, the world will still go round.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about a small level of crimes, but they include crimes that could destroy the centre of London and crimes that involve the murder or death of individuals, along with child trafficking, prostitution and drug abuse. They might be a small number in the overall gamut of crimes in the United Kingdom, but if they require international co-operation to bring people back to justice, prevent those crimes in the first place and ensure that we collect individuals and bring them back here, that is something worth considering.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is a great guy, but I do not think he has got his figures right. According to evidence submitted by the Association of Chief Police Officers to the House of Lords European Union Select Committee,

“In 2010/11 the UK received 5,382 EAW requests and made 221 EAW requests to other EU states. The UK surrendered 1,149 individuals (approximately 7% of which were UK nationals, the other 93% being fugitives to the UK).The UK had 93 people surrendered to it.”

Therefore, we actually surrendered a large number of people who were not UK nationals. Someone who is a criminal somewhere else is likely to be a criminal here. Does that not demonstrate that the European arrest warrant actually works perfectly well in getting rid of some very dangerous people from this country?

[Mr Hanson]

May I just say happy birthday to the right hon. Gentleman? I am an avid reader of The Guardian in the morning and his birthday appeared in that. His contribution supports my argument and that of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so it is a valid point, well made.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The figure given to the European Scrutiny Committee was 507 whom the UK asked for between 2009 and 2013. I am interested in when it benefits the United Kingdom, not when it benefits the continent.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman should reflect on what he has just said. The removal from the United Kingdom of an individual who has committed a heinous crime in this country to their own country for conviction, sentencing and incarceration benefits the United Kingdom. Equally, if an individual commits a crime abroad that requires them to be brought back to justice here—or if they commit a crime here and flee abroad, as the Home Secretary said—and they are then brought back here, that is beneficial to victims and to justice.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I am trying to make some progress, but of course I will give way.

[Mr Redwood]

We entirely agree that it is often in the UK’s interest to do that, and that is exactly why we would rapidly introduce a piece of legislation in this House allowing sensible arrangements to get rid of nasty people.

[Mr Hanson]

I want to focus on some key issues that, again, the Home Secretary mentioned. Which rational hon. or right hon. Member of this House would not want a prisoner transfer agreement between European nations? Which rational person in this House would want to have trials in absentia because of the lack of an agreement? Which rational person would not want the joint operation teams, which the Home Secretary mentioned, to bring criminals to justice? Which right hon. or hon. Member would not want supervision orders across EU borders? Which right hon. or hon. Member would not want the collection of fines across Europe, Eurojust tackling serious organised crime or, indeed, the arrest warrant to bring criminals back to justice?

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It would be better if we conducted this debate on the basis that we are all in favour of those things. It is the means of achieving them that we are discussing. The idea that, because an hon. Member is against the European arrest warrant, he is against all those things is insulting and stupid.

[Mr Hanson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but what those effective means are is a fair debate to have. I believe, as I think his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does, that those things are best done through European co-operation. Indeed, the European arrest warrant has been of interest today, so let me quote from a statement made last year:

“Since 2009 alone, the arrest warrant has been used to extradite from the UK 57 suspects for child sex offences, 86 for rape and 105 for murder…63 suspects for child sex offences, 27 for rape and 44 for murder were extradited back to Britain to face charges. A number of these suspects would probably have not been extradited back to Britain without the arrest warrant. We owe it to their victims, and to their loved ones, to bring these people to justice.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 178.]

That was the Home Secretary, speaking last year. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, irrespective of his views, those individuals were brought back by that arrest warrant. The alternative suggestion, made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, is one where we negotiate X number of individual arrest warrants—

[Mr Redwood]

One.

[Mr Hanson]

I happen to think—it is a matter of debate and it will develop during the afternoon—that this is a far better way of dealing with the problem than we have now.

Today’s debate is one in a series. We have waited and waited; we have had debates and debates; the bus arrives, with not one, but two or three coming at once; yet the Home Secretary has not yet brought the final measures before the House. To be honest, I think that the right hon. Lady would rather be at the dentist having her teeth pulled than be here having the discussion she is having with her right hon. and hon. Friends. She has been brought to this debate by the three Select Committees, which are eventually getting the Home Secretary’s capitulation to common sense and Europe-wide justice and co-operation. It has, I think, hit the right hon. Lady, after looking at the matter in detail, that it is rather useful for our police to have access to criminal records or driving offences for when European lorry drivers tear up the M1 or the M6.

The truth is that the Home Secretary’s opt-out strategy ultimately becomes an opt-in strategy. The measure of the complexity of the negotiations is indicated by the fact that she is now acting in the interests of Britain rather than in the interests of Conservative Back Benchers and the Eurosceptic Members here today. She has promised to garner favour with the Tory right, but she is ultimately opting into measures that we support because she now understands that the police want European co-operation and that criminals are not Eurosceptics. She understands that our ability to bring them to book and to get justice for their victims should not be compromised.

The issue of the transfer of powers is interesting. The right hon. Lady has said what she is opting into, but she has not said what she is opting out of. These are not really significant matters. She has looked at opting out of issues such as signing joint proceedings on driving licences that are not in force and are out of date. We are not signing up to a directive on international organised crime that was closed down two years ago. We are not signing up to guidelines on working with other countries on drug trafficking, but we will carry on doing that anyway. We are not going to sign up to measures on cybercrime or mutual legal assistance because they have been superseded by other measures to which we signed up instead. We are not signing up to minimum standards on bribery because we are meeting them under our own Bribery Act 2010. We are not signing up to measures to tackle racism because we meet them under hate crime legislation that is in place. We are not signing up to measures on accession because they never applied to us in the first place, and we are not signing up to receive a directory of specialist counter-terrorism officers because someone will probably send it to us in the post instead.

The measures that the Home Secretary is signing up to are sensible ones, whereas the ones she is not signing up to are either from the past, superseded, not relevant or not appropriate for us. The right hon. Lady has posed as the great Eurosceptic champion of the Conservative Government when what she has done is to sign up to things that I would sign up to, which many of her hon. Friends would not sign up to. The things that she has not signed up to are things that are, as I say, not relevant, not appropriate and not needed now.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the Home Secretary and the Home Office have spent hours, days and months working to ensure that the many concerns people had about the European arrest warrant have now been addressed in UK law?

[Mr Hanson]

They have indeed spent many hours, days and months, and I have spent many hours, days and months in Committee dealing with those matters, too. We did not oppose what the Home Secretary brought forward; we supported it. There was no difference between us and the Home Secretary on those matters. It could have made a difference—and, dare I say it, it could make a difference now—if the Home Secretary had brought forward several months ago the measures she has just brought forward now. She could have had an in-principle discussion—

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

We did.

[Mr Hanson]

The Justice Secretary says that they did, but he needs to reflect more on the record. The Home Secretary has tried to indicate that some of these matters might be up for discussion, but ultimately, as she knows, they are in the interests of crime fighting, the interests of victim prevention and the interests of ensuring that we bring criminals to justice.

[Michael Connarty]

I think that my right hon. Friend is being kind to the Opposition and, probably correctly, to the Home Secretary, who has worked hard on this issue. The Justice Secretary, however, defended the position previously. They will accept minimum standards on organised crime, but they will not accept minimum standards on terrorism. It is totally illogical. The Justice Secretary has forgotten about that. I raised the issue on the Floor of the House previously and the right hon. Gentleman could not reply then and he cannot reply now.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend raises important issues, but my chief point to the Home Secretary is that she could have indicated her commitment to opting in to these issues more strongly and earlier, which would have put her in a much better place in the negotiations. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady says she did, but I do not think she did. We will have to disagree and reflect on the issues again. The Home Secretary has tried to be Eurosceptic and to compromise with her Eurosceptic Back Benchers, but they will never compromise on these issues. She needs to take a firm stance to ensure that the House has a vote and agrees these measures because they are good for crime prevention, good for victims and good for bringing people to justice. She needs to bring the vote forward as quickly as possible so that we can shake off the Eurosceptics and show that we in Britain are committed to working with our European partners to crack down on crime and ensure that both Britain and Europe become safer places.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Hanson Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

It is worth recognising that many people working in the Passport Office are going the extra mile to see that people are receiving their passports in time for travel. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to highlight the exceptional work that is being undertaken in passport offices.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

On 8 June, the number of passports classed as “work in progress” stood at 493,289. Figures I have obtained show that two weeks after the emergency measures were brought in by the Government, on 22 June, the figure stood at 537,663. Will the Minister update the House on whether the “work in progress” figure is less than when he introduced the initial emergency measures?

[James Brokenshire]

This is an exceptional period of demand. To put this into context, the Passport Office would usually handle about 5.5 million applications per year, and this year it has received about 4 million applications already. That gives some context to the work that is involved. “Work in progress” figures will run into hundreds of thousands because of the output that the Passport Office is delivering—about 170,000 a week. That gives a sense of the scale of the work that is involved. Yes, there are pressures there, but the Passport Office is responding to the challenge.

Migration Statistics

David Hanson Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Walker. In fact, it is such a pleasure that it will take several months for me to lose the image of “Chairman Walker”, which the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) put in my mind. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), his Committee and the work it has done. We came into the House on the same day—9 April 1992—and I cannot recall many occasions when we have agreed on every issue, but I say, with genuine openness and the hand of friendship, that the report is excellent. It puts a number of issues on the agenda and suggests policy areas that we should look at and seriously consider adopting. I cannot find much that I disagree with in his tone or policy or the tenor in which he began the debate.

