English Channel Small Boats Incident

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I would like to begin my remarks by echoing some of the comments that the right hon. Gentleman made, in particular the direct reference to our operational partners, who day in, day out do incredible work, which too often gets overlooked in this House.

On joint patrols—the right hon. Gentleman asked about surveillance capability—officers from Border Force and UK law enforcement are working in conjunction with the National Crime Agency and their French counterparts every day in some of the most appalling conditions. I refer right hon. and hon. Members to previous statements I have made in this House on loss of life, people smuggling and the wider reforms that the Government are bringing in. I have specifically mentioned the weaponising of illegal migration: the fact that women, children and even babies are being threatened and forced into the most appalling, unseaworthy vessels. Officers in France have been physically attacked and injured. Our Border Force patrols and officers deal with many harrowing scenes every single day, so on that point I very much support and commend the work our people do. It is difficult work.

I will come to the right hon. Gentleman’s other points, including the fact that there is a global migration crisis. This is not new—this is absolutely not new. Even in my days at the Department for International Development, humanitarian and climate crises led to forced displacement. We have seen many movements of people, through the Sahel, Libya and the eastern Mediterranean, since 2013, 2014 and 2015, culminating in much vaster people movements, with the Afghanistan crisis and other points as well.

I will go through many of the points the right hon. Gentleman made. Surveillance capability is stood up every day and is dependent fundamentally on, for example, weather and whether planes and drones can fly. In fact, on Monday when I came to the House for questions and the urgent question, I spoke about how drones are now being used in France. Previously, drones were not being used in France, because its laws did not allow it. We have to recognise that our laws differ to those of our counterparts, including our French counterparts.

On intelligence co-operation, their laws are different to our laws, and their prosecution powers differ to our prosecution powers. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we continue to not just co-operate—co-operation is what we do day in, day out—but intensify our work, including how we share data and intelligence. In fact, our laws prevent some of that from happening, and we are looking at ways we can bolster and strengthen them. We have to think about what that means for data sharing.

The prosecutions that have taken place are very significant. Prosecution pathways in France differ to prosecution pathways in the United Kingdom. We share across different jurisdictions information about individuals who have been arrested, because of course laws are different and differ. I should add that gangs do not just operate on the continent in northern France, Belgium, the Netherlands or Germany; they also operate in the United Kingdom, and that is where our resources are absolutely focused and targeted. This issue is not just about UK-France co-operation. I want to put this on the record once again: this is not just a problem for the United Kingdom and France. When we look at Europe, from the gateway into Italy, Greece and now Poland—I spoke to my counterpart in Poland earlier this week, as well as to those in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and so on—we see that this is a widescale problem.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to address just three other points if I may. Resettlement is a fundamental pillar of this Government’s work. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned resettlement figures; I would just caveat much of those, due to the pandemic. He will respect and understand that travel movements have been restricted. Resettlement rights have been limited because of the pandemic, but we are committed and are working to resettle in the way that we have committed to do so. That links to the Afghanistan resettlement scheme, in addition to the 15,000 people evacuated under Operation Pitting. I have also publicly said that we can resettle only once we have the ability and the infrastructure to create resettlement pathways so that we do not just bring people here and let them lead an inadequate life. They need to rebuild their lives.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Dubs scheme. I have actually put an offer on the table, not for the first time, to the French Government today on a returns agreement, looking in particular at family reunion children. This is an offer I have made repeatedly to my counterpart in France. We are determined. Over the weekend, we will be pursuing further discussions. We have to have viable agreements that reflect the type of crisis we face on migration and the toughest circumstances we are now confronted with.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

It is quite clear that this matter is not going to be ended at a stroke. The reality is that, even though we are no longer a part of the Dublin convention, the Dublin convention is completely broken. Across Europe, lots of countries are happy to see migrants travel across their country—as long as they do not stay—into somebody else’s jurisdiction. That has led to the problem we face now, with those electing to come to the UK ending up in France. Can the Home Secretary assure us today that she is putting the greatest pressure on the French Government to allow us to work with them in their territorial area, through patrol systems and ships, and/or members of the police or armed forces, to help them and support them? Does she agree that they should do that because it would help them as much as it would help us?

[Priti Patel]

As ever, my right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. He is absolutely right about the wider issues across EU member states, and we recognise that. I will be speaking to Commissioner Johansson later today—not for the first time; I have had previous discussions with her about this issue. I think there is a recognition now. It is absolutely tragic and appalling that it takes a tragedy of this nature for momentum to be galvanised across other countries on this issue. It should never take a crisis of this nature for action to come together. My right hon. Friend specifically asked me about putting pressure—as far as I see it, not just pressure, but direct offers on the table—on France about joint patrols, whether in territorial seas or on territory itself. This has been a constant offer, it really has. I made that offer yesterday and to my counterpart in the last hour.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

If I may just finish my remarks before I go back to my speech. That is why our focus is on creating safe routes and looking at what we can do outside the United Kingdom to help support women and children and families to come to the United Kingdom to resettle. These are important principles that we have already established in our resettlement schemes, and we do want to do much more in this area.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. As we can see from the Bill, much needs to be done. I want to draw her attention to part 4, which deals with modern slavery. I was very proud when the Centre for Social Justice brought forward the paper and very proud that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) brought forward the world’s first legislation on this subject. There are problems with part 4. I gently ask her and her team to retain an open mind about changes that may come forward, because we really do want to lead the world on this and be generous to those who are not just trafficked, but trafficked for the most abominable reasons.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know from our discussions that we will continue to work with him and others to ensure that we are doing the right thing. I will come to part 4 later in my remarks, but let me expand on exactly where we are seeing the problems and anomalies within the system. Of course we want to close them down, because modern slavery is absolutely abhorrent, but there are key elements that we also need to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to speak shortly.

There has been an alarming increase in the number of illegal entrants and foreign national offenders, including child rapists and people who pose a national security risk seeking modern-day slavery referrals to avoid immigration detention and frustrate removal from the UK.

One individual, who was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK, had that leave revoked following persistent offending that led to a prison sentence adding to more than 12 months. They were subject to a deportation order, a decision upheld by the courts. On the day that they were due to be removed, they went on to make an asylum claim. Once that was refused, they claimed to be a victim of modern slavery in relation to incidents several years before they came to the United Kingdom. This was then referred to the national referral mechanism, which rightly identifies and supports victims of modern slavery. Decisions on these cases currently take around 12 months, with a low bar for postponing removal. The person was released from detention and their removal was postponed. They subsequently absconded and went on to commit further serious offences.

The Bill contains vital measures to ensure that victims are identified as quickly as possible, while making it easier to distinguish between genuine and non-genuine accounts of modern slavery. It is absolutely right, as I have said throughout my remarks this afternoon, that we are doing the right thing to support genuine victims and genuine asylum seekers. This is where we absolutely need to reform the system, to close down loopholes and gaps that are being exploited by those who have been a harm to British citizens and who have no legal right to be in the UK.

Help and support will be available where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a victim, rather than that they may be a victim. People claiming asylum or human rights protections will be required to provide relevant information relating to being a victim of slavery or human trafficking within a specified period. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I say that this is exactly the area where we need to do more work. We will absolutely work with Members of the House and other organisations to make sure that we have the right protective measures in place for those who have absolutely been victims of modern-day slavery.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The Home Secretary is being most generous in giving way. The time in which people are granted leave to remain has a bearing on whether we can prosecute those who are guilty, because they need to be settled, in a settled state, able to give evidence and not fearing what will happen next. This will have a huge impact on the ability to prosecute those who traffic them.

