Immigration Act Commencement and Changes in Immigration Rules
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Today is another significant milestone in bringing the reforms in the Immigration Act 2014 into force. We are finishing the task of sweeping away the remains of the excessive number of rights of appeal and implementing the new scheme to stop sham marriages being used to circumvent immigration controls.
On 24 November I announced our plans to implement from 2 March 2015 the main provisions in the Act that tackle sham marriage and civil partnership. Today’s commencement order, together with the secondary legislation we have already laid before Parliament, will bring the new scheme into force from that date. The Act will give us a much stronger platform for effective, systematic action to disrupt and deter sham marriages and civil partnerships and prevent them gaining an immigration advantage.
Last October we started the phased implementation of the new immigration appeals system. The old system was a costly and time-consuming way to correct simple case work errors which could be resolved by a request to the Home Office to review the decision. Instead of appeals, the new system provides a system of administrative review through which case work errors will be corrected within 28 days. By 6 April 2015 the new appeals system will be fully in place.
Also on 6 April 2015 new provisions will come into force that enable children of unmarried British fathers born before 2006 to register as British citizens, correcting a historical anomaly in our nationality law.
The Immigration Act continues to prove itself as a radical new tool to tackle immigration abuse. Over 300 foreign criminals have now been deported who before this legislation existed would have had rights of appeal delaying their removal. Over 5,000 driving licences have been revoked from migrants with no right to be in the United Kingdom. Banks are now checking the immigration status of prospective customers and landlord checks are being phased in, starting in the west midlands, since last December.
I am also making other changes to the immigration rules.
I am laying a new set of immigration rules for visitors. The new visitor rules will reduce the number of visitor routes from 15 to four, removing duplication and complexity in the system, and will make the immigration rules for visitors clearer and more accessible for applicants and decision-makers.
One of the main delays in removing and deporting persons with no right to be in the United Kingdom is the time taken to obtain a travel document from the relevant consular authorities. To address that I am making changes to require an original, valid passport, travel document or national identity card as a requirement in most cases for a valid application for leave to remain or indefinite leave to remain from a person in the UK without refugee status or humanitarian protection.
To ensure our processes are robust I am imposing a requirement on migrants, if requested to do so, to attend an interview or provide documentation, to show they still meet the requirements of the rules. I am also taking a power to enable us to require an applicant for entry clearance to provide a criminal record certificate from the country in which they have been living for the past 10 years. We plan to roll out this requirement on a phased basis.
I am also making a number of changes to the points-based system, including implementing changes to the shortage occupation list recommended by the Migration Advisory Committee and updating salary thresholds for tier 2 workers.
The rules include a number of other policy changes which are described in more detail in the explanatory memorandum published with the statement of changes.
[HCWS311]
Syrian Nationals (Immigration Concession)
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I am today announcing a further renewal of concessions to the immigration rules for Syrian nationals lawfully in the UK.
In light of the ongoing violent conflict in Syria it has been decided that the Home Office should continue to operate some discretion to enable Syrians legally in the UK to extend their stay here.
Syrians in the UK with valid leave (or leave which has expired within the last 28 days) in specified visa categories will continue to be able to apply to extend their stay in that visa category, or switch into a different specified category from within the UK (with some restrictions) rather than being required to return home first. Those applying will still need to meet the requirements of the relevant visa category, pay the appropriate fee, and adhere to the normal conditions of that category—no access to public funds, for example. If a required document is not accessible due to the civil unrest in Syria the Home Office may apply its discretion and the requirement to provide that document may be waived where appropriate.
These concessions will remain in force until 28 February 2016. The Government continue to monitor the situation in Syria closely in order to ensure our response is appropriate and that any emerging risks are addressed.
I am placing a copy of the authorisation for this concession in the Library of the House.
[HCWS310]
Oral Answers to Questions
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
4. What progress her Department has made on deporting foreign criminals from the UK.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
We removed nearly 5,100 foreign criminals from the UK last year, and more than 22,000 since April 2010. More than 400 foreign national offenders have been removed under “deport now, appeal later” powers introduced in the Immigration Act 2014.
