Northern Ireland: Restoring Devolution

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Smith

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith]

I am not responsible for the European negotiations.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Given that the creation of a new border down the Irish sea will impact on services and businesses in Ireland, north Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, what impact assessment of the outcome of that border has the Secretary of State asked the Executive to produce, to be shared with political parties?

[Julian Smith]

On the issue of customs and the protocol, we will be doing everything to work with Northern Ireland businesses to ensure that we deliver on unfettered access as we push the Bill through the House of Commons. I spoke to Northern Ireland businesses today and will be engaging with them on an ongoing basis as we move forward with the protocol.

Northern Ireland

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Smith

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith]

May I first pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who did an exceptional job as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. She will know of the trauma that victims have suffered. It is now three years since the Hart report was published, and the work that she did means that the Bill could now be presented at the earliest opportunity. I hope that we will get that into the Queen’s Speech and ensure that we solve the issue once and for all.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

In the absence of a Stormont Government, and in view of the potential difficulties arising from no deal, will the Secretary of State clarify who will make decisions during that period and tell us what discussions he has had both with the political parties and the Irish Government about the implications of direct rule?

[Julian Smith]

I strongly believe that getting the talks up and running, and getting Stormont up and running, is in the best interests of Northern Ireland and is the best route for decision making. Obviously, along with Cabinet colleagues, I am considering alternatives should that fail, but we have to try to get Stormont up and running.

Counter-terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Smith

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

We, too, welcome the Lords amendments. The Home Secretary was right to commence her remarks by reminding the House of the events in Paris and the ever-present threat of terrorist activity on these shores. It is for that reason that we took a constructive approach to the Bill; we believe there is a threat, and it needs to be effectively managed, and we in Her Majesty’s Opposition give the Home Secretary the support she needs for the work of the police, MI5 and others, which she has sought to give extra powers to in this Bill.

We are also keen to respond to the positive comments made last year by David Anderson, the reviewer of terrorism of legislation. We are grateful that the Home Secretary has listened to the comments made by Mr Anderson, and indeed by the other place.

The Bill was introduced into this House at the end of November. There was no pre-legislative scrutiny or public consultation on most of its provisions and it finished its Commons stages on 7 January. I understand why the Home Secretary has moved quickly on these matters, but the fact that 39 amendments were made in another place and have come to this Chamber shows that some serious issues have had to be reflected on during the passage of the Bill.

We welcome the thrust of the amendments made by the Government, because they are a series of concessions to points made not only in another place—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about that—but in this House.

[Julian Smith]

Does the right hon. Gentleman regret, as I do, that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord King that sought to bring back the draft Communications Data Bill, or all the elements of it, did not make it back to this House? Does he agree that we need to move forward with that as soon as possible?

[Mr Hanson]

We need to look at and deal with that issue. Five years ago, in my last year as a Minister in the Home Office, I was briefed as the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism on the need for such a Bill, so we do need to examine the matter. Whoever wins the election in some weeks’ time, the next Parliament will have to return to that issue. In fact, I think it would have returned to it in this Parliament had it not been for the Liberal Democrats—but let us not find division where there is none this evening.

We welcome the measures agreed to by the Home Secretary. We need strong terrorism powers and to accept that the rise of ISIL and associated groups represents an exceptional threat, but we also need to look at how we manage such powers within the confines of ensuring that we uphold the principles of democracy in this country. On the temporary exclusion orders, therefore, we welcome the principle of judicial oversight being accepted following amendments in another place. In this House on 2 December the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), rightly pointed out that there was such judicial oversight for terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and stated that we would be tabling amendments on that very principle. The Home Secretary said to me in Committee on 15 December that such oversight was not necessary and that for her to have the power to make that decision should suffice.

Not only Opposition Members but Government ones, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and others, made the point that we need to uphold democracy and the right of appeal and oversight at the same time as tackling the threat head on. The debate continued on Report and, indeed, the Opposition tabled an amendment to achieve the objectives that the Government are now accepting following amendments in another place. Both Government parties voted against the earlier Labour amendment, but now support proposals that, broadly speaking, do exactly the same thing. It is a significant U-turn by the Government, but welcome all the same. The case for judicial oversight has been clear all along, and the conditions now in place are welcome.