I disagree with one or two of the comments made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on the previous Government’s record. We have had discussions on that before. There has been unanimity across the House today on the importance of integrity in statistics and of understanding who is coming to the country, who is leaving, why they are here and what procedures we undertake. It is important that we ensure for the public we serve that there is reliability, trust and confidence in those statistics. Today’s debate is important and welcome, because the Public Administration Committee’s report on how we calculate migration statistics has raised serious questions on the statistics’ reliability, robustness and usefulness. The report raises a number of extremely serious questions on a range of issues, which the Government need to focus on.

If there is one area that I want to press the Minister on, it is that the Government’s response to the report was disappointing in addressing some of the serious issues raised by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex and his Committee. There has been unanimity from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for Windsor, and other Members who have intervened, which shows that there is genuine support for bringing forward the proposals. The report and the response from the UK Statistics Authority have made categorically clear the words of Andrew Dilnot, the chair of UKSA, who said that

“these statistical sources are currently not fully meeting all the different needs of the users of these statistics.”

It is important that we know who comes to the United Kingdom, who leaves, when they leave and, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Windsor gave, why they are here. We all have experience of discussing immigration and, as he said, there are many types of immigration, whether for business, education, tourism or asylum. The more information we have and the greater our depth of knowledge, the better our response will be, whatever our political view on these issues.

If I look at the Committee’s recommendations, I can find, without repeating too much of what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, little with which I disagree. Recommendation 1 states that,

“the International Passenger Survey is inadequate for measuring, managing and understanding the levels of migration that are now typical in the UK.”

I agree. Recommendation 2 states that,

“e-Borders data has the potential to provide better headline estimates of immigration, emigration and net migration”.

I agree. The report states:

“Data held by other countries on migration to and from the UK could help improve the depth and quality of UK migration statistics.”

I agree. Paragraph 6 of the report states:

“If the International Passenger Survey is not an adequate source for this information, and no other sources are available, new sources of migration statistics are needed”.

I agree. Where it says that we should look at building on the principle, if not the current practice, of the e-Borders system, I agree.

Finally, on the public’s understanding of statistics, it is important, for the reasons stated by the hon. Member for Windsor, that we get clarity and a full and accurate picture of migration to and from the UK. The different types of immigration have different impacts and it is important that we have information at hand. In other words, the report is helpful in showing that whatever we have now, which is partly due to the legacy of the previous Government and previous Governments before them and partly due to what has happened under this Government’s watch, is not fit for purpose, and that we need to consider the Committee’s recommendations.

I want to focus on the e-Borders project, because work needs to be done and there is potential for the project to be developed to ensure that we get the necessary information to meet the objectives that all hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned. Earlier this year, I was fortunate enough to travel to America to visit relatives. Before we travelled, I had to fill in an online ESTA—electronic system for travel authorisation—form for my whole family in order to provide our details to the US Government. It took me no more than 15 minutes to fill in the details for five members of my family. When we went to America, the details were checked and agreed and we were in. When we left, they were checked and agreed and we were out. It is a simple concept, which any Government should consider putting in place.

Although the previous Government tried to implement the e-Borders project, the coalition agreement also makes reference to such a scheme. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex made some play about difficulties with coalition partners, but page 21 of the coalition agreement states:

“We support E-borders and will reintroduce exit checks.”

We have only about nine months for an agreement to be made in order for that objective to be achieved. The Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), said on the “Today” programme on 11 April 2012 that,

“with our e-Borders system, we are very close to 100% coverage of flights coming from outside the EU, so we know who everyone is before they get on the plane, which is a much more effective way of exporting the border if you like.”

After four years in office and after spending £185 million, however, the head of UK Border Force, Sir Charles Montgomery, announced to the Home Affairs Committee in March that the scheme had been cancelled. The Minister is shaking his head, but we need clarity and the Minister has the opportunity to provide it. There has been no statement to the House or explanation. There has been no guidance or indication of whether that £185 million of taxpayers’ money is still investable in relation to the objectives of the Public Administration Committee.

[Adam Afriyie]

The right hon. Gentleman is making one or two political points, but will he clarify whether the Labour party is happy that it abolished universal exit and entry border controls in 1998, pretty much as it came into power? That seems to be the root cause of most of the challenges that the coalition Government are trying, somewhat belatedly, to repair today.

[Mr Hanson]

I anticipated that question and looked at the matter prior to today’s debate. The Library of the House of Commons, which the hon. Gentleman will agree is independent and provides impartial advice, informed me that exit checks were abolished by the Conservative Government in 1994. A Library briefing paper states:

“Paper-based embarkation (‘exit’) controls for passengers departing from the UK were ended in two stages. Checks on persons travelling from sea ports and small airports to the EU (which covered 40 per cent of departing passengers) were abolished in 1994. The remaining checks were abolished in 1998.”

The Labour Government, having been in government for three years, decided in 2000 to reintroduce checks, which is why we began the e-Borders programme.

The e-Borders project still has some issues outstanding, including, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, the dispute with Raytheon. I have tabled parliamentary questions to the Minister, asking him when the dispute might be resolved, what the terms of any final resolution will be and when he intends to bring the matter back to the House, all of which is integral to the objectives suggested by the Public Administration Committee’s report. We need political consensus to ensure that over the next three or four years, whoever the next Government are, a system of exit checks is put in place that meets the objectives desired by every Member who has spoken today.

[Mark Reckless]

Does the shadow Minister share my concern that an implication of contracts providing for arbitration rather than litigation in the event of a dispute is that that arbitration takes place in secret?

[Mr Hanson]

I take two points from major computing contracts. First, there is a lack of public scrutiny and transparency about the methods, the drawing up of contracts and the terms and conditions. It would be helpful if Parliament and the public could have that scrutiny. I would like agreed final contracts to be made public and open to scrutiny and benchmarking and testing by the public. Secondly—this is not meant to be critical of anyone in particular—I was fortunate to be a Minister for 12 years and I often got involved in a major computing contract after it had been agreed by somebody else or at the end of a review and found that Governments are good at policy, but not at delivery. Benchmarking, the methods of control over major contracts and whether or not the expertise is there to implement major contracts are issues that we need to consider in detail.

[Mr Jenkin]

Just as an aside, if the implementation is no good, that means that the policy was no good, because there is no point in one without the other.

We are of course outside the Schengen area, so exit and entry checks mean nothing unless we can check people coming across our borders from other European Union countries within the Schengen area. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that his party’s policy is that we should be able to check any passenger coming in or out of the UK from or to another EU country regardless of the free movement provisions, and that we should be able to ask them who they are, why they are coming here, where they are going to, and all the other questions that we would ask any other person coming in or out of our country?

[Mr Hanson]

I will give the hon. Gentleman a simple answer: yes. It is extremely important that we can make such checks. I support the principle of free movement, which involves a range of issues, but it is still important, as we are outside and will remain outside of the Schengen area, that we are able to control our borders.

Given the comments of the director general of UK Border Force in March to the Home Affairs Committee, we need clarity on the status of the e-Borders project. The Minister shakes his head again, but we need clarity on the programme’s trajectory and we need to know when he expects to achieve 100% coverage, and the total cost. He also needs to provide information about progress in the contract discussions with Raytheon. If the Government are to stick to a net migration target, they need to know the issues arising from migration in and out of the United Kingdom. Without up-to-date information, as outlined by the Public Administration Committee, they will not be able to keep their promise on net migration.

Getting the figures right is also important because, as everyone who has spoken today has said, the integrity of the figures and our trust and confidence in them are what will give us permission to debate this issue in a positive way in the run-up to the election. The issue of immigration has an element of toxicity to it—it is difficult to debate, and there are a range of political opinions about it. Our debate will be much better informed if in future we have clarity about which people are coming to the United Kingdom, how, where and when they are doing so, the basis upon which they are here and, crucially, when they leave.

That is my final point: as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, we still do not know how many people are overstaying their visas, where they are and what the position is on being able to remove them. That undermines the integrity of our immigration system. I want to see that integrity in the system, with basic information collected in a meaningful way. Dare I say it, we have the opportunity to get political consensus on doing that, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I will come to exit checks. The way in which advance passenger information data can be used to supplement and for support is important and I will address that directly. I highlight the fact that there are other sources of data. My hon. Friend may be aware of the workforce data survey and the use of the statistics for national insurance registrations. The IPS itself highlights and provides data in its reports and analysis in respect of different countries and provides separate analyses of where those flows come from, such as net migration from outside and from within the EU, and it produces the graphs that my hon. Friend has no doubt seen, tracking those back over 30 years. It gives a sense of long-term trends; it is important to understand where there may be growth in particular areas and what that might mean in terms of informing policy.

It is important to recognise some of the excellent and innovative research and analysis that has increased our knowledge of migration—for example, the migrant journey reports, the report on the social and public service impact of migration, and the recent report on labour market changes. All that work is critical in helping us to understand and appreciate the impact of migration on our country.

I highlighted the 2011 census, which provides extremely valuable data that has captured a much broader range of information on migrants than any census previously. The new census questions on the passports that people hold and the length of time they have lived in the UK recognise the strong public concerns about immigration. We welcome that new statistical resource, which will go some way to meeting the Committee’s recommendation, but I will come to further refinements.

The Home Office has commissioned additional data to inform our understanding, such as a new question on emigration in the international passenger survey, the first results from which are now in the public domain, and a new question for the labour force survey on why foreign respondents had originally come to the UK. The breadth and depth of that work reinforces the fact that no single data source can provide a comprehensive picture of migration. That is why I also welcome the work in the UK statistical system to develop and enhance the range of sources, which together mean that we have a picture of migration that I believe is as good as that available to any other country across the globe.

I noted what the shadow Minister said about filling out the ESTA form and how that might be used. It is interesting to note that the US uses population surveys, not the ESTA system, to measure migration. It is important to recognise the interrelationship between the two, and that in some respects the information from e-Borders may help to supplement, but not replace, other information.