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without going into detail here, I give him the assurance that this is effectively what we are seeking to achieve and are working on right now. The point has been very well made by him and by the Centre for Social Justice. Linked to his comment, it is right that we pool all our resources into helping genuine victims of modern slavery and that we do not allow dangerous foreign criminals, who are effectively pushing aside real victims, to go on to abuse the system for their own despicable means.

We already maintain a list of safe countries that consistently adhere to international human rights law, to stop people delaying removal by falsely claiming that their human rights are at risk. Every EU country will be on that list, as they are safe countries. That speaks to the point frequently made and discussed in this House that people moving through safe countries—through EU member states—should seek to claim asylum in the first safe country, not to come to the UK as a destination of choice. Furthermore, we are taking a power to allow us to remove countries from the list as well as adding them to it, so that the list can remain relevant and appropriate to our needs as assessments change.

If someone’s human rights claim is clearly unfounded, there will no longer be a right to appeal. Whether someone has complied with the asylum or removal process will also be considered when deciding whether to grant immigration bail. Other countries must co-operate when taking back those citizens who have no right to be in the UK. If countries do not co-operate in the return of their nationals, their access to our generous, fast and open visa system will be at risk. Every effort will be made to remove those who enter the UK having travelled through a safe country in which they could and should have claimed asylum.

For the first time, how people arrive in our country will impact on how their claim is progressed. Those we cannot remove but whose claims prevail will receive only temporary status with limited entitlements. Anyone who arrives in the UK via a safe third country may have their claim declined and be returned to a country they arrived from or a third safe country.[Official Report, 22 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 9MC.] People who make a successful claim after arriving via another safe country may receive new temporary protection status without the same benefits and entitlements, and that will be reassessed periodically.

The Bill also makes it easier to remove someone to another safe country while their asylum claim is being processed and enables us to recover taxpayers’ money from lawyers where their unreasonable behaviour wastes the courts’ and other parties’ resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

My focus today in the short time available—I cannot wait for call lists to end—is a very specific element in the Bill: part 4. I co-sponsored the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill with Lord McColl and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for meeting me and Lord McColl on a number of occasions to look for a way to improve it before it was published. I spoke on 19 October last year about the need for an immigration provision that provides confirmed victims—I stress “confirmed”—with certainty of recovery and the ability to focus on working with the criminal justice system to ensure that we increase the very low number of prosecutions for offences related to modern slavery. I want the House to hold that thought because it is critical. Our self-interest means being better on that element of the Bill.

Part 4 sets out several reforms on modern slavery. I am aware that the Home Secretary is seeking to meet varying objectives through the Bill and that she wants to reduce abuse of the system. I want to deal with clause 52, which will provide identified potential victims in England and Wales with assistance and support for a period when the person is in the national referral mechanism. Although I welcome the support for adult victims in England and Wales during that period being put on a statutory basis, as is already the case in Northern Ireland and Scotland, the support that clause 52 places on a statutory basis is actually less than is currently provided as a matter of practice in England and Wales, which is a problem. Essentially, whereas the current guidance in England and Wales affords 45 days’ support, as does the statute in Scotland and Northern Ireland, clause 52 proposes a reduction in England and Wales to just 30 days’ support for confirmed victims of modern-day slavery. I draw that to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister, because it needs to be dealt with.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend has many faults, and I am aware of a handful of them, but one of them is not naivety. He has far more qualities, and his quality will tell him that the system is being gamed by all kinds of unscrupulous people. The risk is that modern-day slavery is one way of gaming the system.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I simply ask my right hon. Friend to notice what I said: I referred to those who already have confirmed status as a victim of modern-day slavery. This is important, because it means they have already gone through the NRM. It is a question of how we deal with them at that point. This will give time to arrive at the right conclusions.

Statutory support is provided during the national referral mechanism, so having no such support afterwards makes no sense. They go out of the NRM and are suddenly in the cold world, unable to navigate their way and fearful of retribution by those who treated them so badly in the first place. The provision of support to help these people is also in our self-interest, because it is in our national interest to ensure victims get sufficient support to allow them to help police and prosecutors with criminal investigations. In a way, by reducing such support, we are making things worse.

Clause 53, on leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking, is at the heart of the Bill. I co-sponsored a Bill with Lord McColl to provide leave to remain for 12 months, along with assistance and support, for adult victims who want to remain in the UK. I gave evidence on this to the Home Office, and I am therefore disappointed that, instead of addressing the problems with discretionary leave that I highlighted last October, the Government have simply placed current practice, which is clearly not working, into a statutory framework.

Under clause 53, leave to remain will remain discretionary and the same justifications for its provision will apply: being necessary to assist the police with investigations, being necessary because of personal circumstance or being necessary to make a compensation claim.

The ability of a victim to remain in the UK is unchanged by the Bill, and one would therefore expect that the proportion of confirmed victims in receipt of leave to remain would remain low. In other words, this Bill would perpetuate rather than address the current arrangements in which the vast majority of confirmed victims are denied leave to remain in the UK to help their recovery. The police have made it very clear that they want victims to be settled in accommodation so that they know where they are and they can give evidence.

I support much of what the Bill is trying to do, and I understand the motives behind it, but part 4 deals with those from the most terrible backgrounds and facing the worst persecution, trafficked as they are. We need to give them time, and that time will help us prosecute the very people we wish to go after. Being good and decent is a payback to us at the same time.

I support this Bill, but I look for changes to part 4 during its passage.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I think the right hon. Gentleman is misreading what we did in office. The point is that today, he has an opportunity to vote for a minimum sentence. The question is: is he going to take it?

The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) helpfully indicated that 68% of those found guilty of rape are sentenced to more than seven years in prison, which means that about a third of rapists receive only four to seven years. How can that be right? My question to the Lord Chancellor is a simple one: does he believe that a rapist should ever conceivably receive a sentence of only four years in prison? The Government explained that one of their reasons for rejecting our amendment was because they did not agree with statutory minimum sentences, yet clause 100 of this Bill creates a statutory minimum sentence for repeat offenders of certain crimes, including drug offences and burglaries. Why does the Lord Chancellor feel that those crimes are serious enough to warrant a minimum sentence, but rape is not? A recent poll showed that almost 80% of the public would support our proposal, with only 7% opposed. I call on the Lord Chancellor to show that he believes the same.

The Government’s rape review specifically recognises that one of the reasons that almost half of victims of rape withdraw is the fear of giving evidence in court. We know that the pre-recording of evidence is hugely important in limiting the distress of already traumatised victims, and that rolling out section 28 would allow more rape victims to see justice done quicker. Why, then, are the Government re-piloting something that has already been piloted twice? The lack of ambition is staggering. This is typical, frankly, of a Department that is obsessed with endless reviews and utterly averse to radical action. The Government have already failed far too many victims of these horrific crimes; hopefully that will change tonight.

Following the tragic death of Sarah Everard, the Opposition tabled an amendment that would extend whole-life orders to someone guilty of a murder, abduction and sexual assault of a stranger. A whole-life order is a commitment that the offender will never be released from prison again. The Opposition believe that, for this crime, a whole-life order is the only appropriate sentence. Amendment 50 would mean that anyone found guilty of the murder, abduction and sexual assault of another person—crimes that are so reprehensible—would spend the rest of their lives in prison. I do not feel that that is a difficult point and I hope the Secretary of State will agree.