Adam Afriyie
If we are to have a country that is at ease with itself, deporting foreign criminals, while not easy, is absolutely necessary. The Home Secretary and her Department have done a great job and have shown great leadership in this area. That bodes well for the future of the country under any Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that if we are to have a country that feels at ease with itself even with minimal levels of immigration, we must continue to redouble our efforts to get rid of foreign criminals?
James Brokenshire
Foreign nationals who abuse our hospitality by committing crime in this country should be in no doubt about our determination to deport them. That is why we introduced the changes in the Immigration Act. Despite the 28% increase in the number of legal challenges, we are deporting foreign national offenders, and the measures we have taken are speeding up that process.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) a couple of weeks ago, the Leader of the House was good enough to recognise the importance of the rights of children in deportation and removal cases. Does the Minister think it right that the Government are having more success in removing innocent children born in this country than in removing criminals from outside the country?
James Brokenshire
The Government have taken steps to ensure that deportation is appropriate, and some removal centres have family issues absolutely at their heart to ensure that where we remove those who should not be in this country, whether family units or otherwise, it is done appropriately. We have a proud record on reducing and dealing with the deportation of children.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
19. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of Assistant Commissioner Rowley and the Operation Nexus team, who do so much to find hardened foreign criminals in our country? Does he agree that it is vital to identify these people and, where possible, get them out of the country?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for highlighting the work of Operation Nexus, which has succeeded in removing 3,000 foreign national criminals by identifying them early in the custody suites and by working alongside our immigration enforcement teams and the police. This approach enables us to deal with any issues at the earliest opportunity and see that these people are removed.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister confirm that in the last year of the Labour Government more than 5,500 foreign criminals were deported, but that every year since 2010 the figures have been lower? Why is this?
James Brokenshire
I can answer the hon. Lady’s question very directly—because there has been a 28% increase in the number of legal appeals. Despite all the appeals and legal challenges, however, we have removed 22,000 foreign national offenders. We are in no doubt about the Government’s resolve to deal with this issue. We introduced the Immigration Act and are speeding up the process. The Government are taking the right action.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
12. What progress she has made on ensuring that the Security Service is adequately equipped to tackle terrorism.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
It is vital that our security and intelligence services should have the powers and resources that they need to keep us safe. We have taken steps to maintain capabilities through the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, and we are increasing powers through the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. An additional £130 million will be available over the next two years to strengthen counter-terrorism capabilities.
Julian Smith
A terror suspect is arrested every day, and our intelligence services are crystal clear that they need greater oversight of internet communications. When will the Government bring the Communications Data Bill back to the House?
James Brokenshire
I pay tribute to the work that our police and security agencies do to keep us safe, and it is right that my hon. Friend should highlight that work in his question. Capability gaps identified during discussions on the draft Communications Data Bill have not been met, and we are clear that action needs to be taken. This issue needs to be addressed early in the next Parliament.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
13. What assessment she has made of the role of voluntary organisations in tackling radicalisation and extremism.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Voluntary organisations and communities can play an important role in confronting and challenging extremism. Local Prevent projects have reached more than 55,000 people since early 2012, and the Government have supported community-based campaigns such as Families Matter and Making a Stand.
David Mowat
The Minister will be aware of the successful work being done by the Warrington-based Foundation for Peace with young people who are vulnerable to extremism, many of whom have now moved on to become young leaders in their communities. That work is focused mainly on parts of northern England. Would he support a wider roll-out, and will he meet me and members of the foundation to discuss how that could be achieved?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the work of the Foundation for Peace, which I visited a couple of years ago. I am aware of its continuing work, and I would be happy to meet him and representatives of the foundation to discuss the steps that they are taking. We are clearly looking for good practice that can be shared around the country to confront and combat extremism and radicalisation.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the many voluntary organisations that stand up against racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Does he agree that we all have a duty to stand up against all such forms of racism and extremism, as well as against those far right extremists who are promoting racism within our society at the present time?