[Mr Hanson]

The point I was making about the ESTA system was that—unlike, potentially, our visa system—the Americans would know when and whether I had left the country.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman draws me on to the e-Borders system and its programme. We hear the point that the Committee has made in respect of that. While valuable, the border systems data are, in our judgment, not the right way to measure immigration flows, for which we believe that well-designed surveys are more appropriate. The data do not capture passengers’ onward travel plans or duration of stay, so they could not be directly used to measure long-term international migration. Rather, they are designed to alert us to passengers of interest leaving and entering the country, so that we can strengthen security and immigration controls. They allow law enforcement partners to target and monitor those seeking to travel to and from the UK who might harm this country’s interests—the point my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor highlighted. They are an extremely valuable tool; indeed, since 2010 our border systems have issued alerts resulting in more than 13,300 arrests, including 60 for murder, 59 for kidnap and 167 for rape.

I therefore understand why the Committee took the view that border systems data might entirely replace the IPS. However, that is at odds with the statistical advice we have received and the evidence that academic experts provided to the Committee. None the less, it is important to see how the information can be used to interpret what is happening. That is why it is important to share Semaphore data with the ONS, so that the ONS can carry out further analysis.

I want to come back on some of the points made about exit checks. The Home Office is on track to meet by April 2015 the commitment to introduce exit checks on those who leave the UK via scheduled international air, sea and rail services. Exit check capability will be founded on advance passenger information, supplemented by embarkation checks at ports, where necessary. That will further bolster border security.

Exit checks will also identify individuals who are wanted by the police, who pose security, immigration or customs threats, or who fail to comply with the conditions of their visas. It is important that checks are used in that way. We have introduced a power in the Immigration Act 2014 to enable those already involved in outbound passenger processes—for example, the staff of airlines, other carriers and port operators, as well as others—to integrate embarkation checks with existing processes where necessary. There is also a power to compel them to do so, if necessary.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Minister say what the position is on non-scheduled traffic—in particular, private flights and through small airfields and small ports? I have tested him on those issues in parliamentary questions and have had no reply as yet, although that is for reasons of national security, which I understand.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Border Force, which is led by Sir Charles Montgomery, takes the issue of small airfields and the maritime arena very seriously. Indeed, those flying in or out of airfields must provide various reports, and that is monitored to ensure there is a focus on border security. We are focused on all those issues, and Border Force is attentive to those arrangements, as well as to broader approaches and the advance passenger information provided in respect of existing scheduled airlines and other forms of transport.

I want to come back to some of the accusations the right hon. Gentleman made, which may be founded on a reading of press reports following the appearance of the director general of Border Force at the Home Affairs Committee in March 2014. Sir Charles Montgomery wrote to the Committee to explain that the reporting in the media was “factually incorrect”. He said that the work of the e-Borders programme

“has been incorporated within the…Border Systems Programme”.

None of this work has been suspended; indeed the pace of development has quickened. The Home Office remains committed to delivering exit checks by 2015. It was never the intention of the e-Borders programme, as now incorporated in the border systems programme, to deliver a direct measure of net migration.

As a Government, we must decide what is feasible, taking account of expert evidence. The reasons why we will not be able to rely on the border systems data to measure international migration were set out in the UK Statistics Authority and Government responses to the Public Administration Committee’s report. I will not repeat all those points here, but we hold detailed information on those passengers required to apply for a visa. However, Home Office systems do not require information from those travelling from other EU countries. There is, therefore, a limit to what visa data provide.

Borders system data collect information on an individual’s travel documents, so one might imagine that one could track travel movements over time to identify the proportion of migrants. However, Professor Salt, who provided expert witness evidence to the Committee, alluded to the fact that this is not a simple matter. Difficulties associated with dual nationality, lost and renewed passports and changes of name preclude the possibility of producing statistically reliable estimates of migration flows. That means the data do not meet the very fine tolerances that would be required for a reliable statistical estimation of migration.

As I mentioned, that does not mean that data cannot be used to identify individuals of interest for valuable operational purposes. The ONS also believes there are significant benefits in using the border systems data, which will help to improve IPS weighting methodology and the identification of the main flows into and out of the UK. That will significantly enhance the degree to which we can rely on the IPS, but it does not imply that we can replace the IPS completely.

The new exit checks system, which will be introduced by April next year, will give us, for the first time, a more complete picture of those leaving the UK. The system will improve our ability to take appropriate enforcement action against those who have potentially overstayed or are abusing the UK’s health and welfare systems. However, it will not, on its own, provide a replacement for the comprehensive estimates of the number of migrants arriving in and leaving the country.

That said, the Government acknowledge the importance of the debate. That is why we will keep under review the arrangements for collecting statistics in this vital policy area. Only by ensuring that policy making and public debate are as well informed as possible can we continue to build on the successes we have already achieved. I very much welcome the contribution the Committee has made. I also welcome the contributions that right hon. and hon. Members have made this afternoon. We will keep the issue under close focus, given the importance of reliable statistics and the faith and trust that the public put in them. That will inform the important debate on immigration into this country, as well as Government policy on this essential issue.

Student Visas

David Hanson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in giving me advance notice of the statement, which is an astounding statement of systematic abuse on this Government’s watch. They said, no more bogus colleges; instead, we now have the major abuse of bogus certificates again being issued. As the Minister said, in February 2014 the Home Office announced that it had acted by suspending language tests run by ETS following an investigation by “Panorama”. The scale of the abuse—involving a minimum of some 48,000 students —is truly shocking and leaves open the question why it took the BBC, rather than the Minister’s own Department, to find the problem. Did the Minister or the Home Office know of this problem prior to the BBC reporting it, if not why not, and what checks did the Minister or his Department undertake?

It is clearly an abuse for language tests set by ETS to be taken by fake sitters, one that damages the integrity of the whole system. It is clearly right that the Minister has, finally, taken action today, and that criminal investigations are being pursued. Controlled migration and tackling bogus colleges are vital in protecting UK borders and stopping this exploitation. Indeed, that is why the previous Labour Government closed 140 colleges between April 2009 and January 2010.

However, my constituents and those of other Members will be outraged, and rightly so, by the news today that 48,000 people have fraudulently obtained language certificates, despite being unable to speak English, on this Government’s watch. There are a number of unanswered questions the Minister has not touched on that need further explanation. How many of these students are still in the United Kingdom? Does the Minister know where these 48,000 students are? Does he have addresses for them, and will he co-operate with the university sector and other sectors to ensure that we know where these individuals are, and take action? What steps is he taking to meet universities and colleges such as Glyndwr university, close to my own patch, to ensure that we rectify this problem as a matter of urgency?

Let us be clear: this Government’s failings are of their own making. They have been in office for four years. This is a scheme they established themselves, and this is a border crisis on the Home Secretary and the Minister’s watch. This is a Conservative-led coalition failure on immigration. The Government were warned about student visitor visas, which have increased from 38,000 under the last Government to 77,000 in the last 12 months. There are fewer checks and there is more scope for abuse.

This issue has been flagged up by John Vine, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. In November 2012, he said that the Government were clearly failing to follow up on notifications of potential bogus students and that at the time of his inspection there was a backlog—or should we now, following the passport crisis, call it “work in progress”?—of some 153,000 such notifications without action being taken. What action is the Minister taking today to meet the obligations set out by Mr Vine in his November 2012 report regarding the backlog of notifications of bogus students? What steps is he taking to rescind the certificates, and on the fake students and their surrogates?

The UK remains a key destination for international students. The UK market in international students is worth £8 billion, and has the potential to rise to £25 billion by 2025. However, the Government are failing to follow up with sufficient energy the notifications of bogus students, they did not take action on this issue when they knew about it, and they are now putting in place measures to slow down visa applications. At a time when the Minister is missing the net migration target that he himself set, he is now failing on the integrity of the system. He needs to restore that integrity today as a matter of urgency.

[James Brokenshire]

Listening to the shadow Immigration Minister, one might be forgiven for thinking that Labour believed in controlled immigration, but let us remember some of the facts about Labour’s record: record net migration of 2.5 million; hundreds of bogus colleges selling immigration, not education; students turning up at Heathrow unable to answer questions in English or even to explain what their course was about; and supposedly highly skilled immigrants working as security guards.

I hear what the shadow Immigration Minister has said, but Labour did nothing to tighten up the system, and it has fallen to this Government to introduce further stringent measures. It appears that, despite all that—despite the serious issues highlighted in my statement today— Labour now want to introduce blunt targets to increase international student numbers. Indeed, I think the shadow Immigration Minister wants to take students out of the net migration numbers altogether. We will take no lectures from the Labour party about immigration and controlling the issuing of student visas.

The shadow Immigration Minister managed to ask some serious questions, and I will address them now. On the investigations that have taken place, I can say that we have taken significant steps to follow through on identifying, locating and removing those responsible. Hundreds of visits have already been conducted and removals have begun. The criminal investigation is ongoing, and he will understand that I cannot comment further on those cases.

We are taking steps in relation to Glyndwr, and have suspended its highly trusted sponsor status. We are keen to provide support for genuine students whose institutions are affected by this. From today, there is a designated student helpline available specifically for all students at the affected institutions. Dedicated staff will take calls on the helpline to ensure that students have an avenue for their questions to be answered and their concerns alleviated.

We are also setting up a working group with relevant education establishments, including Universities UK—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but the Opposition do not seem to care about what is happening to the students who are involved in this. They might want to listen. We are setting up a working group with Universities UK, the UK Council for International Student Affairs, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the Scottish Funding Council and the National Union of Students to enable the sector to support those genuine students who may eventually need to find a sponsor.