The Victims’ Commissioner and Domestic Abuse Commissioner have called out the culture of misogyny throughout the criminal justice system that is clearly demonstrated in the response to domestic homicides. A quick scan through recent data powerfully illustrates that point: according to a report by the Femicide Census, 62% of women killed by men were killed by a current or former partner, and 70% of all murders of a woman by a man took place either in a shared home or in the victim’s home.

Yet we know that there is a serious anomaly in the sentencing of homicide cases that results in murderers who kill in the home being treated far more leniently than those who kill outside the home. As Carol Gould put it so poignantly,

“Why should a life taken in the home by someone you know be valued less than a life taken by a stranger in the streets?”

It is clear to the Opposition that it should not, and that is why we have tabled new clause 86, which would require the Lord Chancellor to commission an independent review into that aspect of sentencing. In this country, a woman is killed by a man on average every three days. From 2017 to 2019, there were 357 domestic homicides. The perpetrators of those despicable crimes cannot expect to benefit from this sentencing anomaly any longer.

As the law currently stands, complainants of serious sexual offences are granted lifelong anonymity. Although in some cases, identifying a complainant could result in an offender being prosecuted for contempt of court, they will, more often than not, receive only a fine. During questions on this last month, I raised the case of Phillip Leece to show just how devastating revealing the identity of the complainant can be. For naming and humiliating his victim online, he received a pathetic fine of only £120. At the time, the Lord Chancellor seemed to agree with me that the law in this area must be strengthened. New clause 87 would do just that by giving judges the power to sentence offenders for up to two years. In Committee, the Minister indicated that the Government took that point seriously, but went on to vote against the Opposition’s new clause. The Government accept that work has to be done in this area, so let us see tonight what the action is.

May I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for raising the important issue of the use of sexual history in rape trials? The Opposition wholeheartedly agree that no victim of a sexual offence should have to feel victimised twice by experiencing a hugely traumatic experience in the courtroom. The last thing we want is for an alleged victim of rape to face the ordeal of their sexual history being discussed in court unless the strictest of criteria are met. If section 41 is not being used as intended, it is only right that it is reviewed and, if necessary, strengthened. That is the purpose of new clause 88, which would compel the Government to seek the advice of the Law Commission as to whether section 41 is fit for purpose. Yet again, this is too important an issue to be kicked into the long grass, and I would appreciate assurances that any review will be completed before a victims Bill comes before the House.

Amendment 124 would ensure that any expansion in the use of audio and video links in courts will not undermine access to justice or the efficiency of our justice system. As the Lord Chancellor will appreciate, the move towards jury members being able to sit remotely is a seismic shift that could have profound consequences. It is concerning therefore that the Government seem content to introduce clause 168 without any evidence base or consultation. In Committee, the Opposition tabled several amendments that would provide safeguards to clause 168, but the Government rejected them on the basis that they were unnecessary. The hypothetical benefits of remote juries are limited, but it is crucial that those limited benefits are not introduced at the expense of access to justice and the right to a fair trial. Amendment 124 would ensure that the expansion of audio and video links is not implemented until an independent review has been undertaken.

Pets are a much loved and integral part of all families, and certainly of our family—I am thinking of my dog, Silver, as I say that. They bring us support, comfort and happiness, and I am smiling already thinking of my beautiful dog at home. During the pandemic, the number of dog thefts has skyrocketed, and we are now at a point where at least five dogs are stolen in England every day. That is why the Opposition have tabled new clause 98. Pet owners up and down the country would be horrified to learn that while the law of theft caters for certain offences—for example, the theft of a bicycle, of scrap metal and of wild mushrooms—that is not the case for the theft of pets, and this must change.

I am pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has tabled new clause 16, which is in effect a carbon copy of the new clause that we tabled in Committee. I am pleased to have the support of a Spurs supporter and a long-standing Member of the House, but I think we could do better. Since Committee, concerns have been raised about the two-year maximum tariff and we have listened to those concerns. As the Lord Chancellor will know, many of these thefts are being conducted not by petty criminals but by highly organised criminal gangs working across borders, and we are concerned that a two-year maximum penalty would not act as a sufficient deterrent to those people, so we have raised it to four years in our new clause 48. I hope that the Lord Chancellor can hear that the official Opposition are attempting to be reasonable, and that he will support some of the new clauses that we have put forward tonight.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), particularly as he referred to my new clauses—although not all of them, it has to be said. He referred to one of them, but there are two more. The new clauses are very clear, and I shall speak to them this evening. New clause 14 would require the cash sale of pets to be banned so that the only way for people to do those sales would be by cheque or bank transfer. That would mean that pet sellers could be tracked and the owners identified. This has become too easy a business.

New clause 15 would make it compulsory for pets that have to be microchipped to be scanned as well by vets, to check that the microchip number is registered on an approved database and that it confirms the correct registered keeper. New clause 16 would make the offence of pet theft a specific category of crime, as the right hon. Member for Tottenham said, carrying a much more significant set of fines and even incarceration.

[Mr Steve Baker]

Of course I share my right hon. Friend’s sentiment, but I was a bit concerned when I read his new clause about microchips. Is it really going to end up creating offences for vets? I would have thought they already had enough on their plates in often difficult and emotional circumstances.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

That may be the case, but the reality is that, by law, dogs must be microchipped. It makes no sense to microchip a dog, only for some vets not to scan them. That would mean that people who had stolen dogs could simply take them to the vet of their choice, knowing that they would not be scanned. The point is that if we have an offence, we must follow it through. Those pets must be scanned; otherwise, they will get stolen and sold without redress.

Those were the three areas that were raised with me, and many of my colleagues and friends who have signed these new clauses have also faced the same concerns. There has been a staggering welling up of anger, concern and worry about what might happen to people’s pets. There are some who will not go on walks with their dogs at the moment for fear of what might happen. It is important for the Government to recognise that this is a major concern.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is championing a noble cause that many of us feel very strongly about. Has he received the assurances that I have no doubt he has requested from the Government that they share our serious concern and that they intend to act, if not tonight then certainly in due course, on precisely the issues he has raised?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. The truth is that I have had a lot of discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor about this, and I feel that he is very sympathetic. I am sure that he can speak for himself, but I hope that he will give an undertaking that the Government will return to this matter in this Bill, at least by the time it is in the other place, and make whatever changes are necessary to the laws and regulations in terms of criminal justice. I have a high hope that that will be the case, but I will leave it to my right hon. and learned Friend to make his position clear when he gets to his feet.

[Steve Brine]

I want to back up my right hon. Friend, having put my name to these amendments. The reason that this measure needs to be in this Bill is that we have seen such a huge rise in the number of pet owners during the pandemic. I have not seen the amount of casework on this issue in 11 years that I have seen in recent months.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right, and that is the point I was trying to make earlier. There has been a huge upwelling of anger and concern about the theft of dogs in particular, but pets in general. These three new clauses highlight that particular issue. It is not a simple thing or something that can be ignored, and it is quite interesting to look at what has happened to prosecutions.

Safe Streets for All

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman’s comment is irrelevant, as he failed to hear my first comment about protecting our citizens and about the investment that we have put into policing. That investment is getting stronger and it is growing; we now have more than 8,000 new police officers. Perhaps he would like to welcome the new officers in his constituency.