Her Majesty’s Opposition also fully support the Prevent strategy changes made by the Home Secretary this evening. Labour developed Prevent when in government, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) was key to that at the time. It is important for us to have a statutory basis for Prevent. The Bill introduces the obligation on public bodies to implement Prevent and to follow statutory guidance. We supported that in principle, but, again, we made it clear that we wanted to press strongly on the guidance, on the nature and drafting of which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) made some key comments. We tabled some amendments, which the Government have now accepted, on the guidance being subject to parliamentary approval. That amendment was drafted by the Labour party and supported by Universities UK. We also supported in another place specific protection for universities’ obligation to uphold freedom of belief. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend made those points, that Labour Members have made the points in another place, that the House of Lords has agreed the amendments and that the Government have now accepted them.

We support the creation of the privacy and civil liberties board, but there was significant confusion about its role as introduced in the Commons. Yet again, we raised that issue in this place and in another place, and the Government have now accepted some of the points made and have clarified, particularly, the interaction of the board and the independent reviewer. That will address some of the capacity problems faced by the independent reviewer.

It is also important that we have accepted the amendments on the authority-to- carry scheme. That is a vital power but most of the detail and how it will impact carriers has been left to secondary legislation. The Government have now accepted that these detailed regulations will need to have proper parliamentary scrutiny, and, again, that is welcome.

There was not a great deal of division between the Government and us on the principles of the Bill before it left this place, but we did want to see some strengthening, and those strengthening measures have been put in place. I wish not only to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford for raising those issues here, but to thank Lord Rosser and Baroness Smith of Basildon for raising and dealing with those issues in another place. Serious consideration has been given in the House of Lords and this Bill is the better for it. I am pleased that the Home Secretary has accepted those amendments, and she will have our support on them tonight and on the implementation of the Bill in due course.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Smith

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to this place, as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I shall wait to see what the Minister says, but I am minded to say that it is important that the right of appeal is paramount. The Minister might or might not accept the amendment and I will have to listen carefully to his argument, but if he does not accept it there will be an opportunity to test the will of the Committee should we so wish.

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

The shadow Minister has already said that schedule 1 is detailed and that there is a lot to contemplate in it. Would not adding the right to appeal further complicate it? People will already get their passport back after two weeks, so why this additional complication?

[Mr Hanson]

I was coming on to those points, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. It might help if I outlined some of the circumstances. If an individual’s passport is removed, it will be because there is reasonable suspicion that he is involved in some activities that mean he should not travel abroad. That suspicion might be well founded—I am trying to be fair, and I doubt that the power would be exercised if it were not well founded—but there still might be occasions when an individual was travelling to a difficult, challenging country for a family wedding, a holiday, an employment interview, or for other perfectly legitimate reasons. The security services might wrongly identify an individual; that can occasionally happen. The individuals responsible might have challenges for a range of reasons. The information supplied to the security services—for example, by a parent whose adult child is travelling—may be wrong.

The simple point is that if that power is exercised, the individual loses their passport and their ability to travel and so might well miss a job interview, a family wedding or a holiday and might be wrongly marked out in their social circles. That could happen. I am not saying that it will, but it could. Amendment 17 is meant to ensure that if that individual feels that they have been wrongly treated, they have a right to ask for a review by a court. It is reasonable to do that under UK law.

[Julian Smith]

After two weeks, the individual will get their passport back anyway. This is a really wishy-washy way of carrying on, and we should either be confident that this is a good measure or not. They will get their passport back within two weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

Again, that demonstrates why the issue of appeals is important. Paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1 refers to

“a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom”.

I can envisage a situation in which an individual who is the citizen of and holds the passport of not, dare I say it, the Irish Republic, but another country in the European Union or even a country outside the European Union, but who is resident in or travelling from the UK, is suspected for a range of reasons of involvement in terrorism-related activity under paragraph 1(10) of schedule 1. Again, the UK would be in the difficult situation of depriving an individual from another country of their passport on the basis of a range of suspicions that may or may not prove to be factual. I am in danger of repeating myself and am being careful not to do so, but we need to examine such facts carefully. The purpose of amendment 17 is to stimulate a debate about that.

[Julian Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I am trying to wind up my remarks, but I will give way.

[Julian Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what is his mechanism for appeal? Surely the measure allows border control officers to take a passport without giving too many reasons and, after two weeks, for a judicial review to take place. How would his appeal process work? How would we avoid giving away intelligence during the appeal that could jeopardise the United Kingdom’s security?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations and for reminding me that I have form on police bail as a Minister in the last Government. He will be pleased to know that although I gave the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) the opportunity to make her case, we do not support it, having listened to it. We might have form on this issue, but that form is consistent with our approach to the matter.

Our amendment 29, on a sunset clause, and amendment 17, on the right of appeal, still bear merit. The Minister has not convinced me that a sunset clause would be damaging in the long term to the Bill. Neither, given the concerns of Members such as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others about appeals, am I persuaded not to press amendment 17.