The right hon. Gentleman tried to make his general point about university applications, but the truth is that, while we have cut out much of the abuse in the student visa system, the number of overseas applications to study at British universities is up by 17% since the election, and that figure is based on genuine students. We are attracting the brightest and the best while, at the same time, resolutely focusing on ensuring that those who should not be here are stopped.

I was struck by what the right hon. Gentleman said about the immigration system not working, but I have to tell him—as we have done many times before—that it will take years to fix fully the system that we inherited from his party. We are making the difference. As the former UK Border Agency chief executive, Rob Whiteman, said last week, the agency that Labour set up was never going to work and it was right of this Government to break it into smaller pieces, because staff and managers can now get on with trying to put it right. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to Rob Whiteman, he could listen to the shadow Business Secretary who said that when he used to work in his predecessor’s surgeries, he could see how chaotic the UKBA was. “Hands up,” he said, “That was under my Government.”

All the facts I have outlined today are a direct legacy of the Labour party. A significant proportion of the students who have been caught cheating came to this country through a student visa system created by Labour. Under the previous Government, bogus colleges flourished, student visas were used for economic immigration and students did not even need to prove that they could speak English. The Government are focused on controlling immigration. Sadly, the Opposition still do not get it; it is as simple as that.

Passport Applications

David Hanson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

We have had a very useful debate today. I echo many right hon. and hon. Members across the House in thanking the hard-pressed Passport Office staff, the people working on the helpline and, dare I say, the Minister’s office for the efforts that they are making for constituents who have received their passports following the interventions of Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash)—and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), who has a passport office in her constituency—have made that point. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) also made that point, although I cannot compete with him in making my own passport as he said he did in a former career. He would probably need a passport to go back to Liverpool now, given his current political affiliations.

I have no quibble with the hard work, dedication or efforts of passport staff, especially on last-minute cases, to ensure that people have their holidays. But I must echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) when he said that constituents should not have to involve Members of Parliament to get their passports on time. People are paying for the service, which made a £73 million surplus last year. The hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), who is no longer in his place, was in denial about the impact of the problems on constituents across the country.

Clearly, despite the efforts of the staff, there is something wrong with the delivery of passport services at the moment. The motion makes three points. First, it expresses the frustration of Members of Parliament about the experiences of their constituents who have applied for passports, including lengthy delays and the consequential cancellation of holidays, business trips and visits. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) made great play of his concerns about the number of individuals he has had to deal with.

Secondly, the motion points out how the Government have failed to plan properly to meet the level of demand this year. Thirdly, and crucially, it calls on the Government to expand their emergency measures and to look at compensating passport applicants who have had to pay for urgent upgrades. I shall consider each issue in turn to scrutinise the Government’s record.

[Keith Vaz]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I was just about to mention my right hon. Friend, so I shall give way to him.

[Keith Vaz]

We have yet another Sedwill review, and the last one resulted in the abolition of the UK Border Agency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should review the decision taken by Ministers to stop applications being made abroad? It is time to look again at that decision and allow people to make applications by post.

[Mr Hanson]

I know that my right hon. Friend’s Committee looked at these issues yesterday. I understand the reasons behind that decision—Ministers are concerned about consistency and security—but we need to review whether those are concerns in all cases. We also need to review the procedures that have been used to repatriate the process, because they have not worked, in my view. There were discussions yesterday and today about the issue, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) said, the passport website still has a three-week web promise for passport delivery. I would like to know from the Minister whether that is still the norm for delivery of passports. Will the Minister commit today to maintaining the three-week delivery time? The Passport Office chief executive has said that we had a 16% under-forecast of demand. We initially thought that the extra demand was 350,000 applications, but the chief executive confirmed yesterday—in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—that it is 400,000. The Passport Office has now ordered an independent review of forecasting. Yesterday, the chief executive said that 493,289 passport applications were “in progress”. The Home Office does not use the words “delay” or “backlog”: everything is “work in progress”.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) tested the Home Secretary on the figures before the House today. The Home Secretary said that applications this year are 3.3 million, up from 2.95 million last year—an increase of 350,000. She also said that 6% of the 3.3 million applications were from overseas, and that is 200,000 applications. Last year, those 200,000 applications were dealt with by the Foreign Office, so—as my right hon. Friend said—200,000 of the 350,000 increase came from overseas. I hope that the Minister will tell us what has caused the increase in demand.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) asked that question. Is it because of the repatriation of dealing with overseas residents’ passports—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) asked pertinent questions at the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing—or is it because of the closure of offices at home, a point raised my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn), for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark)? Is it because, even today, there are not sufficient staff to deal with current needs, or is it because, in some twilight world—as the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said—the bright economic future has led people to book their holidays early? Only yesterday, the annual figures showed that inflation outstripped wages yet again. People’s earnings are not keeping pace with inflation.

[Mr Robinson]

I agree with every word my right hon. Friend says. We have had no explanation from the Government on what has caused this crisis. It can only be incompetence at the top, lack of ministerial direction and attention, and the organisation of the HMPO, which the Select Committee earlier this week exposed as being very inadequate.

[Mr Hanson]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I also welcome the Home Secretary’s apology, but an apology is not enough. We need a clear exposition on what has caused this problem. A range of points have been put forward today, but we have had no clarity from the Government.

The human cost of this crisis was exposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). May I just note in passing that he celebrates 44 years in the House today? The human cost was also mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Airdrie and Shotts and for Cardiff South and Penarth. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) looked at problems relating particularly to India, and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) accepted that there are challenges in the system.

I put the problem down to a failure to plan. The HMPO annual report last year stated that there would be approximately 350,000 additional customers worldwide annually, so why did the Minister not act? We knew the Foreign Office changes were being introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said that overtime has increased. We heard about the January rise. We heard that on 23 May extra staff were deployed. In an Adjournment debate secured in June by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West, the Minister said:

“HMPO will have deployed 250 additional passport examination staff”—[Official Report, 10 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 524.]

by the end of June. If this was a problem in January, why is that the case? The issues of training and recruitment could all have been anticipated by the Government. What has been the impact of moving fraud staff and others on to passports? Confidence in the measures announced by the Home Secretary has not been clear from Members here today.

In the one minute I have left I will turn to compensation. Will the Minister tell me, either today or at a future date, how many extra payments have been made by people to ensure they receive their passports on time? Why is the offer applicable only from Thursday to a limited section of people? Will the Minister commit himself to looking at the number of people who have been hit by the extra charge for fast-tracking and say whether he will repay them? Will he look at the issue of the date, rather than the date of travel, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts?

It is clear that the problem was known. It is clear that inadequate action was taken. It is clear that there is still a problem now. It is clear that Ministers were not on top of the job and not on top of their work. It is clear that they failed the public who pay for this service. The Minister probably needs to take a holiday. Will he take it after he has sorted out everybody else’s passport? Will he ensure that the Home Office does what our constituents are paying it to do: to deliver a quality service on time and on budget to ensure that people are able to take their business trips and enjoy their hard-earned holidays?

Immigration Bill

David Hanson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I will draw my comments to a close, as I have been generous to hon. Members across the House.

In conclusion, this power is narrowly drawn and aimed at addressing a real and current threat posed by a small number of individuals. The Government have taken steps to listen to the concerns of both Houses about statelessness. We are committed to taking proportionate action to protect the public and remove the privileges of British citizenship from those who abuse it. That is what these provisions do, and I commend them to the House.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I support the Lords amendments. Having listened to their lordships and to contributions from Members across the House, and having noted the keen interest there appears to be in this debate, I hope that the Minister will reflect on what he has said and support the Lords amendments in due course.

I will start with a quote:

“If we identify someone as a person proposing to commit a serious terrorist offence, for example, surely the obligation is on us to deal with that person. If we simply deport him, we shall be handing on—in my submission, irresponsibly—this terrorist problem to another state which may not have the same capability of dealing with it as we do. It cannot be a proper response to the terrorist threat to refuse to deal with it ourselves”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 277-78.]

That was the late Lord Kingsland who spoke in October 2002 as Conservative shadow Lord Chancellor when these matters were debated in relation to nationality. At that time, the then Labour Government determined that statelessness should not be part of the legislative framework, and that prompts the question why have the Government brought forward this proposal at this time?

I think the Lords did a service to Parliament in providing it with an opportunity to discuss this proposal again, and I remind the House that the Lords voted by 242 votes to 180 to ensure that the amendment was accepted in another place. Among those who voted were a large number of Labour peers, and it is fair and proper that I report that to the House. There were also many others, both Cross-Bench, from the Government Benches and among the Bishops, who voted to ask this House to consider the matter again. Those included Lord Judge, a former Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Hannay, a former senior diplomat, as well as such Liberal Democrat notaries as Lord Lester, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Lord Oakeshott and Baroness Neuberger, and also the notable former Foreign Secretary Lord Howe of Aberavon. That group of peers did not vote for the amendment to cause trouble for the Government; it is a group of peers who take an interest in this matter and have reflected on the Government’s approach. Whatever else can be said, the Home Secretary did not convince the other place that her measures were right and proper. In fact, the charitable view is that the Home Secretary has made a mess of this matter. She has tried to rush the proposals through.

[James Brokenshire]

No.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister says no, but the Home Secretary brought forward the proposals on 30 January on Report, after they were tabled on 29 January. We had to table a manuscript amendment on Report, which we withdrew because we wanted to take legal advice. That legal advice led to a cross-party Lords amendment, moved by Lord Pannick, to ensure proper consideration of the proposals in Committee.