We are giving our brave police officers the support and the protection that they deserve as well as the powers that they need to tackle crime and criminality. We are also taking back control of the country’s borders with a fair, but firm immigration system, restoring confidence in the criminal justice system and making the punishment fit the crime, doing more to counter the full range of state threats posed to the United Kingdom and cleaning up the internet by making tech companies meet their responsibility to protect people, children in particular, from online harm.

Last Wednesday, we reintroduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which begins its Committee stage tomorrow. This Bill is essential for making our streets safe and, as we build back better from this pandemic, we must also build back safer. That is why this Government proudly stand with the law-abiding majority in backing our fantastic police. For well over a year, during an unprecedented emergency, police officers have been there, performing their duty, supporting their communities, and protecting all of us, day in, day out. Their contribution has been outstanding and must never be forgotten.

On top of what is already a demanding job for them, every day a police officer goes to work could be a day in which they have to face or to arrest an aggressive and violent offender, listen to a child describe a sexual assault, make a split-second decision of immense consequence or knock on a stranger’s door and tell them that their loved one has been killed. Even before the pandemic, it was high time for us to do more as a country to recognise their incredible sacrifice.

Through the Bill, we will put into law a requirement on the Home Secretary to report annually to Parliament on the police covenant. The new covenant sets out our commitment to enhance, support and protect those working within, or retired from, policing roles—whether paid or as volunteers—and also their families. It is designed to recognise the unique role played by our society by the police workforce and will initially focus on health and wellbeing, physical protection and family support. This Bill acknowledges the debt that we owe the police.

The vast majority of the public in the country have nothing but respect and admiration for the police, and yet our officers are subjected to abuse and violence. We will not tolerate that any longer. It is a disgraceful way to treat any human being. Any assault on a police officer is also an assault on the fabric of our society. It is not enough to respect and admire the police in theory. This Bill backs them with the full force of the law and the maximum penalty for thugs who assault an emergency worker will double to two years in prison.

Serious violence has a corrosive impact on our communities and there is an urgent moral imperative to tackle it. The police have a vital role and I am proud that there are now more bobbies on the beat. More than 8,000 new officers have already been recruited as part of our campaign to recruit an additional 20,000.

We have invested more than £100 million over two years to boost the operational response to violent crime. As a result of that work, more than 100,000 weapons have been taken off our streets. But as long as young lives are lost, families are left shattered and communities are gripped by fear, and we must do more. Every time someone carries a knife or a weapon, they risk destroying lives—their own and others’. Reoffending remains a significant problem, so the Bill will empower the police to take more proactive approaches, particularly in relation to known offenders, by introducing serious violence reduction orders. These targeted stop-and-search powers will tackle high-risk individuals and act as a strong deterrent.

Law enforcement is only part of the answer, though; we must also do much more to prevent violent crimes. The Bill will introduce a serious violence duty that will require the police, local authorities and others to work together to address problems in their areas. Importantly, it will undoubtedly save lives. When lives are lost, every single lesson must be learned, so the Bill will introduce a requirement for formal homicide reviews to be considered following adult deaths involving offensive weapons.

The right to protest peacefully is woven into the fabric of our country’s history. It is a right that this Government will always protect. That does not mean that the police should be powerless to intervene when peaceful protests are hijacked by chaos and disorder on our streets.

Before I turn to the measures that we are bringing forward, I must address some of the ugly scenes that we saw across London over the weekend. There is never an excuse or justification for inciting antisemitism or hatred against any community or faith. Some of the language—the chants and slogans—used by protestors and activists this weekend was unacceptable. In fact, it was racist. The streets of London, our great capital city, saw people waving antisemitic placards comparing Israel with Nazi Germany. There were violent chants of “Kill the Jews”, along with many other abhorrent chants and rhetoric that I will not repeat. All this was shamefully supported on social media—Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter were awash with antisemitic and abusive content.

All right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the footage of the convoy of cars driving down the Finchley Road. That was nothing to do with Palestine or Israel; it was pure and simple antisemitism that sought to intimidate, harass and frighten members of the Jewish community. I am sickened by the behaviours that were witnessed over the weekend. In an open and free society, we of course all have the right to express our views openly, but any free and open society must never turn a blind eye to appalling hatred, racism and antisemitism of the type witnessed over the weekend.

There is also never an excuse to exercise or direct violence towards our police. Six police officers were injured following Saturday’s protest because of the utterly disgraceful behaviour of a few. I stand by those officers, who sought to support the right to a peaceful protest while enforcing the law against a criminal minority.

In recent years, we have seen some protesters and groups use increasingly disruptive tactics that are a drain on the public purse and result in police forces having to move officers away from their regular responsibilities. Protesters’ rights must be balanced against the right of everyone else to go about their daily lives, so we are introducing a modest reset of the police powers for the effective management of highly disruptive protests. It will uphold the right to freedom of speech and assembly while ensuring that people can go to work, ambulances are unhindered and the free press can function unimpeded.

The Bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to a criminal justice system in which the British people can have full confidence. Too often, the public could be forgiven for thinking that the rights of criminals trump the rights of victims. Sentencing is one of the few ways in which the public, victims and offenders see justice being done. We are delivering on our manifesto promise by toughening punishment for the worst offenders and preventing automatic early release for those who have committed serious crimes. We must also give offenders a fair start on the road to rehabilitation, so we will introduce community sentences that are both tougher and more effective when it comes to addressing the causes of offending. Our message to criminals remains simple: we will come for you.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

While my right hon. Friend is on sentencing and what is not in the Bill, I wonder whether she, with the Lord Chancellor sitting next to her, will give me this undertaking. Could we find a mechanism, through the Bill, to address the theft of pets, which has turned violent in many communities, including mine? It is not a joke—it is a serious set of offences and it is ill dealt with by the sentencing process and in law. Will she give that undertaking?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I think this comes back to the whole issue of criminality. The issue of pet theft is incredibly sensitive. It is emotive and absolutely distressing—there is no question about it. There is also a very serious underlying issue of violence. The types of tactics used demonstrate why this Government are right to be tough on criminals and criminality. Of course, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have established a taskforce and are looking at the appropriate measures that can be put in place. This Government are absolutely committed to dealing with this issue, along with much of the serious offending that I have already referred to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Given that I have a limited amount of time, I will try to make some progress.

There is much in the Queen’s Speech that I support and welcome. I welcome the statements of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is long overdue. I also welcome the introduction of the taskforce on violence against women and girls—a vital area in which it is clear that so many people need action. The Bill’s stronger sentences for child murderers, rapists, violent offenders, dangerous drivers, child abusers, memorial desecraters, house burglars, drunk drivers and knife carriers are all well overdue. It is to my right hon. Friend’s credit that the Bill is being brought through the House. Protection of the police is another important feature, with an increase in the maximum available sentence for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. All those measures are vital, as are the new plans on immigration.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall)—the Home Secretary knows that I have spoken to her about this—on the need to allow people who have a legitimate reason to be here as a result of modern-day slavery to stay here for longer and to make their case. I hope that will be borne out in the legislation, which she knows we have spoken about.

However, I would like today to turn to something that is not in my right hon. Friend’s brief—but this is the debate on the Queen’s Speech, and it is in the Queen’s Speech—which is planning. I am going to make a point that I dare say one or two of my colleagues may do, which is that I have deep concerns about some of the Government’s proposed planning changes. I will mention some of the key issues.