[Julian Smith]

I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think carefully about pressing his amendment. What sort of message will it send to terrorists and people who threaten our country if he goes down this wishy-washy path of supporting the Bill but saying we should review it in 18 months’ time?

[Mr Hanson]

Having been counter-terrorism and policing Minister in the last Government, I know the extent of the threats we face, perhaps even more so than the hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that anybody has ever accused me of being wishy-washy on these matters—in fact, I have often been accused of being a little too harsh. However, it is right and proper, when we give powers to remove passports from individuals, that the House of Commons at least commits to reviewing those powers in two years—possibly to see whether we need to make them stronger; it might not mean we want to make them weaker. If he had his passport taken off him at Heathrow or Dover on spurious grounds, he would wish to have an appeal process in place. It is one of the basic tenets of this House of Commons.

So, not being wishy-washy, but being committed to tackling terrorism at its core and taking firm and effective action to reduce the threat to this country, I still believe we need to review the Bill in two years’ time and give people the right to argue their case, should they so wish, and question the grounds on which their passport has been taken from them. On that basis, I would like to press amendment 29 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, which touches on one reason why we are presenting alternative, parallel models. I am not saying that the provisions in new clause 4 would be appropriate in every circumstance, but I do not believe—if the Home Secretary can convince me otherwise, we will look at that—that provision is in place for a formal managed return, as under our proposals; we simply have the Home Secretary’s proposals for a request to come back or for detention at a foreign port of entry to prevent someone from returning. We are seeking to give her a menu of options, and our approach could be a better way of managing individuals. Judgments will be made by Ministers and the security services as to how this could be managed, but the concerns expressed by David Anderson QC and by Liberty, which I thank for its assistance in helping us to table these provisions, give rise to a potential alternative that could be examined.

[Julian Smith]

How would the right hon. Gentleman get around the Home Secretary’s comments about the security implications of his model—giving out data to carriers that could compromise British national security?

[Mr Hanson]

We would be looking to do that in a number of circumstances anyway; data are already given to carriers about individuals. Under the Government’s model, information would also be provided to the carrier that the individual was of interest to the UK Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

The rights being removed under the exclusion orders are nowhere near the same as those being removed under TPIMs, so the need for executive dynamism and an ability to move quickly should trump the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making.

[Mr Hanson]

It is still a big deal to refuse a British passport holder access to the United Kingdom. It is a very big step to take. I am not saying that it is the wrong step to take, but it is a big step. The powers under current TPIMs and, potentially, under the revised TPIMs, involve restrictions on movement and contact. The Bill as proposed could involve detention in a foreign country, pending return to the United Kingdom under a managed process. Charges may not have been made. A person could be held simply on the basis of evidence that has been gathered by the security services. Although those measures are not the same, an element of judicial oversight is something to which we should aspire. As a fair man, I am tabling these issues so that the Home Secretary can reflect on them because I am aware of the concerns that exist outside and inside this House. Undoubtedly, there will be heavy scrutiny of these sections of the Bill and their implications when the Bill reaches the House of Lords. It is important that we flag them up here to say that we should have in place a mechanism whereby the Home Secretary has to make her case to a relatively small cohort of individuals in order to progress the matter. I do not want to have the Home Secretary tied into a long-winded or unresponsive channel for application. I do not want the Home Secretary to have a slower processing ability that means she cannot enable counter-terrorism activity to take place in a speedy and effective manner.

However, if the Government believe that the TPIM regime is not unduly cumbersome when trying to control terror suspects in this country, there seems little reason why it should not be appropriate for use on individuals in other countries, particularly as the Home Secretary will often know who they are and have a close interest in them. The current stipulation is that the Home Secretary simply has to reasonably consider whether someone is involved in terror-related activity. That is a very low bar, and one that I think should be subject to judicial oversight.

In conclusion, I think that the Government should at least look at the alternative model set out in new clause 4, which has widespread support. I would also genuinely like to hear from the Home Secretary why she feels—she has already indicated as much—that the arrangements for TPIMs are not appropriate for what is still a severe restriction on liberty, which might be the right thing to do, under the proposed TEO notice. I look forward to hearing other Members’ contributions.

The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Smith

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[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—

Policing

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Smith

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

Lord Blair certainly knows about the role of PCCs, but I think people should vote in this election.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome all the fantastic Conservative prospective PCCs, and in particular the Conservative women who are standing on 15 November?