The Lords amendment is reasonable. It asks for the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on the complications of the removal of citizenship and the issues raised by Members across the House. From discussions I have had with the Minister, I know he is concerned that that would lead to delay, but I hope I can reassure him. Through agreement outside this House, we could, if the Lords amendment was accepted, give a time scale to that consideration to ensure that we have detailed examination and, effectively, pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposal, so that we can take the concerns raised in another place seriously, look at what points are being made even today by Members of this House and come to a consensus on this extremely serious issue—the removal of citizenship from individuals.

I think we can come to an agreement whereby a proposal is considered and completed perhaps, dare I say it, by the summer recess. I do not want to pre-empt the Gracious Speech in a couple of weeks’ time, but it will undoubtedly include a criminal justice Bill. Measures could be introduced at that stage and looked at in detail.

[Dr Huppert]

The shadow Minister is talking about the process and that is very interesting, but can I press him on the Labour party’s view on the policy principle? Some of us, including some Labour Members, voted against the measure on principle. He says that it may be a positive thing to have this sort of deprivation. His party abstained, with Whips quite forcefully stopping people voting. What is the Labour party’s position on the principle at stake?

[Mr Hanson]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come on to that point in a moment. We abstained on 30 January because we wanted to ensure that we gave proper consideration to this matter, and we supported the amendment in another place to ensure that we did consider this matter. My noble Friend Baroness Smith of Basildon signed the amendment before the House today. We want to support the amendment today and return it to the Lords.

The Labour party and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will not do anything that puts the security of the United Kingdom at risk. I want to ensure that we do not remove citizenship without a proper right of appeal. I want to ensure that people know the grounds of that removal of citizenship and that the consequences are considered. I want, with the Minister, to tighten up how the Government intend to exercise that power. How do the Government intend to ensure that what is “reasonable” is deemed to be reasonable? I want to give the Minister the opportunity to explain that. This is a serious matter that needs proper parliamentary scrutiny. We have had a very short time in another place and one day in this House to consider this matter. We need to look at it in much more detail and we need to take evidence. A large number of people outside this place have raised concerns and we need to ensure, and not just in one-and-a-half hours, that the Minister justifies the opportunity and practice over a period of time.

[Mr Harper]

The more the right hon. Gentleman speaks, the more confused I am about his position. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary tabled the amendment in January, so more than three months have passed since she put this provision before Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has now said, notwithstanding the fact that the amendment says the Committee will serve for the duration of the Parliament, that it could all be sorted out before the summer recess, which is only two months away. What does he expect to learn in the next two months that he has not learnt in the past three?

[Mr Hanson]

I think both Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity to take evidence, as happens during pre-legislative scrutiny, and I am not the only person who thinks that. Moving the amendment in the House of Lords, Lord Pannick said:

“A Joint Committee is required because Clause 64 was added to the Bill very late in the passage of the Bill through the other place—that is, 24 hours before Report and Third Reading…so there was no pre-legislative scrutiny of this proposal, no consultation and no opportunity for consideration by the Public Bill Committee of the other place. The absence of pre-legislative scrutiny and proper consultation is especially unfortunate in a context such as this.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2014; Vol. 753, c. 1168.]

The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) may want to steamroller the Bill through, but I think it important that we get it right.

[Glenda Jackson]

There is a great, gaping hole in the Government’s argument. However much the Minister may speak about the powers of the Home Secretary, no British Home Secretary in the House of Commons has ever had the power to impose on a sovereign nation state laws governing whom it should or should not take back, and to whom it should or should not give a passport and citizenship.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend has anticipated some of my own arguments. Like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I think we need to examine important issues relating to both the deprivation of citizenship and the impact on terrorism prevention. The Minister is seeking to delete the amendment in order to prevent potential terrorist action. I want to test him on that, potentially during scrutiny in the Committee, but also in the House today.

If citizenship is removed from an individual who happens to be outside the country, we shall have given up all jurisdiction over that individual, who could be returned to the United Kingdom by a third-party country that did not recognise him as having citizenship of that country. As Lord Kingsland said in 2002, he will not be the responsibility of the United Kingdom, but will still be potentially able to undertake activity that the Minister would not support, as a result of the Minister’s own actions.

[James Brokenshire]

I am somewhat confused by what the right hon. Gentleman is now saying. Does he not support the Government’s existing use of the deprivation powers to deal with counter-terrorism?

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister should reflect on that. He will know that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 specified just two grounds on which citizenship could be removed: it could be removed from those who had gained it through fraud, and it could be removed

“if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of…the United Kingdom”,

provided that the revocation of citizenship did not render the person stateless. That is the point, and that is the position that was taken by the Labour Government in the 2002 Act, about nine to 12 months after the horrendous events of 9/11. Surely, if we made that judgment in 2002, at the height of concern about the impact of 9/11, the Minister will be able to back it up in 2014. If he cannot, let him justify that to a Joint Committee. Lord Pannick said in another place:

“The Joint Committee will also want to consider whether the benefits, if any, of the proposed new power justify the… international implications.” .”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2014; Vol. 753, c. 1169.]

How can the British Government lecture others, or promulgate international law, when the Bill proposes the establishment of circumstances which, in my view, would break international requirements across the board? The Minister says that that is not the case, which is a view that we need to discuss.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said, but is not one of the fundamental problems the fact that what the Government are doing has about it more than a whiff of Executive decision making on major issues to which there is no simple legal remedy? The Government are trying to avoid a court process, and to give powers to an elected politician over an independent judiciary.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for that because my hon. Friend anticipates the concerns we had and that we raised in the debate on 30 January. The proposal then from the Minister was that the Home Secretary could determine, on reasonable grounds, the deprivation of citizenship. There was no judicial oversight promised. The Minister has today brought forward amendments (a) and (b) which would provide for a review. I do not happen to think they go far enough. I think we need to stick to the original idea of an examination by a Joint Committee. The Minister, however, has brought forward those amendments which move slightly from his original proposal of some six or seven weeks ago. Why has he done that? He has done so because he has been roasted in another place and, this proposal having been considered by Members of that other place, has lost the vote quite considerably. Yet today we find that, rather than listening to those concerns, the Minister wishes to vote down this amendment and has brought forward proposals that, again, I think do not go far enough.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), when I hear phrases such as “review by SIAC” I shudder on the question of process, but I am interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman would say to my constituents who want us to move quickly on all immigration issues—who say we are not moving fast enough, we are not making change quickly enough. What is the relative merit of his proposal to support Lords amendments that would delay enactment as opposed to the Government proposal to see and review the impact after enactment?

[Mr Hanson]

That is a legitimate question, and it is one that deserves an answer. The point I would make is that we are legislating. If we legislate for this and if it goes back to the other place in the form the Minister has brought forward, it will be enacted: it will have Royal Assent within a matter of, presumably, days. We will therefore have one year of operation between May or June 2014 through to May or June 2015. That is fair enough. We will then review it and make changes. All the concerns raised by Members today would potentially be applicable in that 12-month period. The argument I would make is that if we accept the amendment that has been considered by the Lords, we can look at this, get it right and ensure that the concerns that have been raised not just here today but by Members in another place are dealt with. The measures that are taken will then have the full confidence of both Houses of Parliament. At the moment, given the vote that was taken in the other place—242 in favour and 180 against— the proposals the Minister brought forward previously do not have the support and confidence of both Houses. The removal of citizenship is such a challenging and extreme measure to take that it must have the confidence of both Houses of Parliament.

[Mr Buckland]

I listened with interest when the right hon. Gentleman talked about his fear that the UK would be in breach of its international obligations in relation to statelessness if the Government’s proposals went through. Which particular international obligations does he think the UK would be in breach of?

[Mr Hanson]

I am trying to ensure that we propagate good practice. There are many states that currently remove citizenship from individuals. It has happened in Iraq and it has happened in other countries before, and we have been critical of that. We are trying to ensure that any action taken by a Government, particularly when it is one of Executive power by the Home Secretary, is supported by both Houses of Parliament.

Let me give the hon. Gentleman the opinion of international lawyer Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, who says that:

“any state that admitted an individual on the basis of his or her British passport would be fully entitled to ignore any purported deprivation of citizenship and as a matter of right return that person to the UK.”

That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). We need to consider this in considerable detail.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The shadow Minister did say that this was in breach of our international obligations, but he now says it is only a matter of good practice. He has quoted another international jurist and many Members from the other place, but we are the elected Members. Some of us have come to this debate to try to make up our minds. If we could hear more of what the right hon. Gentleman thinks of the principle of the Bill and the arguments around it, we could make a decision today, and I for one would enormously appreciate that.

[Mr Hanson]

I could do worse than to cite what Lord Deben, a Conservative peer, has said—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman looks as though he lacks concern about this, but I am expressing a number of concerns that have been expressed, both in this House and in—[Interruption.] My view is that we need to ensure that if we take this step, we do it in an effective and appropriate way that does not damage the credibility of the anti-terrorism case. Removing someone’s citizenship is an extreme measure and it has to be done in a way that is appropriate. The Minister has not made it clear to me that the “reasonable” judgments of the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] If the Parliamentary Private Secretary would like to join in the conversation, he could go to the Back Benches and do so. For the past three months we have received wodges of legal advice and wodges of views saying, “This is not practical, it will not be effective and it will damage our attacks on terrorism.” The Minister is asking us to take things on trust, but the other place has determined that it wants to examine these issues in detail, argue them and test the Minister on them, and that is a fair proposal.

Lord Deben, a Conservative colleague of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), has said that

“to take away someone’s citizenship, it is not reasonable to say that you assume that they can get another country’s citizenship. It is only reasonable to say that you know that they have another citizenship; anything less than that is wrong. It may not be convenient, but it is not right.