We all know that we need more homes, but it is important to understand what type of homes and to think about how we treat some of our communities. It is the propensity of many local authorities in far too many areas to just dump down large tower blocks to meet their numbers, but those blocks are completely out of keeping with areas made up of family homes in which many people live. We need to think about that very carefully.

I am worried about the ability of the Government, which they will preserve for themselves in the new legislation, to override local plans or growth plans, and about the fact that we may lose any planning application in the process, which people will not, therefore, be able to oppose. That will take away powers—what are very small powers, in a way—from local communities. I want the Government to think again about that.

I also want the Government to think again about the general development management policies, which I think will draw an unprecedented amount of power to central Government, with their ability to dictate the areas that will see growth and the type of growth they will see. That will not be too welcome among our constituents, and I want my hon. Friends to think carefully about it.

Overriding residents in these new designated growth zones will be a real problem. Even now, in many places, the idea of building these out-of-keeping tower blocks is a major problem, but it is one that will grow even more because we will simply allow local authorities to do it.

The extended personal development rights are also a problem, because they will not only allow businesses to be turned into flats, but allow developers to build upwards —that is my understanding—without any commitment to local facilities such as schools and roads. That goes against the purpose of planning in the first place. I raise that point with my hon. Friends, and I hope that that will not be the case.

Finally, I hope that during this Session, the Government will address the issue of those poor leaseholders who live in flats that had cladding installed on them—cladding that was illegal at the time it was installed—that they now have to pay to get rid of. We need to resolve this. There are many poor leaseholders who are going to suffer huge bills for cladding that—little did they know when they bought or became leaseholders of those flats—was actually the wrong cladding from the word go. Developers need to ante up and pay for that, and the Government need to drive that forward.

However, I do welcome the Queen’s Speech overall. I welcome the Home Secretary’s excellent speech and her excellent promotion of her legislation. She will receive my response and my support throughout all that, but I do urge the Government to deal with the problems on planning and to deal with the developers over cladding.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 1
Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Absolutely. The Government could press pause on the Bill and bring the whole House together.

Research has shown that, during the pandemic alone, one in six of our shop workers have been abused on every shift, with 62% of UK shop workers experiencing verbal abuse and almost being threatened by a customer. There have been awful examples of attacks on other frontline workers, who have been spat at, punched, verbally abused and intimidated. Labour is calling for wider measures to protect the pandemic heroes, extending protections to shop workers as well as other frontline workers. There is widespread support for this, with the additional protection for shop workers supported by organisations such as the Federation of Independent Retailers and chief executive officers from a number of major retailers, including Aldi, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer, McColl’s, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and WHSmith.

I would also like to mention the work of the USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—which has been passionate in campaigning for its members to receive these vital protections and has generated well over 100,000 signatories on petition. We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to frontline workers for putting themselves at risk to keep our country running. We should repay some of that debt with decent legal protection as well as decent pay.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making, in many parts of his speech, a very strong case for supporting the Bill, but he started by saying that he was not going to support the Bill because of one particular element. The Opposition were going to abstain at the end of last week; then they shifted their position. May I gently suggest to him that a decent way of doing this would be, if necessary, to abstain today, debate the amendments and decide on Third Reading whether the Government have moved at all? Would that not be more logical?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will always bow to the right hon. Gentleman’s guidance on parliamentary procedure, but we took a final decision to vote against this Bill. Let me say to Government Members that I will make it clear when I agree with the Government on something, but as I move on to other aspects of my speech, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will see that there are other parts of the Bill that also cause deep concern; he need only wait for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

In the short time available, I will limit myself slightly. The Opposition’s position is somewhat illogical at the moment. Is the Bill perfect? No, it is by no means perfect. I hope that it will be corrected as it goes through. Will that happen? Certainly. I accept that there are issues around freedom of speech and the right to assemble, and I think that these will be dealt with during the course of the debate. Overall, this is a good Bill, but Labour Members are going to vote against the protection of the police, the prevention, investigation and prosecution of crime, and important measures on sentencing and release, on public order, on encampments—which bother a lot of my constituents—on youth justice, on secure children’s homes and academies, and on the management and rehabilitation of offenders. They will vote against all of that, yet they agree with much of it. That does not make any sense to me.

Tonight I want to draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to something very important that is not in the Bill, and I want to make some progress on this. It is to do with the rising theft of pets, including dogs, much of which now includes violence. This is a really big issue; it is not prosaic by any means.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend—it is a big issue for my constituents and I am glad he has brought it up.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

There have been reports of a huge, 250% increase in dog-theft crimes in a number of counties, particularly Suffolk. The Metropolitan police, who cover my area, report the highest number of dog thefts in the country. The number of stolen dogs registered on the DogLost website has increased by more than 170% since lockdown, and 2020 was the worst ever year for the theft of dogs.

We are not talking about some inanimate object; this is an animal, a pet who is part of the family like the other pets. Dogs also do hugely important jobs. Who secures this place by ensuring that we do not have bombs? Dogs. Who checks at customs that people are not importing drugs and other things? Dogs. Dogs are being trained to detect covid now, and they should have been brought into airports years ago.

The reality here is that it is very violent. The big point is that gangs are involved now. The prices of these animals have risen—we are talking about £5,000 or £10,000 for a dog—and the gangs are very violent. I have constituents who have been knocked to the ground and beaten and had their hands stamped on. There have been threats made against them, their home and their families. These are serious offences, yet right now it is almost impossible to get more than a slap on the wrist for this stuff—a fine of £250 or perhaps £500.

Dogs are not even listed in the Home Office classification—they are in among theft from the person, bicycle theft, shoplifting and other theft. Pet theft currently sits hidden from view under HOC49, alongside things that do not have a home, such as a wheelbarrow. This is wrong, it diminishes the crime and it means that many people who are devastated by pet theft, and often brutalised, have no recourse. As I said, even the sentencing side of it is very poor. We need to bring in much tougher sentences and it is important that we have a categorisation that includes dogs and other pets. We also need police to take pet theft seriously. One individual told me that when their dog was stolen, a police officer said, “Did you have anything else of value taken?” as though dogs were not of any value.

Microchips have to be put in by law, yet no vet has to scan to see whether or not a dog is stolen. That should change so we should bring that in. Other ideas include a ban on cash sales, as happened with scrap metal, to cut off such sales, and consideration of the reintroduction of licences for pet ownership.

Pet theft is a serious offence and I would like the Government, during deliberations on the Bill, to introduce changes to help people. Violence and the theft of animals are wrong. We should do something about it, and do it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I am particularly pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), because I intend to address virtually the same subject. Poole is a beautiful place. We attract people, and, unfortunately, we attract people with unauthorised encampments. Last summer, in Poole Park, the cricket pitch was camped on. There was Whitecliff, Sandbanks car park—there are many areas in Poole that face unauthorised encampments, which take away well-used local resources from children and grandchildren, and my constituents.

Part 4 of the Bill was in the 2019 manifesto. I am particularly pleased that the Government have grasped this issue and brought forward this legislation. My constituents could never understand how they had to have licences, obey the law and pay their council tax, but if they stepped on any area that was illegal, they would get arrested by the police, when there are people—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Robert Syms]

I will.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that this is the age-old clash between rights and responsibilities? In this case, they have responsibilities but they see others who simply claim they have rights.