[Mr Hanson]

I certainly welcome the fact that the Conservatives have a candidate standing in every area, unlike the Liberal Democrats, who voted for the policy but are not seeing it through and therefore are not committed to it. We in the Labour party have put a lot of effort into selecting candidates, and more than a third of them are women, which is very promising.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

The Ministers need to establish the facts on these matters. If the relevant Minister cannot reply to the debate, perhaps another Minister, such as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) could wind up instead.

Let us put that aside, because the key issue is that the Home Office Minister responsible for crime reduction, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane, said at his party conference, only two weeks ago, that a turnout of under 20% would not be acceptable. We face these November elections with awareness still at a very poor level, and we also have a new electoral system, one not normally used for these elections. The Electoral Commission has summed up the situation in its most recent briefing in September, where it said:

“It is important that voters have sufficient information about the voting system, the issues and the candidates that are standing in elections…This will be particularly important for the PCC elections because these are completely new elections, for a new role. In addition they are happening at an unusual time of year, using a voting system (the Supplementary Vote) that most people will be unfamiliar with.”

It went on to say that although it will be carrying out its functions in highlighting the elections, its

“preferred option—a booklet with information about the candidates to be sent to voters in each police authority area – is not going to happen.”

The Government have ignored the Electoral Commission’s advice on turnout for these elections, so I would be interested to know from the Minister what sort of modelling the Home Office has done on turnout and what it feels it might be. When we examine every local election since 2006, which were held in May, we find that there was an average turnout of 37%—that is twice what the Electoral Reform Society suggests turnout will be on 15 November. Its modelling suggests that the turnout will be as low as 18.5%, and it has said that these elections

“threaten to result in the lowest turnout of any nationwide election in British history.”

If that is the case, the fault will lie with the Minister.

[Julian Smith]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not welcome the fact that the PCC elections will allow local communities finally to have control over the strategy for policing decisions in their areas?

[Mr Hanson]

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past 100 years, but police authorities did have elected members chairing those committees.

I will talk about the Labour party’s approach to police and crime commissioner elections, but first let me finish looking at where we are in relation to the election on 15 November. Today is 24 October, yet Parliament has not yet approved the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2012, item 21 on today’s Order Paper. That election is to take place three weeks tomorrow. This very day, the answer from the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to a question that I tabled has been published in which it is revealed that his decision not to lay that order has cost you, Madam Deputy Speaker, me and every other Member of this House as taxpayers an extra £350,000. That is the cost of this Government’s failure to lay an order which should have been laid by law—not by choice; by law. It is a legal requirement to have election ballot papers in English and Welsh in Wales, but this Government have not yet laid the relevant order, even though the election is happening three weeks tomorrow. Returning officers in my constituency and throughout Wales have had to print two sets of ballot papers, at a cost of £350,000.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Smith

Thursday 13th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed; my hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The Minister’s objective in the Bill is to help new businesses to develop to compensate for the loss and shrinkage of public sector businesses in other parts of the country; that is his main focus. The annual report would clearly show not only where new businesses are commencing but, through other information that we will be able to glean, where businesses such as construction firms are shrinking because of cuts in public expenditure on schools, hospitals and other major capital projects. I can think of building firms in my own constituency in north Wales that depend on public sector contracts in housing, education and health for their work. As my hon. Friend says, if that sector shrinks, those employment opportunities will shrink too.

I would be interested to know how many new businesses commence, and how many people are employed in each of them, in my own area in north Wales as a result of this measure, but I will not have that information unless I table parliamentary questions.

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

I do not understand why one could not simply put a call through to Companies House. Why do we need a report from London about the minutiae of how British enterprise is developing as a result of this fantastic Bill?

[Mr Hanson]

We are forgoing £940 million of taxpayers’ money, in the shape of national insurance contributions, to pay for this scheme—£940 million that could be put into the Building Schools for the Future programme and hospital expenditure. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman was interested in where and how that money was being spent and whether it was being spent effectively. The annual report would show clearly how that £940 million of forgone expenditure was being spent, and which constituencies or regions were receiving the benefit and which were not. My main focus is to ensure, from my perspective and that of my right and hon. Friends, that areas of unemployment, deprivation and high public expenditure get that resource, not areas that already have low levels of unemployment and high levels of prosperity, and do not require this level of resource.

The House is bound to consider how we expend public resources, and it is incumbent on the Government to provide that information. The Minister will have it as he monitors and receives reports on progress on projects, as I did when I was a Minister, and I do not see why he cannot publish it. Ultimately we can drag it out of him through parliamentary questions, but it would be far better for him to be transparent and open, in accordance with this proposal.