We have been the signatory to and the driver of much of the international law that seeks to reduce statelessness to its minimum. I fear that in this particular case, we may, for very good reasons—in seeking to close loopholes…do something which will do great injustice to a very small number of people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 March 2014; Vol. 753, c. 213.]

That is what we need to test by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament and that is what we need to test over the next few weeks and months, which is why the other place has given its support. Justice, Liberty and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, among others, have made cogent arguments as to why we need to consider this in detail. We need to examine it, and I support the retention of the Lords amendment and hope the House will do so.

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

I am greatly concerned about this measure, and I will just make some observations. The Minister referred to the power that the Home Secretary used to have in relation to something being not conducive to the public good. Its removal created a real difficulty for Governments, but my concern is not the difficulty for Governments; my concern is for the British common law system. This is not about the European Court of Justice—its rulings or anything else. The issue of concern to me is: what is our process?

I believe, and this was fundamental to our legal system, that a person should know the reasons they are to be aggrieved, but that is not possible under the Bill. He or she will not know the reasons they are being deprived of citizenship, so they can make no case that can be held to be valid, because they do not know what they are challenging—or they will claim they do not know what they are being challenged with. We do not know and the public do not know, so this violates one of the first principles of our legal system—our common law system. I want the House always to remember that our common law system in England has been absolutely essential to our liberties, freedoms, standing and our sense of who we are.

I understand the difficulties that Governments face, as there are a lot of wicked, evil people out there, but the answer has always been to prosecute. We are told, “Oh we can’t prosecute because in a prosecution we may have to reveal our sources.” This is the nightmare situation that the world in which we now live is facing: we are not to know, we cannot know and we cannot challenge. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is one of the most monstrous extrusions on the national scene, as not even the solicitor representing the accused or the person who loses their citizenship knows the reasons their client is there. Gisting? Well, all those rules that have been put in place essentially deny open justice using the argument of national security.

I have been a Member of Parliament for 36 years, and I look back over the decline of our sense of who we are, what our system is, and our freedoms and liberties, which are concentrated in the concept of the common law. I did not invent it—we did not invent it—it came from the movement of the people of this country over hundreds of years and the development of our legal system. Year after year, in a way that one could never assume would happen, Governments have gone out searching for new measures to conceal the openness of what justice should be. We, as citizens of this country, have a right to know why people are charged. That is why we have an open court system, so that we can judge whether the measures are competent, reasonable or truthful to the purpose of our nation. That is why I cannot support the very notion that so much power should be concentrated in one individual—a Home Secretary—whether good or bad, that they may make decisions of this nature without our being able to challenge whether they are valid, true or right. I want the House to stand up for who we are and what our system of justice is—and it is not secret justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Let me first remind the House what we are asking it to do today—to disagree with the Lords in their amendment. I have a reason for saying that. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow Minister said, as he carefully avoided setting out his party’s view and quoted lots of other people back at us. His proposed solution was to spend the next two months before the summer recess coming to a rapid conclusion. I think that he accepts that there is a legitimate national security issue here, but what he said does not reflect what the amendment says.

Paragraph (2) of Lords amendment 18 talks about nominating a Committee that would serve

“for the duration of the present Parliament”,

with no deadline to reach a conclusion. I repeat what I said in my intervention on the right hon. Gentleman. I accept his point that there was not much time between tabling the amendment and the Report stage in this House. It is a perfectly fair point that we had discussions before the issues were discussed in the House of Lords. However, three months have elapsed and these matters have been considered in the other place, and I really do not understand what we are going to learn in the next two months that we have not been able to learn in the past three months.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the proposal is that the Committee shall serve for the duration of this Parliament. I was trying to be ever helpful by offering the Minister the opportunity that we could, through the usual channels, determine to examine these matters in a reasonable time. We could set that time informally even if the Committee did serve for the duration of the Parliament.

[Mr Harper]

I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but that is not provided for. The Committee regulates its procedure. Nothing here talks about the balance of party members on the Committee. The Chairman of Committees in the other place will nominate the members from the House of Lords, and the Speaker of the House of Commons will nominate those from this place. There is no provision in the amendment to do what the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

If a Committee of members of both Houses considers the matter at length, it will produce a report. If we accept for the sake of argument that it manages to agree on the right outcome, it will only produce a report that will inform a further debate in this House. Members of this House will still be required to take a decision. We will still be required to weigh up the arguments that my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration so ably laid out before the House today and the Home Secretary did in January. We will still be required to consider the arguments that the shadow Minister did not put before the House; he simply recited the views of others. We will not be freed from the responsibility of taking a decision. It is the “kick the can down the road” amendment, which allows the House to avoid taking a decision.

These are difficult issues. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), whom I respect hugely on these matters, but there is a balance to be struck between defending the liberties of our citizens and protecting us from terrorism. I do not reach easily for the national security argument. I was pleased when I was elected to the House to vote against the provisions for 90-day pre-trial detention. But this is a proportionate and limited proposal. I supported the previous measure. The Home Secretary has listened to the debate on 30 January in this House and to the debate in the other place. Amendments (a) and (b) do two things. First, they ensure that we are not left with a situation of someone left unable to seek citizenship. She has to have reasonable grounds for believing that they are able to, and that addresses many of the concerns raised previously by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who set those out on 30 January.

A review mechanism is now in place, whether by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation or another independent person, which will enable the House to look quite quickly, after an initial one-year process, and then every subsequent three years, at the actual implementation of the legislation in practice, so enabling us, if there are issues, if some of the concerns set out by my hon. Friend for Aldridge-Brownhills or others come to light, to enable the House to amend the legislation. The concern that the Home Secretary set out with the al-Jedda judgment leaves a gap in our legislation, which leaves us vulnerable to those who would do us harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Clearly, having announced the trials at the end of January, I want to see them proceed. It is important that we test the service and the system, which is patchy and not as consistent as I want it to be. Equally, some local authorities provide good services and it is important that we recognise that and learn from them. We want an enabling provision in the draft Modern Slavery Bill to be the bedrock that provides the mechanism, which can be informed by the trials that I want to happen, that can be acted on and be the statutory underpinning that allows it to be developed through the experience of the trials. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will find that helpful in underlining the Government’s commitment not simply to provide a statutory mechanism through that enabling provision, but to deliver practical action. The most important thing is that we provide support, advice and guidance for this extraordinarily vulnerable group, and that we ensure they are supported through the system. That is what matters most.

[Mr Hanson]

Can the Minister remind us how many trials there will be, and where and when? What is the date of completion and when does he intend to report back to the House?

[James Brokenshire]

The trials are intended to be conducted in 23 areas, commencing at the beginning of July. We have not, at this stage, set an end point for the duration of the trials, but I want evidence and feedback that can inform the consideration of an enabling power in any modern slavery Bill that comes forward. A statutory mechanism will ensure that the trials can commence and that we can learn and benefit directly from them, enabling a statutory underpinning of the optimum provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that and I have certainly heard the points she has made.

I know that others wish to speak to their manuscript amendments, but let me just say that Lords amendment 19 clarifies that the Bill does not limit the duty regarding the welfare of children imposed on the Secretary of State or any other person by section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Under section 55, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that her functions in relation to immigration, asylum and nationality are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK. That duty continues to apply, and nothing in the Bill impinges on it.

Lords amendment 20 relates to some technical changes concerning the bank accounts measures. Lords amendments 21 to 23 respond to recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, ensuring that, where appropriate, affirmative procedure processes apply in respect of certain notices and certain aspects of the sham marriage provisions contained in part 4 of the Bill. I believe that the Lords amendments, with the exception of Lords amendments 16 and 24, improve the provisions, making them clearer and more workable in practice.

[Mr Hanson]

I, again, thank the Minister for his helpful introduction to the Government’s position on the Lords amendments. I am here to maintain Her Majesty’s official Opposition’s support for them and wish the Government to reflect on that again during today’s debate. I pay tribute to Baroness Butler-Sloss for tabling her amendments in the other place. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for scrutinising the evidence for the draft Modern Slavery Bill. I have heard what the Minister said about the proposals on a pilot and the enabling power in such a Bill, but I remain unconvinced that that will lead to the action that we want and, indeed, the action that the other place has proposed for consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frank Field]

I hope that what the Minister has said does satisfy the other place, but if we vote against the Government motion tonight, it can decide. That is the advantage. I think that the Minister has satisfied us, but I would not want the other place and those who moved the amendments not to have the possibility to consider when they read Hansard whether they are satisfied.

[Mr Hanson]

My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point. As I said at the beginning, the vote was 282 to 184 in favour of the proposal. If we reject the proposal today, we are left with no proposal. We are left with a promise of a pilot and a Bill after the Gracious Speech, following the scrutiny rightly given to it by my right hon. Friend.

[Dr Huppert]

A few of us are slightly confused about the procedure, and the right hon. Gentleman has been here longer than I have, so perhaps he could help us. If the House were to accept the Lords amendment, the Lords would not discuss this again; whereas, if we rejected it, the Lords would have the chance to discuss it. Regardless of merit, is that not the right way round?

[Mr Hanson]

That is the right way round. The Lords expressed a clear view on the matter. The Lords will be able to examine the Government’s proposal when the Modern Slavery Bill comes forward. But we have a clear template today, and I want to see that enacted. If the Government accept this today, the proposal is a clear template. We have a number of proposals from Baroness Butler-Sloss, and I have gone through them today.

[James Brokenshire]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to accept the Lords amendments because he feels that they are right, but that if he does so, it would not allow any further consideration by the Lords in terms of reflecting on what I have said from the Front Bench.