James Brokenshire
I absolutely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the responsibility that we all have to stand up against extremism and racism at a time when we are seeing anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. He is absolutely right to underline that call. Our work on Channel, which is about counter-radicalisation, focuses on all forms that might lead to terrorism, and some of the references that come through our Channel referral programme are indeed from the far right. That is why we take an all-embracing approach to our work.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
14. What improvements she has made to the visa system for applicants from China and other key markets.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
UK Visas and Immigration has enhanced the visa service provided to visitors to the UK from China by improving our visa application centres, introducing online applications for independent travellers and introducing a comprehensive range of premium services, including a new, 24-hour service. The 24-hour service is also available in India, and it will be launched in other key markets later this year.
Eric Ollerenshaw
Lancaster university is one of the top 10 universities in the country and it educates more than 1,000 Chinese students a year. Will the new changes help those students?
James Brokenshire
I welcome the approach that Lancaster university and other universities are taking. Clearly, we welcome legitimate students who are studying at our universities, and I am pleased that there has been a 4% increase in student visa applications from Chinese students. Our approach is very much about controlling immigration while attracting the brightest and best, including students to study at our universities.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
One of the so-called improvements to our immigration system is the decision to require asylum seekers, including those from China, to make fresh submissions in person at Liverpool. Would the Minister care to dispute the comments of Dave Smith of the Boaz Trust, who rightly says that it appears to be pure discrimination and a cynical attempt to deter people from putting in fresh submissions?
James Brokenshire
I rebut that entirely. The proposal is about bringing into line arrangements that were already in place in relation to pre-2007 asylum applications. We have a specialist centre—a specialist unit—in Liverpool and it is ensuring that those further submissions are considered appropriately and effectively.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
15. What research her Department has undertaken on how architecture and urban design may assist crime prevention.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
17. What assessment she has made of the likelihood of terrorist attacks in rural areas of the UK.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
It is clear that the UK faces a serious and enduring threat from terrorism. I cannot comment on intelligence matters or specific threat assessments, but I can confirm that specialist joint police, ambulance and fire teams are in place with the capability to respond to terrorist attacks in the country.
Mr Turner
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many potential targets in rural areas, including reservoirs, sewage plants, communication masts and electrical substations? Rural populations would face enormous difficulties if such sites were attacked. Will he assure me that such infrastructure is included in anti-terrorism planning?
James Brokenshire
Yes. We have a longstanding programme in place to ensure that the country’s most critical infrastructure is protected against terrorist threats. I cannot comment on the details, but our priority is to ensure the continuity of essential services such as water, energy and telecommunications, which were referenced by my hon. Friend.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
T6. The Home Secretary will recall that working towards departure dates was a key strategy in dealing with last year’s passport crisis. My constituent, Mr Reed, applied for his passport this year well within the time scale. When it did not arrive, he contacted my office. We contacted the Passport Office with a week to go and were told that the Passport Office is no longer working to departure dates but has reverted to processing passports on the basis of when they are received, rather than when they are needed. As a result, my constituent lost his holiday. Another summer is coming. Will the Passport Office be using departure dates in an effort to avoid the crisis that we saw last year?
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I am happy to look into the individual case that the hon. Lady highlights. The Passport Office is meeting all its current service standards in relation to renewals, so if a specific problem occurred in that case, we will certainly look into it.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
T7. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s announcement today of a review of visa arrangements for people coming from overseas to work in people’s homes. Can she provide the House with a few more details about the review, including timings?
Marriage and Civil Partnership Notice Fee
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I am pleased to inform the House of an increase in marriage and civil partnership notice fees to support the implementation of the referral and investigation scheme for proposed marriages and civil partnerships and related provisions under the Immigration Act 2014. I announced the revised fees in Parliament on 19 January 2015.
Under the new scheme all proposed marriages and civil partnerships involving a non-European economic area national with limited or no immigration status in the UK, or who does not provide specified evidence that they are exempt from the scheme, will be referred to the Home Office.
This introduces additional costs for registration officers, who will be required to ask couples for additional information and evidence. They will also provide relevant couples with information about the scheme and refer them to the Home Office. The marriage and civil partnership notice fee in England and Wales for couples subject to referral to the Home Office under the scheme will be increased from £35 to £47 per person from 2 March 2015, subject to the commencement of the scheme from that date. This will fund the additional administrative costs for the designated register offices required to perform these functions, in line with the new burdens doctrine.