[Sir Robert Syms]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. What used to happen until recently was that people would turn up, and others would phone the local council, which would say that it could not do much about it. They would then phone the local police, who would say that they could not do much about it—indeed, there have been occasions when the local police have watched people go and set up unauthorised encampments—and then they would phone the Member of Parliament and let him know what they think about him, saying that the Government must do something. It is true that the local authority and the police have had more powers than they have been willing to use, but this is in the “too difficult to deal with” box, so people have just kept their heads down and hoped that, after a week or two, people would move on.

However, this does increase real costs to local authorities, which, apart from cleaning up sites, sometimes have to put special measures in to try to protect sites. Year after year, this costs council tax payers quite a lot of money, so I am very pleased that the Government have put these powers in the Bill. I hope that they survive their passage through the House. They will make a material difference to the quality of life of many of my constituents.

There are issues to do with Travellers that we need to address apart from unauthorised encampments. One of those is the poor educational qualifications that many of their children have—the Government need to pay attention to that to see what more we can do—and another is the health standards of many of these people, who do not access hospitals as easily as the rest of us.

Overall, what the Government are doing is very sensible. This is the sort of Bill that a confident right-of-centre Government should bring in to deal with law and order— not only with Travellers but with many other areas. Personally, I am becoming a great fan of the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, who instead of talking a good game are actually producing things in legislation that will make a great difference to people’s lives.

Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I will not go over my comments about the police on Saturday evening. Those points have been made. I absolutely disagree with what the hon. Lady said, but we will discuss it further on Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill later this afternoon. The fact is that, as a country, we believe in freedom of expression, free speech and the rights of people to express themselves freely through protest—managed protest—in the right way. The police always engage with individuals and organisers. We will debate this during the course of the Bill, but I am afraid that the hon. Lady has completely misrepresented the proposals that we are putting forward.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

The murder of Sarah Everard was a shocking event and I feel terribly sorry for what the family has gone through, made even edgier really by the fact that there have now been charges levelled against a police officer. We require police officers to protect everybody, particularly women. However, I received a note—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we should not be talking about the suspect at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My apologies, Mr Speaker. I was not going to refer to him other than just in passing.

The reality is that my right hon. Friend has announced that she will have an inquiry into those terrible events on Saturday night. They were shameful, but it ill behoves politicians to get up and pass judgment on what happened without having all the evidence. I was contacted by a female police officer today to tell me what happened to her on that night. She was threatened and told that she, not Sarah Everard, should have been murdered. She was also manhandled. I simply say that both sides should be dialling this down, not trying to raise the temperature by calling for resignations.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks—his point was well made. I, too, have been written to by many police officers expressing very similar sentiments from their own experiences. The point about not pre-judging is absolutely right. The police have operational independence. Obviously, as Home Secretary, I called for a report. I have now received that report, and an independent review is under way. It is right that we have that review, yes, for assurance purposes, but also to strengthen public confidence in policing and, obviously, for all Members of this House to hear the full facts of what happened in due course.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the law on detention is very similar to that pre-2015, when he was in the Cabinet. Immigration detention is part of our rules, but we have been reducing its use over recent years; again, it should be a last resort when other methods cannot be used. However, I say again with regret that introducing a 28-day limit would allow people to exploit the system and would actually run contrary to our ability to run an effective system.

I turn to Lords amendment 9. I appreciated the chance today and over the weekend to have significant conversations on this subject with my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who have had a strong passion and commitment to this area over a long period. Lords amendment 9 would require arrangements to be made in the immigration rules for the granting of leave to remain to confirmed victims of modern slavery who are EEA citizens, in specified circumstances. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary, for reasons that I will briefly set out.

Currently, confirmed victims of modern slavery who are foreign nationals from non-EEA countries and who do not already have immigration status are automatically considered for a grant of discretionary leave to remain. By “automatically” I mean they do not have to apply for it. Our national referral mechanism arranges for that consideration if, after a decision has been reached, there are conclusive grounds to believe that someone is a victim of modern slavery. EEA citizens are not automatically considered in that way, as many are likely to be exercising free movement rights and therefore do not require a grant of discretionary leave under UK immigration rules. They may, however, apply for discretionary leave if they wish.

However, to address some of the points that have been made, following the end of free movement, EEA confirmed victims who do not already have permission to stay in the UK, for example though our EU settlement scheme, will be treated in the same way as other foreign national victims and therefore receive automatic consideration for a grant of discretionary leave. The published policy will be amended to make that clear beyond 1 January 2021; the recent publication reflects the guidance that needs to be followed today, with free movement rights still in place.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

My hon. Friend knows that I spoke overnight to the Home Secretary and we agreed that this was an anomaly and needed to be sorted, so I am pleased that he now commits to doing it. Will he also, however, commit to having a full and proper set of discussions with Lord McColl, me and others about the possibility of introducing modern slavery victims support legislation to iron out many of these anomalies?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his constructive intervention. Yes, certainly; I am more than happy to engage with him about how we can look at this process. He will realise that it is not just in this area where there has traditionally been a difference, because EEA nationals have freedom of movement rights, so it would be odd to grant them status under immigration rules, but I am certainly happy to have that conversation. I also reassure Members that we would consider someone’s being held as a modern slave as reasonable grounds for a late application to the EU settlement scheme. I say gently that it would be unhelpful to have two very similar sets of criteria, one under the immigration rules and one under policy, so we do not accept Lords amendment 9.

Having been through the more contentious areas, I hope that Members support Lords amendment 11, which was introduced in reaction to feedback in the other place. I hope that Members accept the reasons I have outlined why the Government cannot accept the Lords amendments that we ask the House to disagree with, but I hope that they have a sense of the Government’s commitment to the issues raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now have a time limit of six minutes.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to be called to speak at this particular point, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was the Centre for Social Justice, which I set up and had the fortune to chair, that published the original document that pushed the Government into passing the first modern-day slavery legislation, a matter of which they are rightly very proud, and that made the UK the first country in the world to bring forward such legislation. That legislation now needs overhauling. That has been the case for some time. The recent report, “It still happens here: Fighting UK Slavery in the 2020s” states:

“For many, having no recourse to public funds poses further barriers to moving people on safely, putting victims at risk of homelessness and destitution, and making it more likely that they will fall back into exploitation and trafficking.”

The one thing that we can learn from recent events in places such as Leicester, where we have uncovered the most appalling abuse of individuals who have been victims of slavery, working for a pittance and living in terrible accommodation, is that we really do not want to see that repeated in the UK. That is the point that I want to make in my speech today.

There must be some kind of recourse to public funds for victims of modern slavery, which will make them more secure than they are at the moment. We need to make that case in legislation. I am pleased that the Government have moved on the issue of European economic area nationals and recognised that there was some contradiction in what they were proposing in their guidance. I notice that a paragraph was inserted into the guidance after Lord McColl’s amendment had been passed, which, had it been there originally, might have meant that there would have been no need for this particular amendment. Two contradictions were made but I do not have the time to go through them now, so Members will have to read about them themselves. None the less, I am pleased that the Minister said from the Dispatch Box that the Government have now rectified that matter and that non-EEA and EEA nationals will now be treated the same when it comes to discretionary leave to remain. That is a really important move. Having spoken to the Home Secretary and got that guarantee from her, it is a great pleasure to hear it from the Dispatch Box.