[Mr Hanson]

Their lordships have expressed their view clearly, and what the Minister has said today is known already. He announced that he had said in January that he would have pilots on the matter. The draft Modern Slavery Bill has been scrutinised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, and there is a template that we should support, and that is why I reject the Government’s proposal.

[Mr Harper]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is missing the fact that the amendments are narrowly framed. They deal only with children who come to the UK from abroad. On trafficking and modern slavery, I have constant representations about not just focusing on people who come from outside the UK. The Minister has set out a sensible point. If we reject the amendments, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has said, the other place has the option of sending them back to us again, and we can consider them again if it does not think that the Minister’s representations hold water. That is the right course of action.

[Mr Hanson]

There is clearly a common interest but a disagreement on procedure. If the Minister has a view about the impact of children being trafficked in the UK, such as in the case in Rochdale that he mentioned, he has the draft Modern Slavery Bill to contribute to those matters. But there is a clear will from the other place, which was supported on a cross-party basis, and I would wish to see that as the template for discussion today.

[Mr Harper]

One thing that would not be helpful is to put these measures in place and have a procedure that deals with foreign national children when the draft Modern Slavery Bill, expertly scrutinised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, will put in place yet another process for children who happen to be UK nationals. It would be much more sensible to have one process that deals with all children who are victims of slavery. We should not make the system more complicated than it need be.

[Mr Hanson]

Imperative action is needed now. I have dealt with a number of Bills over the past few years and seen the Government bringing back amendments and amending their own legislation not six months after they introduced it. There is potential here today for a clear statement and clear action on the international trafficking of children. The pilots that the Minister brings forward can be undertaken.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Minister gave a commitment, which he has not done, that this comprehensive amendment, with all the powers for advocates included, would be in his proposed Modern Slavery Bill, we would not feel the need to press this to a vote? However, the Minister has not yet given that promise.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct. I have not yet had, following my intervention on the Minister, a closing date for his proposed pilot. We do not know what the outcome of that pilot will be. We have taken a principled position on the amendments from Baroness Butler-Sloss that there is scope for that to be done immediately. I am talking about not just us here, but UNICEF, Anti-Slavery International, Barnardo’s, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Amnesty International. An EU directive, which may not find favour with everyone in the House, says that we should consider that step. I understand that position, because 5.5 million children globally are trafficked each year. The UK Human Trafficking Centre identified 549 child victims in 2012. The national referral mechanism recognises 349 victims. A number of trafficked children face being sold into the sex trade and being exploited through work, cannabis farming, forced begging and sexual exploitation.

There is a need now to send out a strong signal that we want to take action on that in England and Wales. Trafficked children who arrive in Scotland value the care and support that they receive from their appointed guardians. That system works in Scotland, yet constituencies such as mine and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends still face real difficulties in that regard. Such a system operates not just in Scotland, but in many western European states, including the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. There are templates for a system and it is time that we put in place a legislative framework for it. I wish to see that undertaken and supported today.

In passing, may I say that I welcome the changes on residential accommodation that the Government have accepted from the other place? In particular, I welcome the changes on student accommodation. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is in his place today, as he has pressed over the past weeks and months, in Committee, to me personally and to the Minister, a very strong case to ensure that all student accommodation was included in the Bill. It is good that, following the discussions in Committee and the representations from members of Sheffield university’s students union whom my hon. Friend brought to London, the Minister has accepted that point. The Minister will have our support on those Lords amendments that have been accepted on residential landlords, students and other areas, because they are important issues.

I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) has to say on her manuscript amendments. The Lords amendment has our support, and I hope that it will have the House’s support in due course.

Cyberstalking

David Hanson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) for bringing this important topic to the Chamber. The debate is valuable in showing that there is cross-party agreement on the issue, including on the part of the Minister. The debate not only raises awareness of cyberstalking, but ensures that there is a real Government focus on measures taken to help reduce the number of incidents, and to help support organisations that can deal with the issue in a much more co-ordinated way.

[Mrs Linda Riordan in the Chair]

I welcome you to the chair, Mrs Riordan. You have missed an interesting and complex presentation from the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. She made a compelling case for the impact of cybserstalking, not only on women, but across the board. As she said, cyberstalking occurs when someone becomes obsessively fixated on an individual and pursues them through electronic means, causing the victim distress or fear.

Stalking often happened before the advent of the internet and wide-ranging social media, and previous Governments recognised that by making stalking and harassment an offence. However, we are in an electronic age, and as the hon. Lady said, with the growth of a range of social media such as Twitter and Facebook, and of the internet, e-mail and texting, the ability to take stalking from physical to cyber is increasing all the time. We do not know what inventions will come downstream and widen the use of social media. There is clearly a problem that the Government and the authorities need to address.

In research by The Guardian in February 2014, 41% of women reported that a partner or ex-partner had used online activities to track or check up on them, and 37% of women have felt threatened by such behaviour. Facebook and e-mail were named as the most common means of abuse. In January 2014, The Daily Telegraph Magazine reported that prosecutions under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which particularly addresses menacing or offensive behaviour conducted via social media, e-mail, telephone or the internet, had dropped by 30% from 3,108 cases in 2012 to 2,221 cases in 2013. The hon. Lady mentioned that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been passed since the first figure came out, and she mentioned that there have been approximately 1,000 inquiries following the introduction of that legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an overall assessment of the number of potential cases being brought under either the new legislation or previous legislation, so that we get a sense of where we are on the problem.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has reported that 38% of children have been victims of cyber-bullying, which the hon. Lady has made clear is a different issue, but it shows that there is potential for not just women and men but children to be affected. In September 2013, Women’s Aid helpfully surveyed online more than 300 women who have survived domestic violence. The survey found—these are important figures in relation to the points raised by the hon. Lady—that: 45% of women who have survived domestic violence have experienced some form of abuse online during their relationship, including through social network sites or e-mail; 48% reported experiencing harassment or abuse online from their ex-partner once they had left the relationship; 38% reported online stalking once they had left the relationship completely; and 75% reported that the police did not know how best to respond to their concerns and allegations. That includes 12% who had reported abuse to the police and, rightly or wrongly, believed that they were not helped.

There is a real issue, and we need to address the points that the hon. Lady has helpfully raised. What are the agencies doing in response? We have a clear legislative framework that was put in place following pressure from outside the House and with cross-party support in the House, but we need particularly to look at the clear link between domestic violence and online abuse, harassment and stalking. We also need to consider how we can influence and change what are, as she clearly stated, online tools for people who wish to stalk, intimidate, control and coerce women in particular, but also men and children.

The impact on children can be great and long-lasting. A similar Women’s Aid survey showed that witnessing the impact of a parent being cyberstalked was particularly damaging to children’s development and growth, making them anxious or depressed, giving them problems at school and difficulties sleeping, and making them feel isolated and insecure. Cyberstalking is not simply a problem for the person being stalked; the problem extends to the wider family, particularly children.

[Nadine Dorries]

One of the reasons for that is that cyberstalking often introduces life-changing behaviour in the person being stalked. The children of parents who normally go about their business will observe that their parents, or the person being stalked, dramatically alter what they do in their day-to-day life. They might no longer go outdoors because they are too frightened, or they might change how they travel to work. They might even move house. All that has a very disturbing effect on children. As I stated, causing such behaviour constitutes a crime; a precedent has been set in court. What most victims of cyberstalking do not know is that if their life is being affected in that way, they are able to take legal action against the person who has perpetrated the crime of cyberstalking against them.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting again the impact of cyberstalking, not only on the individual being stalked, by whatever means, but on wider family relationships, particularly with children. As she has made clear, cyberstalking can have an impact across the board, including on a child’s ability to relate at school and with friends. It can also affect a child’s use and development of important social media skills, because e-mail, Twitter and Facebook are important social media that have a positive effect, as well as having the potential to be used in a negative way.

That is important, and it brings me to my first point for the Minister, which backs up what the hon. Lady has said. How are we assessing the scale of the challenge? Is it simply about the number of cases reported to the police? Is it simply about the number of telephone calls made to the national stalking helpline? Is it about referrals to organisations such as Paladin or the Suzy Lamplugh Trust? What is the Government’s estimate of the nature of the problem, and how are they assessing it? What is the Government’s estimate of, and how are they assessing, the response to the legislation that was in place on stalking and harassment generally, and to the legislation passed in 2012 on cyberstalking and the use of social media in particular? It would be helpful if the Minister, as a starting point, gave both his and the Government’s assessment of whether the problem is static or increasing, whether reporting of the problem is increasing or falling, or whether the problem is increasing while reporting is falling. I would like a general indication from the Minister of how he and the Government are assessing the nature of the problem.

I support what the hon. Lady said about the agencies dealing with cyberstalking. The police rightly take cybercrime and e-crime very seriously. They are looking at a range of issues, and we hear continually about how they are addressing cybercrime and e-crime. Given the wide-ranging potential for cybercrime and e-crime generally, internationally and nationally, I would like the Minister’s assessment of where cyberstalking falls within the police’s priorities, because the police central e-crime unit is looking at those issues. What priority does it give to extending good practice to police forces across the United Kingdom? What co-operation is it undertaking with police forces across Europe and the world? How is it relating to good practice and policy? What steps is it taking to ensure that the same recognition is given to online violence and stalking as is given to stalking and potential violence in the community?

[Nadine Dorries]

This might be a good point at which to drop a piece of information into the debate. The e-crime unit—many forces across the country are not aware of this—now has a direct interface with social media sites. In fact, I think there are two police officers—the number is due to increase—who interface with sites such as Twitter and Facebook. They were not there before, but they are now. The e-crime unit hopes to increase that interface, but the problem is that police forces across the country do not know how to access those officers; they do not have the contacts or know how to get in touch with them. The police officers are there; they have been provided for by the e-crime unit. I hope that the Minister will take that away and consider how to inform police forces. The work is being done; police forces just need to be able to access it.

