Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Mark Reckless

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

We did consider those matters and I originally drafted an amendment that sought to do that. I could have tabled it last Thursday but I decided to focus our debate on whether the legislation is fit for purpose. I am not saying that it is not; I am simply saying that there are severe changes in the Bill that restrict individuals, give powers to police officers and others, set out a new code of practice and give a range of powers to the Secretary of State to do what they wish with detained individuals. If the Opposition are to support the clause this evening, as we will, it must be reviewed at some point in the future. The mechanism we suggest means that a Minister, whoever that might be, must review the situation and either table a motion or, if the legislation ultimately falls, table a replacement piece of legislation in time for 31 December 2016.

I am not seeking to cause difficulties for the Minister with amendment 29. I simply want him to consider in detail his proposals in clause 1 and schedule 1 and whether we should have a sunset clause. We want such a clause because one of the gaps in the legislation means that there is no mechanism for appeal in the event of the powers in schedule 1 or clause 1 being exercised against an individual. An individual's travel documents will be removed for 14 days, and potentially for 30 days, but in the meantime there is no mechanism through which they can appeal effectively against that decision. Amendment 17 allows for an appeal in the courts on the subject of

“the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this schedule were met”.

The Committee will agree that the right of British citizens to travel freely, unrestricted by state interference, is crucial and historical.

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

Given the right hon. Gentleman’s concern, would not the right approach be to accept his amendment 17 and the judicial right of appeal rather than having a sunset clause? Does he plan to press that amendment to a vote?

[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.

Migration Statistics

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Mark Reckless

Thursday 26th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[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.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Mark Reckless

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

Immigration (Bulgaria and Romania)

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Mark Reckless

Thursday 19th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hanson]

I am glad the Minister has done that, because I recently gave chapter and verse in the Immigration Bill Committee on a number of recruitment agencies that are recruiting to fill positions in the United Kingdom solely with people from abroad.

We need to take greater action on the enforcement of housing regulations. Only yesterday, I was pleased to see the Prime Minister—again, I give credit when it is due—visiting a raid on a beds-in-sheds encampment in Southall. One aspect of immigration that greatly upsets my constituents in north Wales is when individuals share properties in squalid conditions and so are able to undercut wages locally, because the low standard of their accommodation means they do not have the outgoings that other people have. We also wish to look at extending legislation on gangmasters. It is perfectly reasonable to put controls in and extend gangmaster legislation to sectors to which it does not apply at the moment, such as catering and tourism.

There is action that we can take, but—and this is not intended to provoke a political fight—I genuinely do not think that the approach that some hon. Members are taking, of arguing that the transitional controls should be extended beyond 31 December, is the right one: we know, as do they, that that is a matter for treaty negotiation. Nor do I think, speaking with genuine humility, that the approach of withdrawal from the European Union is one that I can support. The European Union provides significant investments to constituencies such as mine. It also provides significant employment and a proper standard of working conditions across the board.

Furthermore, although this might not be a common thought at the moment, just under 100 years ago my grandfather was fighting Germans, Romanians and Bulgarians in the trenches and Turks in the middle east. But now, we have not had a world war for a generation and there is a stability that would surprise my grandfather if he were alive today. People from Germany, Romania, Bulgaria and Britain now sit in the same chamber to discuss issues of common economic and social interest whereas in his generation Europe was at war. That view of the European Union and the potential of a strong future Europe might not be a common one, but it is one that I hold passionately.

[Mark Reckless]

I am sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman’s grandfather was fighting the Romanians during the first world war, because I understand that Romania was on the allied side in that conflict.

[Mr Hanson]

My grandfather was fighting Germans and Bulgarians, but let us put that aside. He was in the trenches at Neuve Chappelle in 1915 and at the Somme in 1916, and in Sinai in 1917. He was fighting people who now sit in the same Parliament here and elsewhere in Europe. That is good for the stability of Europe. Perhaps I made a slip, but the point I am making is that the stability we have gained, through a wider economic union and through shared social conditions, is a good thing. Hon. Members have stated we should withdraw, but in my view that would be a bad thing.