There has always been a problem with discretionary leave to remain and it was made worse by a Minister back in 2017 saying that there must be exceptional or compelling reasons to justify granting it. The bar has been set too high, and it is really important for us to recognise that people who come here having suffered the real persecution of slavery need to have a little more consideration shown for their position. They are not in the same boat as pure asylum seekers. In fact, those people can get a much longer period of time; whereas somebody who has genuine problems and who has been abused finds their time curtailed. That is why we need to look further than just at what the Government are doing here. I recognise that, perhaps today, this Bill is not the right way to try to press this matter forward, but I do say to the Government that there is another way.

I recognise also that the problem on that score is that a confirmed refugee can get five years’ leave to remain, but a confirmed—I repeat “confirmed”—victim of modern slavery gets no leave to remain at all. It seems to me that we have got ourselves in a twisted position, not because the Government—or any Government—want to be there, but because we have an anomaly, which we now need to rectify. That is the point that I really want to make in the short time available.

It is expensive for us to take someone through the national referral mechanism, conclude that they are genuine victims of modern slavery, but not provide adequate care. Those people remain very vulnerable and are quickly re-trafficked. As I said earlier, Leicester is a very good example of that, but there are other cities in the UK where people are drifting into these terrible conditions because they have nowhere else to go, or, for that matter, going into the national referral mechanism but facing uncertainty over ongoing care. They do not have the capacity to give evidence in court against their traffickers and that is the one thing that we want them to do. We need to be able to prosecute the traffickers to make sure that they never do it again. We need to think about this very carefully, so I have an ask of the Government—I said this when I intervened on the Minister. He needs to make sure that the change to the guidance is included and seen in the other place and that, critically, Lord McColl and others recognise that this has been done and that it is not just a gesture.

Secondly, I ask the Minister seriously—he said he was prepared to do this—to bring all this together in a new Bill that deals with the problems that we have now found. This is a good Bill, but we now find problems coming through relating to the abuse of people who are confirmed as having been brought in under modern-day slavery conditions and who we need to give support. I recognise that the Government are worried about people using modern-day slavery provisions as a route in, but the numbers coming in and getting a claim are so tiny that we can surely manage this. I understand the position in respect of failed immigration and people on asylum, but this is a very peculiar group that needs our care. If the Minister can commit to a discussion about future legislation with myself, Lord McColl and others in this place who would wish to be part of that, we may be able to make some progress on that.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [Lords]

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Report stage & Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—

‘( ) Nothing in this Act changes the effect of any rule of law or any enactment in force before the date on which this Act is passed in relation to extradition requests by or on behalf of—

(a) the People’s Republic of China, or

(b) the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.”

This amendment is intended to ensure the provisional arrest arrangements proposed under this Bill do not apply to extradition requests from China and/or Hong Kong.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—

‘( ) The power to make further amendments under this Act may not be used to make any provision in relation to—

(a) the People’s Republic of China, or

(b) the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.”

This amendment would prevent the power to make amendments under this Bill being used in relation to China and/or Hong Kong.

Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

‘( ) The power to make further amendments under this Act may not be used to make any provision in relation to the United States of America.”

This amendment would prevent the power to make amendments under this Bill being used in relation to the USA.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 13, at end insert “except in relation to extradition requests by or on behalf of—

(a) the People’s Republic of China, or

(b) the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.”

This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of China and /or Hong Kong of the powers under the Extradition Act 2003 in relation to British overseas territories, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, in relation to any changes made by this Bill.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 13, at end insert “except in relation to extradition requests by or on behalf of the United States of America.”

This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of the USA of the powers under the Extradition Act 2003 in relation to British overseas territories, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, in relation to any changes made by this Bill.

Government amendment 11.

Clause 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Annual statement on provisional arrests—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, at the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement setting out how many individuals have been arrested under provisions within this Act.

(2) The statement must include a list of each incident broken down by protected characteristics of each person arrested, as defined in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report in similar terms covering each subsequent 12 month period, within six months of that period ending.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a statement setting out how many individuals have been arrested under provisions within this Act, broken down by characteristics of each person arrested.

New clause 2—Review of the Act—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to review the operation of the provisions of the Extradition Act 2003 as amended by this Act

(2) That person may, from time to time, carry out a review of the provisions of this Act and must send a report on the outcome of such a review to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after completing the review.

(3) A review under subsection (2) may, in particular, consider operational effectiveness

(4) The person appointed under subsection (1) must carry out and report on the first review before the end of the period of 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.

(5) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament as soon as the Secretary of State is satisfied that doing so will not prejudice any criminal proceedings.”

This new clause requires the changes made by this Act to be kept under review, and the first review of the Act to be carried out within a year of its being passed.

Government amendment 12.

Amendment 16, page 3, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—

‘(4) The “designated authority” is the National Crime Agency.”

This amendment would define the “designated authority” as the National Crime Agency.

Amendment 4, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

‘( ) Regulations under subsection (7) may not add the People’s Republic of China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China as a specified category 2 territory.”

This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of China and Hong Kong of the proposed power under section 75B(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 to add to the list of specified category 2 territories under Schedule A1 on whose authority a valid extradition request may be made.

Amendment 9, page 3, line 36, at end insert—

‘( ) Regulations under subsection (7) may not add the United States of America to the list in Schedule A1 of specified category 2 territories.”

This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of the USA of the proposed power under section 75B(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 to add to the list of specified category 2 territories under Schedule A1 on whose authority a valid extradition request may be made.

Government amendments 13 and 14.

Amendment 17, page 6, line 42, leave out “Liechtenstein” and insert “All the Member States of the European Economic Area”

This amendment would allow for all EEA Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) to be inserted into new Schedule A1.

Amendment 10,  page 7, leave out line 2

This amendment would remove the USA from the proposed list of specified category 2 countries to which the provisions of this Bill will apply.

Government amendment 15.

Schedule stand part.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I rise to speak to amendment 1, but with it are a whole bunch of other amendments that I have tabled alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). I had intended when I originally tabled them to speak on the basis that the Government needed to act, but since then they have acted—and that is never a bad thing. Although I, with my colleagues, may well have provoked the Government to act, I still want to speak, because things are happening at the moment which mean, I hope, that the Government will pay full attention to further action that may be required, stretching across extradition and into sanctions.

I thank the Government for finally agreeing to rule out the extradition arrangements with Hong Kong, but it is worth noting what has been going on since the imposition of the national security law, which is now making the lives of many in Hong Kong a misery. More than that, they now fear very much indeed not only for their lives but their liberty in a way that none of us here, I sometimes think, could possibly imagine—what it is like to live in such an environment.

We have a historical relationship with Hong Kong, and we have a legal right, under the Sino-British treaty, to have an opinion and view on what is happening in Hong Kong. No matter what the Chinese Government may say, that is our right in international law. The imposition of the national security law runs counter to that arrangement—that treaty. On that basis, the Government have acted correctly in cutting off any potential problem that may arise as a result of the use of the extradition agreement—but there is more, even now, as we speak. Quite recently, we have seen action against a number of people who have done nothing other than use the kind of rights that we would take for granted in this House. Jimmy Lai, the owner of the largest pro-democracy publication in the city, has been charged with undermining the state. There have been arrests of young activists, some of which we have seen on television, but others go on. There have been media posts and people holding blank pieces of paper at protests. People have been arrested in shopping malls for sedition. The targeting of Hong Kong activists overseas is going on apace and gathering pace, as is retrospectively applying the law to supposed crimes that took place before it even came into force, which I find remarkable—perhaps I should not, but I do.

