Technical and Further Education Bill
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rob MarrisMonday 14th November 2016
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Marris
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Order Paper I have says that this debate can continue until 10 pm. Am I misreading it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
No, indeed. The hon. Gentleman is technically absolutely correct that the debate can continue until 10 o’clock.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rob Marris(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
There are dozens of Sikhs in the Public Gallery tonight. In honour of that, I will, if I may, say the Sikh incantation:
“Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh”.
Roughly translated, and I hope hon. Members will forgive my translation, that means: “Glory to the Khalsa”—the Sikh brotherhood and sisterhood—“Glory to God. The Khalsa belongs to God. God always prevails.”
I am the chair of the all-party group for British Sikhs, but I must stress that I speak in a purely personal capacity to the House tonight. The issues we are discussing are very serious; they are taken very seriously by UK citizens, including hundreds of thousands of Sikhs. They are serious issues for our security, but proscription is also a serious issue for our liberty—for freedom of association and freedom of speech—which is curtailed by proscription, and, on occasions, that must be the right thing to do.
The ban on the International Sikh Youth Federation in the UK in March 2001 led to the organisation being banned in India in December that year and in Canada in July 2003. If the Minister is not going to wind up, I hope he can reply in writing later to some of the questions I will be firing at him—it is a slightly strange procedure we have tonight, with all due respect, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The first question I would like to ask is: will the Government—assuming this statutory instrument goes through, as I am sure it will—formally notify the Governments of Canada and India of the UK’s decision to de-proscribe and of the reasons for it? To repeat a question that was asked earlier—it is an important question, and the Minister did answer it, but I am coming at it from a slightly different angle—have the Government had any communications with the Indian authorities on lifting the ban on the ISYF since the application to de-proscribe was made in February 2015? If there have been communications, when did they take place?
This issue touches on our freedoms, so I would like to ask the Minister how many organisations such as the ISYF, which are proscribed, do not currently meet the statutory definition of being concerned in terrorism, which is the core part of the test. In 2013, the Home Office identified 14 proscribed organisations that in its assessment did not meet the statutory test of being concerned in terrorism. I do not know whether the ISYF was one of those 14, but if it was, I hope the Minister can explain why the ban—the proscription—was not lifted, at the latest, when the application for de-proscription was made in February 2015. If the ISYF was one of the 14 organisations the Government were saying did not meet the test any more, the Government should have given in immediately in February 2015, when three applicants made the application to de-proscribe.
What about the other 13 organisations? If the Home Office decided nearly three years ago that 14 proscribed organisations should no longer be proscribed, that further underlines the case, made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, for annual reviews of these proscriptions, because they are very serious—they are serious for our security, but they are also a serious infringement of our liberties.
It is for that reason that I am concerned that the statutory time limit for the Home Secretary to respond formally and legally to the application to de-proscribe is 90 days. It is regrettable that she appears to have taken almost twice as long to respond. That is not a technical point, because these statutory provisions exist to protect our hard-won liberties, yet the statutory provisions on the time limits, which I am sure would have been enforced had the applicants not met their 42-day time limit, appear to have been ignored with impunity by the Home Secretary. That is not just a technical matter because it relates to our freedoms.
To reinforce the point made very ably by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, I ask the Minister to explain what troubles many hon. Members and many of the large Sikh community: that is, why the Home Secretary thinks on 31 July 2015 that the ISYF did meet the criteria—as the Minister said, they are tough criteria, and that is good, because this is about our security—and should continue to be proscribed, but four and a half months later throws her hand in. In the first instance, she succeeds. She says, “This organisation should continue to be proscribed”, and she wins. The three applicants then put in an appeal. Leaving aside the fact that the Home Office took longer than it should have done to respond to that appeal, in mid-December—I think it was 14 December—the Home Secretary said, “I’m not going to fight this appeal any more—I’m offering no evidence.” Hence the measure before us tonight, because in the four-and-a-half month period between 31 July 2015 and 14 December 2015 the Home Secretary changed her mind.
In terms of our liberties and of respect for the large Sikh community, I think there should be an explanation for this. I appreciate that there are security concerns. If the Minister said, “I’m going to lay it all out before the House”, I would be the first in a queue with 649 other MPs saying, “No, don’t do that—this is about our security.” However, there is room for him to give a little more explanation to the three applicants, on the grounds of civility, if nothing else. As far as I know, they are all here tonight in the Public Gallery—Amrik Singh Gill, Narinderjit Singh Thandi, and Dabinderjit Singh Sidhu. They deserve the civility of that explanation, because this proscription has directly and indirectly affected them.
What concerns me is that the Home Office’s lifting of the proscription was awfully grudging. Somehow the balance tipped during the four-and-a-half year period in the second half of last year. This month the Home Office put out a press statement saying: “The British Government has always been clear that the ISYF was a brutal terrorist organisation.” That may be the case, but things seem to have changed very quickly in a short period. The explanatory memorandum on the statutory instrument says at paragraph 7.4:
“An application was made to the Secretary of State for the deproscription of the International Sikh Youth Federation. The Secretary of State has now decided that there is insufficient information to conclude that the group remains concerned in terrorism.”
It may have been involved in terrorism—I do not know. There are serious questions to be asked, and serious questions were asked in March 2001 when the proscription order went through this House. However, it was awfully grudging of the Home Office to say in December, “We’re not going to provide any more evidence. We’re just going to throw our hand in and not even fight it through the legal procedures any more.”