We need to look at how we can put labour market conditions in place after 1 January to strengthen our position. I would also, if I may, stretch out a hand of friendship to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, who made a strong case for looking at other areas of immigration, including student immigration, tourism and business investment. There may not actually be that many people coming from Bulgaria and Romania in January at all—whether to claim benefits or to work—but the danger is that today’s debate could send a signal that Britain is closed for business, when there is a positive case to be made for some aspects of immigration and for managed migration. However, we need to have controlled migration, to remove people who are here illegally and to ensure that we have strong borders. We also need to ensure that we deport foreign criminals, as the hon. Member for Kettering said; I have to tell him that since my time as Prisons Minister, the rate of removal of foreign national offenders has fallen by 13.5%.

There are things that we can and should do, but we should approach the matter in a calm and measured way on 1 January. I also look forward to a calm and measured debate on the remaining stages of the Immigration Bill.

Leveson Inquiry

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Mark Reckless

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I think that the hon. Gentleman, who has dipped in and out of today’s debate, will know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said that he wants action urgently. He wants action by Christmas; he wants action in the next few weeks. I too want to see statutory underpinning of Leveson’s recommendations as a matter of urgency, and I hope that we can achieve consensus. When the hon. Gentleman—who has not been present for the whole debate—reads Hansard, he will see that his hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough and others have supported some of Leveson’s recommendations.

I accept that there are concerns about state regulation. In a letter to me, the editor of my own regional newspaper, the Daily Post, said:

“I am strongly opposed to statutory regulation of the press.”

However, I say to that newspaper editor, and to others who share her view, that we need to consider what that means. In his summary of recommendations, Lord Leveson says:

“An independent self regulatory body should be governed by an independent Board”.

Is that state regulation of the press? He continues:

“The appointment panel… should be appointed”

in a “fair and open way” with “an independent process”. Is that state regulation? No. He continues:

“Funding for the system should be settled in agreement between the industry and the Board, taking into account the cost”.

Is that state regulation? No. The code and the board should

“subscribe to an adequate and speedy complaint handling mechanism”.

Is that state regulation? No.

“The Board should not have the power to prevent publication of any material, by anyone”.

Is that state regulation or censorship? No, it is not. It is, by statute, the underpinning of a voluntary agreement between the press and the state in relation to regulation of those areas. It is no different, dare I say it, from the legal services body that was set up by statute to look at solicitors, or the Judicial Appointments Commission, which was set up by statute to appoint judges, or the General Medical Council, which was set up by statute to be the independent regulator of doctors, or Ofcom itself, or the Advertising Standards Authority. All those were established by Parliament, and they are all independent of Government and Parliament, but they all fulfil a regulatory role across the board. Those matters are important. We need to have that independence, and we need to underpin it with statutory regulation.

As the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will be winding up for the Government and I am the shadow Police Minister, it is important to place it on record that Leveson’s recommendations are important in respect of policing. I believe we can do more, but it is right that the term “off the record briefing” should be discontinued. It is right that all senior police officers should record their contacts with the media for the sake of transparency and for audit purposes. It is right that there should be guidance to police officers on who can speak to the press and when. It is right that we should have an audit of who uses the police national computer and when. It is also right in respect of the police that we should examine guidance and spell out the dangers of hospitality, gifts and entertainment.

[Mark Reckless]

The police have been traduced in this matter by a number of commentators, including Members of this House. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is good that Leveson has given such a positive report on the police, certainly in terms of the initial investigation, although there were problems later with not reopening it?

[Mr Hanson]

Lord Leveson has done so in terms of the initial investigation. There are further elements to come in part two, however, and we will learn what he says about them. He has recommended certain measures, and I hope the Government will accept them in due course.

The Government must not only examine what the Opposition have said, but take on board the comments of Members from the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and, last but not least, their own Conservative Members. They have strongly said right across the board that the Prime Minister should act on the Leveson challenge. Failure to do so will show that the Prime Minister is looking for good headlines, but he will ultimately be on the wrong side of the argument.

For the victims of these terrible intrusions, there can only be one outcome, and that has been put very ably by Members of all parties this evening. The long grass is not an option. The Prime Minister has said he is not convinced of the need for statutory underpinning, but the majority of this House has said tonight it is in favour of statutory underpinning of Leveson’s recommendations. The Prime Minister must act. I hope the Government will reflect on what has been said tonight, and on the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. They must continue to work on a draft Bill and bring one forward before Christmas. If they do not, the Opposition will give all Members of this House the opportunity to give their opinion early in the new year.