[HCWS257]
Unaccompanied-Asylum Seeking Children
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
The UK has opted in to the regulation that amends a single article in the Dublin Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (“Dublin III”) concerning its application to unaccompanied children. The amendments concern the position of unaccompanied children who are applicants for international protection and who have no family member, sibling or relative present in the states covered by the Dublin Regulation. They are being made to reflect the Court of Justice of the European Union’s ruling in the case of MA and others (C-648/11) that the best interests of the child are generally best served by an asylum claim being considered in the state of the most recent application rather than, if different, the state where a child first lodged an application. The basic approach in the proposal is one that we and other states participating in the Dublin Regulation have been following since the court’s ruling in June 2013, so opting in will have no additional impact on current practice.
The Government are fully committed to the system created by the Dublin Regulation, which determines which participating state is responsible for examining an application for international protection. The UK has opted in to all earlier proposals concerning the Dublin Regulation and the related Eurodac Regulation. Opting in to this single issue proposal concerning unaccompanied asylum seeking children is consistent with our strong support for the Dublin system as a whole, which has been of great benefit to the UK, enabling the removal of over 12,000 asylum individuals since 2003 to other participating states (Member states of the European Union, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein).
The Government will continue to consider the application of the UK’s right to opt in to forthcoming EU legislation in the area of justice and home affairs on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and our ability to control immigration.
[HCWS219]
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.
Seventeen people were killed and a number injured in the appalling attacks in Paris earlier this month, while in December we saw deadly and callous attacks in Sydney and Pakistan. There can be no doubt that the terrorist threat we face is grave and relentless. The threat level in the UK, which is set by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at “severe”, meaning that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely and could occur without warning.
We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, but we are determined to do all to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad, and proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt terrorist activities. The two groups we propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, are Jund al-Aqsa, also known as the Soldiers of al-Aqsa, and Jund al-Khalifa-Algeria, also known as the Soldiers of the Caliphate. This is the 17th proscription order under the Act.
Under section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on the organisation. The cross-Government proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in her decision making process. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that Jund al-Aqsa and Jund al-Khalifa-Algeria are both currently concerned in terrorism.
Jund al-Aqsa is a splinter group of the al-Nusra front, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria. Since September 2013, the group has acted against the Syrian Government. It is a foreign fighter battalion comprising a variety of nationalities, as well as a native Syrian contingent. The group is primarily operating in Idlib and Hama. It is believed to be responsible for the attack on 9 February 2014 in Maan village, which killed 40 people, of whom 21 were civilians. In July 2014, it supported the Islamic Front in an operation to seize Hama military airport. In August 2014, the al-Nusra front released a document summarising its operations that included details of an attack targeting a resort hotel conducted in collaboration with Jund al-Aqsa.
Jund al-Khalifa-Algeria is an Islamist militant group believed to be made up of members of dormant al-Qaeda cells. It announced its allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in a communiqué released on 13 September 2014. In April 2014, it claimed responsibility for an ambush on a convoy that killed 11 members of the Algerian army. On 24 September 2014, the group beheaded a mountaineering guide, Hervé Gourdel, a French national. The abduction was announced on the same day that the spokesman for ISIL warned that it would target Americans and other western citizens, especially the French, after French jets joined the US in carrying out strikes in Iraq on ISIL targets.
In conclusion, I believe it right to add both groups to the list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Subject to the agreement of this House and the other place, the order will come into force on Friday 23 January.
James Brokenshire
With the leave of the House, and in thanking right hon. and hon. Members for their support for the order this evening, let me respond first to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). Yes, of course we are vigilant in seeking to combat the use of messages on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter or any other social media platform, including the new ones that appear. That is precisely why we have the counter-terrorism internet referral unit with which the hon. Lady will be familiar. It has taken down 72,000 individual items since it was established in 2010. She highlighted a video and the original has been removed, but it continues to be put up in different places. That is why we have the CTIRU to flag that and to work with industry to take it down.
The hon. Lady and other right hon. and hon. Members made a broader point about the role and responsibility of the internet industry. We are obviously flagging these items, but the industry has a responsibility to take action when it identifies such images. A number of companies do that, but there is more to be done for them to realise their responsibilities and take further action. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s comments on this subject after the publication of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Woolwich identified that challenge and how we all need to do more. The social media companies and the internet industry certainly need to do more.