The three applicants from the leadership of the Sikh Federation UK legally challenged the Home Secretary, risking a whole load of costs, which, I have to say to the Minister, I understand that they may not get back even though they have won their case. They persuaded the Home Secretary by the force of their argument to withdraw her appeal, because apparently the evidence she had in July was no longer there in December. That is very strange for an organisation which, by then, had not existed for over 14 years—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech and putting his points very well, but I urge him to be careful not to be repetitive.
Rob Marris
I thank you for that admonition, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, the leadership of the Sikh Federation UK legally challenged the Home Secretary and persuaded her to withdraw the appeal. The federation is widely recognised as a large and prominent Sikh organisation the UK, building democratic political engagement for the UK Sikh community. Many of its members would like a bit more information as to what suddenly changed, because it mystifies us.
When I talked to the federation again today, as I often do, it told me that it had written to, I think, every MP—certainly to many MPs—saying that the key outcome that it wanted was not only the additional information and explanation that I urged the Minister to provide, within the bounds of our national security, but a renewed and open relationship with the community, based on issues of particular importance to Sikhs living in the United Kingdom, so that we can all move forward. I hope that on behalf of the Home Secretary, the Minister will tonight make a commitment to the Sikh community and promise a fresh start for this fresh new year for Sikhs.
Finance Bill
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Rob Marris(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 89, page 4, line 20, leave out clause 9.
New clause 1—VAT treatment of the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—
‘(1) The Treasury shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before the House of Commons a report on the VAT treatment of the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
(2) The report must include (but need not be limited to) an analysis of the impact on the financial position of Police Scotland and by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service arising from their VAT treatment and an estimate of the change to their financial position were they eligible for a refund of VAT under section 33 of the VAT Act 1994.’
New clause 2—VAT on sanitary protection products—
‘(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report setting out the impact of exempting women’s sanitary protection products from value added tax.
(2) The report must include (but need not be limited to)—
(a) an estimate of the impact on VAT revenue of exempting women’s sanitary protection products; and
(b) an assessment of the impact on the purchase of women’s sanitary protection products of exempting them from VAT, with particular reference to purchasing by women aged under 25.’
New clause 7—VAT on sanitary protection products (No. 2)—
‘(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement on his strategy to negotiate with the European Union institutions an exemption from value added tax for women’s sanitary protection products.
(2) A Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report on progress at achieving an exemption from value added tax for women’s sanitary protection products within European Union law by 1 April 2016.’
New clause 10—Enforcement by deduction from accounts: review—
‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within two years of the passing of this Act, undertake a review of the impact of Section 47 of, and Schedule 8 to, this Act.
(2) The review must address, but need not be confined to:
(a) the number of cases in which the Direct Recovery of Debts has been used;
(b) the effectiveness of the safeguards; and
(c) the total amount recovered.
(3) The review must include a benefit-cost analysis, including speed of recovery.
(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must as soon as practicable lay a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament.’
New clause 11—Impact of removal of CCL exemption for electricity from renewable sources—
‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall within six months of the passing of this Act undertake a review of the impact of the removal of the CCL exemption for electricity from renewable sources and lay the report of the review before both Houses of Parliament.
(2) The review must address, but need not be confined to:
(a) the impact on consumers and on fuel poverty;
(b) the impact on energy-intensive industries and on employment in those industries;
(c) the level of carbon leakage in the energy-intensive industry;
(d) the effect on investment in new renewable power generation and on investment in new nuclear power generation;
(e) any effective subsidy provided to, or additional profits accruing to, operators of existing and new nuclear power stations;
(f) what additional measures will be enacted to mitigate the impact on energy-intensive industries of the removal of the section; and
(g) the impact on business investment.’
Amendment 90, page 62, line 2, leave out clause 45.
Rob Marris
It is pleasure, almost 15 years after I was first elected to this place, finally to make it to the Dispatch Box—albeit, for the moment, the Opposition Dispatch Box, but never fear, comrades, we are working on it!
New clause 9 and amendment 89 deal with inheritance tax. They are twins, and I shall address my remarks to those two provisions before going on to address the many somewhat disparate amendments and new clauses in this large group.
New clause 9 is designed to make the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertake, within one year of achieving a Budget surplus, a comprehensive review of the inheritance tax regime. I have to say that it is a somewhat optimistic new clause, given that five years ago, the same Chancellor of the Exchequer was forecasting a surplus any day now. We have now arrived at any day now, and he is forecasting a surplus for the financial year 2019-20. We will see whether that happens. If the Government accept the spirit of the new clause, as I hope they will, they could have a review of the inheritance tax regime now, rather than wait at least five years until the Chancellor achieves a surplus—if he ever does.
Amendment 89 would remove the inheritance tax provisions in the Bill. Inheritance tax is a somewhat unusual tax. It is the least painful tax any of us will ever face, “because you only pay it when you’re dead.” We need to bear that in mind when we talk about this tax. Most estates on which inheritance tax is levied cross the threshold, whatever it might be, either because people have inherited wealth themselves or because they have had a windfall gain from the increase in the price of the house in which they live. There are, of course, those who start out in disadvantaged backgrounds and make a lot of money in their lifetimes; inheritance tax would then be payable on their estates. But one can say with confidence that that does not apply to a great number. At the moment, very few estates pay inheritance tax.