Proceeds of Crime

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Mark Reckless

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I have said to the Minister that we believe that the directive is a positive development, as the Minister in the other place also said, only two weeks ago, and we should look at it in a positive way. I will take at face value the concerns that the Minister has raised this evening about operability and the advice that he has received from the agencies, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should not opt in because of a wave of anti-European sentiment, that is a very different matter indeed. I will certainly be a positive European. We should have co-operation. I want to see co-operation between states. I also want the European Union to take powers to take the assets of criminals abroad who are operating and making profits in this country. That would not be a bad thing. I would very much welcome further discussions with the Minister about the points that he has raised, but in principle I have no objection to a Europe-wide document helping to support this approach and enshrine improvements on what we currently have in British law.

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

Was that a yes?

[Mr Hanson]

For the anti-Europeans on the Government Benches, let me say that it is certainly a yes. I certainly wish to see co-operation on a Europe-wide basis to freeze terrorist and criminal assets and to repatriate them to this country. The hon. Gentleman can certainly take it as a yes. This evening I have listened to what the Minister has said, which indicates that he has had advice—which I have not seen—that says that there are difficulties with this measure. What I am saying to the Minister—and to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is in her place—is that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and I would wish to have sight of that advice and to have further briefing on it, so that we can scrutinise the operation of the process by the Minister and how he intends to take forward discussions on the document as a whole. However, I sense that Government Members have objections to the very principle of such co-operation, rather than to the practice that the Minister has set out.

I would like to have some idea from the Minister—either now or after contributions from right hon. and hon. Members—of how he will take this matter forward. He has indicated that he has concerns about certain issues, but he has not yet shared with the House the details of what they are. What is his timetable for discussion with his European Union colleagues on these matters? Does he have a timetable to try to resolve the issues? Does he intend to return to the House at some point to sign up to the document, or has it been kicked into the long grass because he knows that, ultimately, Members such as, I suspect—with due respect—the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and others would vote against the measure, no matter what was brought forward, as a matter of principle? If that is the case, the Minister should be honest with the House, because we will certainly return to this matter in due course, when we have seen the advice that he has received, as far as he can share it with us. I sense that this is not just about the operation and practice of the measure; rather, I sense that there are certain elements on the Government Back Benches with a fundamental objection to the principle of such co-operation.

Policing

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Mark Reckless

Thursday 12th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Brady. Right hon. and hon. Members have already stated that policing and police organisation is a complex issue. In essence, however, I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), because the issue boils down to some simple truths, as is reflected in the contributions that have been made. Quite simply, how do we reduce crime and the fear of crime in an efficient and effective way that is accountable to the Peelian principle, already mentioned, that the public are the police and the police are the public? How do we ensure that those who work in that service on our behalf are treated fairly and with respect? I would like to explore those issues as they relate to the helpful report by the Committee and its Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).

First, however, I pay tribute to the work that our police officers, and the civilian staff who support them, do daily to tackle crime and keep our communities safe. The public value that work highly and want a continued, visible policing presence. How we ensure that and manage the landscape in which police forces work is an important issue. As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, the public are not concerned about the organisation, the machinations involved or even, on occasion, accountability. They are concerned about outcomes. The Committee’s report is an extremely thoughtful and comprehensive look at the new landscape of policing, and it raises important issues for our consideration.

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Betts. It is a pleasure to have you join us at the end of a fruitful discussion, and I hope that the Minister and I will summarise the debate in a way that gives you a feeling for it.

The Committee, under the able chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, hunts in a pack; I know that from personal experience. It makes a great impact, and its ideas and suggestions are well considered and thought through. The report highlights a number of questions, some of which have effectively been answered by the passing of time since the report and the Government response were compiled. There are, however, still some important issues for consideration.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the phasing out of the National Policing Improvement Agency, and the impact and timing of that. Together with other members of the Committee, he looked at the position of post-Olympics counter-terrorism and the National Crime Agency, and he urged the Government to appoint the head of the National Crime Agency. The former chief constable of Warwickshire, Keith Bristow, has now taken that post. My right hon. Friend also raised the issue of the professional body for policing proposed by Peter Neyroud in his report, and we must discuss and flesh out some of those issues.

The importance of collaboration was also raised. The previous Government focused on that issue, and tried to allow police forces to obtain clear financial and operational benefits from collaboration. The Committee looked at IT, and I will return to that issue. The IT systems are not fit for purpose, and having 43 forces use different forms of IT is not a productive use of public money. That, too, is an issue that we need to address. The Winsor review of pay and conditions—a live issue even this week—is another subject to which I will return. There is also the work on bureaucracy undertaken by Jan Berry; that work is reflected on in the Committee’s report. There are many issues to consider, and we have already heard useful contributions to the debate.