[Mr Hanson]

I find myself in agreement with the hon. Lady again.

[Nadine Dorries]

Always, David.

[Mr Hanson]

Not quite always. We were born within a month of each other in the same city, so there is obviously some telepathy, and we agree with each other on this point.

Legislation has been passed, and the police force has an e-crime unit. A range of demands on that unit are of extreme significance in the growing drive against crime. I want to endorse and emphasise points made by the hon. Lady. What steps are the Government taking, through the national e-crime unit and through Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan to ensure that all local forces are aware of the unit? What priority is given to cyberstalking in that unit? What are the elements of good practice in the response to complaints made? How many cases are being brought forward? What is the relationship between the police force and individuals when cases are brought forward, and what is the level of understanding? Those are all important issues.

When I was the Minister responsible for policing, I found that it was good to have a national policy, but sometimes the national policy is reflected by the first person a crime is reported to locally, whether in North Wales, Bedfordshire, or our home city of Liverpool. That is where the impact of the national policy is translated at local level. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of those issues.

My second point relates to the criminal justice system generally. It is more than a year since the offences of stalking were introduced. Has the Minister assessed how the criminal justice system understands the new offences and how it responds to victims of online abuse, harassment and stalking? I am not being confrontational, but what is his assessment of how the criminal justice system understands the legislation? What changes has it made since the legislation was introduced? What assessment has it made of its mechanism for prosecuting? How many prosecutions have there been and how many have been successful? What training is offered to the staff in our constituencies who work as prosecutors, judges, and defence barristers? Those issues are important.

The third point concerns something that the hon. Lady touched on. We are talking about predominantly social media, which is not just a UK but a worldwide phenomenon. Facebook, Google and Twitter, all of which I use, and other social media that I do not, are all international. What discussions is the Minister having with our colleagues in Europe, the providers of the services and other nations to ensure we get the right balance between freedom of expression and the regulation of abuse? It is possible for an individual to cyberstalk him, me or the hon. Lady from a beach in California. The focus on the provider, on good practice on their part, and on them having a strong, effective co-ordinated complaints procedure is important, as is legislation in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Lady touched on how someone on social media can be anonymous or have several identities. Again, I do not wish to be confrontational, but there is an opportunity for the Minister to look at how we can get standardised good practice on these issues across a range of Administrations. I would welcome his assessment of whether providers such as Google, Twitter, Facebook and others understand the impact that their social media can have when they are used for cyberstalking or harassment.

Finally, I want to focus on an issue that the hon. Lady mentioned: the assessment of victims’ needs. I do so for two reasons. First, there is the initial assessment when somebody feels they are being stalked through social media—e-mail, Twitter, Facebook or whatever. What help and support is available at the start of their concerns about cyberstalking? This boils down to broad understanding. This is a new issue; when I was first elected to this House 23 years ago, we would not have talked about this issue at all. We would not have talked about Twitter or Facebook; I did not have an e-mail address or a mobile phone, and I did not get texts. All that has happened in 20 years, during my time in this House. What help and support is available to aid our understanding of the issues? Often, the first port of call might be the local Victim Support services at Mold Crown court in my constituency, which might or might not have knowledge of the impact of cyberstalking on an individual. What is the Minister doing to ensure wider awareness of the issue, and to ensure that it is seen to be important for the reasons that the hon. Lady outlined?

The debate has been helpful. I do not have any answers, and I am not trying to be confrontational in terms of the Government’s performance on these issues, but I want to see what their forward strategy is, so that we can look at the assessment of the problem, the capability of the police to respond to complaints, the capability of the criminal justice system to respond and understand the issues, the support available to people who have faced the issue, and the action that providers of social media are taking to address and understand the issue. Those are five key areas, and I am willing to engage on them with the Minister, and hopefully with my colleagues in a future Government.

This issue is important. Cyberstalking can impact on and destroy people’s lives, and it can be done from the anonymity of a Twitter feed, a Facebook page, or an e-mail address established for the purpose, in the United Kingdom, Europe or anywhere in the world. We need to address this, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing the debate.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing this important debate and on communicating her thoughts effectively and convincingly. I welcome the constructive approach of the shadow police Minister. We have three parties in this debate, and all three speakers are in the same position: we want to deal with this serious matter carefully, sensibly and effectively. We all share the abhorrence that my hon. Friend expressed for the consequences of cyberstalking. The Government has an open mind as to how we take the matter forward. We are committed to tackling cyberstalking. If there are good ideas, from wherever they come in the House, we want to look at those ideas. We have an open door as well as an open mind on these matters. I hope that the shadow police Minister will take that in the constructive spirit in which it is meant.

Stalking, whether it occurs online or offline, is a serious crime that can have devastating and debilitating effects on those targeted, as my hon. Friend eloquently set out. It is a crime that the coalition Government takes very seriously. According to the independent crime survey for England and Wales for 2012-13, after the age of 16, stalking affects 4% of women and 2% of men a year. It can affect many people in many different circumstances—incidents of stalking can take place within the context of a violent relationship or after a brief relationship, and it can involve a casual acquaintance or a complete stranger.

Victims of stalking may be affected in many different ways. They may lose their home, their family, their friends and their job in a bid to escape a persistent, fixated stalker. The most extreme outcome may be homicide or suicide. Everyone has the right to feel safe and secure and to live their life without feeling threatened or intimidated, and without being spied on. Victims of stalking have those fundamental freedoms taken away from them.

Both my colleagues referred to legislation and to enactment, and it is right to deal with both aspects. I will deal with legislation first. The Government is absolutely clear that what is illegal offline is illegal online. Cyberstalking is simply a term that describes a way to stalk a victim—using the internet—and it is therefore covered by the legislation. If people behave online in ways that would be unacceptable in any other context, there must be consequences. In 2012, we introduced two new stalking offences, which by definition include cyberstalking. We are determined that those who engage in such reprehensible behaviour are brought to justice.

My hon. Friend made a powerful case that stalking online is, in some ways, more debilitating for the victim and more damaging than it might be offline. She drew the helpful and pertinent comparison between poison pen letters, which could be called the offline method of stalking, and online stalking, with its potential impact and the ability of the internet to makes things available to far more people. Online stalking can therefore be more damaging than offline stalking—she made that point powerfully, which law enforcement agencies and the Government need to take on board.

Cyber-smearing, as my hon. Friend called the practice, is indeed more serious than poison pen letters. She was also right to say that anonymity is more possible online than it is offline. That can be more threatening and give perpetrators the appearance of having more power than they have offline, where they may be identified. People may therefore behave more outrageously and unacceptably online than they would do otherwise. The Government treats online and offline crime equally as crime, but I personally accept her point that online stalking can be more serious. We have to reflect that fact in how we approach the matter. I am grateful to her for making the case.

In answer to one of the questions asked by the shadow policing Minister, data from the Crown Prosecution Service’s report on violence against women and girls, published in July 2013, indicate that up to June of that year 91 prosecutions had been commenced under the new stalking offences. The legislation is still of course relatively new, and we will continue to monitor its use closely and carefully to ensure that it is effective and appropriate. He also asked about the number of potential cases yet to be brought forward. Police-recorded crime figures from April 2014 will give a clearer picture of stalking, because it is now separated from harassment.

[Mr Hanson]

Does the Minister have any figures for the success rate of the prosecutions? How many have been translated into convictions?

[Norman Baker]

I mentioned that 91 prosecutions had been commenced, but I do not have the figure for whether the outcomes were successful. If I can rustle up that figure during the debate, I will give it to the Chamber. Otherwise, I am happy to write to the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend with that information.

Both the Members who have spoken in the debate rightly raised the issue of training. Legislation is not enough; it is only useful if it is effective and used, and if those who have the duty to act under it understand how it works and are sympathetic to it. The police, the criminal justice system, the front-line practitioners and industry all have a role to play in tackling the appalling crime of stalking, and we are working with them to increase awareness. For example, the Home Office has developed a one-day training course to improve understanding of stalking among those who come into contact with victims. The package was developed in partnership with Women’s Aid and the Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service.

In addition, the College of Policing has developed a training package on stalking and harassment, which last year won the silver award for “excellence in the production of learning content” at the national 2013 e-learning awards. The training package is available to all police officers and staff. Furthermore, all newly qualified police officers—uniformed officers, investigators and public protection officers—are expected to complete it. It has been completed 48,000 times by the police since October 2012.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Hanson Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have already established twice in my answers what is going to be completed during this Parliament by the time of the next general election. My hon. Friend is a member of the Home Affairs Committee and has obviously heard Sir Charles Montgomery, the director general of Border Force, give evidence on a number of occasions. One of the points Sir Charles has made in his evidence is that we have been increasing the amount of advance passenger information available to us so that we now have 80% coverage in all transport and more than 90% coverage in aviation.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The official Opposition and I support exit checks. I wonder whether the Home Secretary has read what the Deputy Prime Minister has said:

“I have for some time been concerned with the urgency with which the Home Office is seeking to implement the coalition agreement commitment that I personally insisted on, that exit checks should be restored…Do I think, given what I know now, that new exit checks will be in all exit places by 2015? I think that is unlikely”.

For once, I agree with Nick—does the Home Secretary?

[Mrs May]

I share the Deputy Prime Minister’s concern to ensure that we are able to provide for the commitment that we made in the coalition agreement that we would introduce exit checks. By April 2015 we will have enabled exit checks to take place for those who are leaving the UK by scheduled international travel by air, sea and rail services.