There are then all the elements that the UK Government will find themselves having to deal with, and I believe all the devolved Administrations are united in this sense as well. The evidence around censorship is really quite astonishing. References to the Tiananmen Square massacre have now been removed from all textbooks and all materials that might say anything at all about it—they are simply blanked out. There is a new cultural revolution, with teachers and students being asked and encouraged to spy on each other. If somebody says the wrong thing, or something that is considered the wrong thing, or if someone is remembered to have said the wrong thing, all such talk invokes the use of the security law. There is a new national security centre in Shenzhen to re-educate those who do not comply. Benny Tai, the organiser of the yellow umbrella protest, which is a peaceful movement—I stress that these are all peaceful movements—was fired from his teaching post at a university simply because he was party to that movement. The censorship of university content is now gathering pace, as they are filleting out anything that references any concerns or issues around the nature of China, and even its historical nature.

The latest issue that should concern the Government completely is that we are now seeing problems for journalists from the free world. I say the free world because it is not just a western issue; it is an issue of all those who believe in rights and freedom around the world, whether they be in the far east or in the west. The New York Times has to relocate its staff, completely—lock, stock and barrel—to Seoul after the visa renewal of a senior journalist was rejected; the threat was clearly there that the rest would follow. A senior journalist at the Hong Kong Free Press had their visa rejected. The Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Hong Kong described the trend as a weaponisation of visas by China. We even saw on the news the other day that the Australians are being heavily targeted—brutally targeted—and not only with sanctions; their journalists are now having to flee the country. In fact, two journalists who were due to leave were stopped from leaving and ended up in the consulate. They have now finally left, but the authorities wanted to question them for writing stuff of which they did not approve.

The whole point of this issue then comes into focus. It is the co-operation of the Chinese officials that I find perhaps the most galling. In the announcement by Chief Executive Carrie Lam that they were postponing the LegCo elections that were due to take place on Sunday 5 September—the weekend just gone—she cited covid cases as a reason for the delay. I have heard a few excuses in my time but that one really did take the biscuit, because so many other countries have had elections, both local and national, even during the covid saga. It is also worth pointing out that the Hong Kong rate of infection is lower than pretty much any of the countries that have held elections already. The idea that they can latch on to covid as some kind of excuse for cancelling elections had nothing to do with the reality; the reality was that they did not approve of the opposition and wanted to stop the election so that they had time to make sure they arrested the key elements so that they would never be able to stand. Many members of the opposition have fled here to the UK and I have met and seen them.

There are two points, really, that dismantle the whole process. I made the point earlier that a number of countries—dozens, I think—have held elections. It is part of the total crackdown and acquiescence with what is in essence an illegal process going on in Hong Kong. That brings me to the next phase. The Government are right to have reacted and to have ceased the extradition procedures, but yet more needs to be done. I like to think this is something that unites us all. The sanctions that come from the Magnitsky amendments need seriously to be deployed by the Government. When I was most recently in the Chamber for exchanges on this issue, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government would review other actions that need to be taken with regards to Hong Kong, and that they would take it as the situation develops. The situation has been developing. It has been developing at a pace which, if my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security will forgive my saying, is faster than the Government or the Foreign Office seem to be able to move. We have nothing to lose anymore by holding back. It is not as if the Chinese Government are going to turn around and thank us, because they already think that we have caused problems, so my answer is: let us get on with it.

The deterioration of the situation has accelerated over the summer, and the US Government have already sanctioned Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible for the implementation of the new law and for human rights abuses. I urge my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary, who is not here, to move on to that and listen to Nathan Law, who fled directly after the Hong Kong Government did not agree to him standing. Others have also had to flee, and they have all called for those sanctions to be applied. I hope that the Government will listen to people whose lives have been under threat and whose families are still in Hong Kong and yet are brave enough to call for such sanctions, knowing full well that that might bring further problems for them.

--- Later in debate ---

I hear what the hon. Member for St Helens North said in relation to new clause 2, which I think has been tabled as a probing amendment, on the issue of a review. Again, we believe that there is sufficient transparency. This House will no doubt have the chance to assess the operation of the Bill, through the normal post-legislative scrutiny. For those reasons, we are not minded to accept the new clause, although we recognise the need for constant challenge through this House. I am grateful for the amendments that have been tabled and the informed debate that we have had.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend and, given the nature of what the Government have already undertaken since the amendments were tabled by my right hon. Friends and I, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment made: 11, page 1, line 16, at end insert

‘, but paragraph 3A of the Schedule may not be commenced so as to come into force in relation to a territory before that territory is a category 2 territory for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003.’—(James Brokenshire.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 15 and provides that the amendments that are to be made by amendment 15 to Schedule A1 to the Extradition Act 2003 (inserted by paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Bill) cannot be brought into force in relation to a territory before the territory is designated as a category 2 territory for the purposes of that Act.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Power of arrest for extradition purposes

Amendment made: 12, page 3, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 and insert—

‘(3A) The “designated authority” is the National Crime Agency.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change the meaning of “designated authority”.’—(James Brokenshire.)

The Bill currently provides for the Secretary of State to designate the “designated authority” in regulations. This amendment instead provides, on the face of the Bill, that the National Crime Agency is the designated authority and confers a power on the Secretary of State to amend new section 74B to designate a different authority.

Amendment proposed: 13, page 3, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 4.—(James Brokenshire.)

This amendment leaves out a provision inserted in the Lords imposing certain conditions relating to consultation, assessments and reports on the making of regulations under new section 74B(7).

Points-based Immigration System

Iain Duncan Smith Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady may shake her head in disagreement, but the policy is fundamentally set alongside the fact that we have left the EU. This is about an immigration policy in the control of a British Government, not subject to EU laws, EU policies and EU alignment. That is a fundamental shift and a fundamental change. This system is about taking back control, as the British Government have said, of our borders and ensuring that we can get the brightest and best through a tiered, points-based approach, as outlined in the policy statement.

The system will end the reliance on low-skilled workers and, importantly, the hon. Lady should join the Government in welcoming our collective mission to ensure that people are paid higher wages. We want a high-skilled economy, not a low-pay economy. As for social care, social care is not at all about low-skilled work. People working in social care should be paid properly, and it is right that businesses and employers invest in skills to provide the necessary compassionate care.

It strikes me that the Labour party seems to have closed its ears to the remarks of the British public in the general election and the 2016 referendum and is basically still the party that is advocating open borders and for a free-for-all on immigration.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I am enormously pleased that my right hon. Friend is here in this job. She is doing brilliantly, and all of us here believe that for certain. On the migration policy that she has announced over the past week, will she confirm that the reality is that many of our constituents are concerned about the scale of migration? They are not anti-migrant. With net migration at over 1 million over three years and now responsible for about 80% of all population growth, the scale is unprecedented. Given all that and the costs and benefits, will she now confirm that the purpose of the policy is ultimately to bring the scale of that migration down to manageable levels?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have been very clear and have listened to the messages from the 2016 referendum and the general election. Of course, this is about ensuring that the brightest and the best come here.

Through a points-based system, the British Government will have control over immigration and numbers. We will reduce numbers, in due course, for the long term, but we will also bring in new checks and measures, which is what the British public have been calling for. They want to know the Government are in control of a system that brings in tighter checks and tighter regulations. Yes, the system should not be closed for business—it should be open for business—and it should bring in the brightest and the best. The system should deal with some of the issues in getting numbers down, but it should also address the other routes in terms of EU migrants and the criminality checks that desperately need to be brought in.