I say with genuine regret that the pace of change, and the Minister’s drive and vision, which I accept is a genuine vision, still leaves the policing landscape muddled. That has impacted dramatically on the morale of police and police officers, which I believe is at an all-time low—my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) touched on that issue. Police officers to whom I speak are not opposed to reform and recognise that changes need to be made. They object, however, to the manner in which the Government have gone about the work, and officers seem to have a feeling of conflict, rather than seeking to bring people together with the Government on some of the important changes.

When I was fortunate enough to hold the Minister’s position, some of the issues that I tried to drive through were similar to those that he is trying to drive through. In the Home Office, there were issues around efficiency, procurement and ways to improve pay, conditions and morale, which were—and are—important. However, I think that the handling of those issues has dampened morale and led police officers to feel that the Government are not on their side when it comes to fighting crime, reassuring the public, building confidence and providing a public service. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East mentioned, that has all been done against a background—I must refer to this—of massive cuts in public spending. Those cuts are well over and above what the previous Government planned, and are being made at a speed that we did not plan. They are front-loaded, which is not what the previous Government would have done. Cuts of 20% are being made. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) said, that is going too far, too fast.

Before the Minister says so, I will say that when I was in his position, we identified £1 billion in savings, or 12% of the policing budget, in areas such as procurement, overtime, reorganisation, collaboration and sharing, which are important. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, under Sir Denis O’Connor, confirmed that savings of 12% were achievable, but any more would affect the front line. I fear that not only the pace of change to the landscape, but the level of funding reduction, will affect the service and add to the morale issues, which are important to the members of the Committee who are here.

[Mark Reckless]

Is not one of the issues with morale that there is confusion between the 12% cut to total budgets and the 20% cut to the central grant? The front-loading that we hear about reflects, to a significant degree, a pay freeze in the early years. Yes, we must pay our police officers well, but if police officers are on average getting more than what 80% or 90% of people in their area do, as Blair Gibbs of Policy Exchange says in work published this week, we must take that into account and get a balance. We need the sort of reward that gives police pay for the right reasons, and not just because historically the work happens to have attracted an allowance.

[Mr Hanson]

I appreciate that. I know that the hon. Gentleman took an interest in policing matters as a member of the police authority in Kent before coming to this place. I hope that he recognises that we tried to address some issues, such as pay and reward, overtime and a whole range of allowances, in the policing White Paper produced in 2009; that paper fell, due to the small event of the general election in 2010. I recognise that those issues exist and must be tackled. I simply say to him and the Minister that the pace of the changes, coupled with massive cuts in public spending generally, over and above the 12%, has added to morale difficulties and will affect the front-line policing service.

Last year, a 7.5% cut was made in the policing budget. This year, an 8.7% cut will be made if the police grant settlement is approved when it comes before the House in the next few weeks. I repeat for the benefit of the House that the HMIC figures for the future—they are not our figures—show a loss of 16,000 officers and a potential loss of 16,000 civilian police staff. That makes a difference. Greater Manchester will lose 1,592 officers over the next three years, the Metropolitan police will lose 1,907 over the next few years and the West Midlands police will lose 1,250. Even Sussex will not be protected by the Minister, who represents it; it will lose 500 officers in that period. Those are not my figures; they were produced by the HMIC independently. That must have an impact on the policing landscape. Forces operating the A19 scheme, such as mine in north Wales, could lose some of their most experienced officers, ultimately replace them with less experienced officers, and then spend money on training to improve skills.

We need to consider the Select Committee report in the light of those cuts and concerns. Crime fell year on year for 14 or 15 years, not only under the Labour Government but during the last two or three years of the Major Government, but what is the record for the Minister’s first year in charge? I say this with deep regret: in the first full year for which we have figures, crime has risen. Burglary has increased by 10%, household theft by 13%, and theft from persons by 7%. Even during the recession under the last Government, crime fell; normally, crime rises during recessions. In the policing landscape, due to confusion, change and the speed of change, funding and all the other issues that we have discussed, crime is rising. The reduction in resources is being implemented unfairly and too fast, which is causing great difficulties.