I entirely endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for York Central (Sir Hugh Bayley) about working with communities. That is precisely the approach the Government take. We are seeking to ensure that we challenge ourselves on what more we can do and that is why the provisions in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, which is currently in the other place, put on a statutory basis our work on counter-radicalisation and the Channel de-radicalisation programmes.
We are doing work in government, but there is also work in communities. Some incredible British Muslims are taking a stand and showing leadership, such as the 100 imams who wrote a letter condemning the actions of ISIL and groups such as Families Against Stress and Trauma. Through their programmes, there is an outlet that prevents people from being radicalised and going down that pathway. This is clearly a broader and wider debate. We have debated some of it on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, but proscription can be an important way for the police to get further evidence, which can lead to prosecution of those who belong to groups that are not proscribed.
I am grateful to the House for the support it has shown this evening. I hope that we will remain vigilant, whether online, in communities or more broadly, to ensure that we do our utmost to protect our country and our citizens and to confound and confront those who would do us harm.
Question put and agreed to.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I greatly appreciate the speech that we have just heard. It reflects many views that I have held for a very long time. The fear that I express about the current provisions of the Bill is not a criticism of the Ministers who introduced them, but it echoes some of the comments that have just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab).
When we undergo the whole process of facing the state as individuals, we are at a great disadvantage. I would not know which of our celebrated barristers was the effective one; I would not know how to protect myself adequately; I might not speak the language properly; I might not entirely understand the customs of the country in which I live. But what we are looking at in the Bill is surely beyond the exigencies of this moment. How is it that we reconcile our people, of all origins and all faiths? How is it that this land returns to the one that in my fictional memory was a happy, secure, less threatening place than it appears today?
I have a fear about the Bill and in particular about not allowing our traditional processes of proper judicial supervision or not being able, through the courts, to look at whether or not something is reasonable. It is that, in our fear for our own people, for those who were born here, we undermine the concept of allegiance and loyalty to the Crown and, more importantly, to our fellow citizens and our own country. That is why I am very cautious.
The power of the state grows greater; I hear echoes of that. It is true. In exigencies and times of threat and worry, we demand more and more of the compulsion of the state to answer our problems, but as has been pointed out, we have had more and more legislation on these difficult areas. A barrister may not know what their client is accused of. Secret courts have come into existence. All that is a modern feature.
During the second world war, we had the defence of the realm Acts. We are not there yet, but this is a compulsive process. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—Gainsborough, what a wonderful name—seems to think that the rule of law is just what the public want. I am a democrat and I believe that we exercise the right, and will do so shortly again, to determine where these fundamental decisions are made and who makes them. People say, “But the public demand,” but is it not the duty of the House to reflect on whether the outcome of that demand is the appropriate response? All I am asking in support of those who support the amendment is, should we not stand up for the processes in which we have trust, or had trust, and should we not be very cautious in the actions we take?
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
This has been a carefully considered and good debate. Some hon. Members have highlighted that, on previous occasions when we have discussed counter-terrorism legislation, the atmosphere has been quite febrile—perhaps there was a charged environment. Some have said today that it would almost be better if there were that charged atmosphere. However, we have had careful scrutiny, careful consideration and a close examination of the provisions on TEOs. I think that that adds to the debate and the discourse that we have had in the House.
I would also highlight the measured approach that the Government seek to take in ensuring that, in bringing measures to the House, we strike the right and appropriate balance, recognising a number of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members during the debate. The Government have a proud record of upholding the rights of the individual and upholding civil liberties, including the right to privacy. We have abolished 28-day pre-charge detention and replaced control orders with a more proportionate regime. We have got rid of the draconian ID cards Bill. All that underpins the careful and considered approach that the Government take on these matters.
However, it is the first duty of any Government to keep their citizens safe. Again, that has been reflected in a number of the contributions that we have had. We must reassure the public that our security and intelligence agencies and the police have the powers they need at this time of a raised level of threat, of the situation in Syria and of travelling jihadists. We must ensure that we have measures on the statute book that are able to deal with that. That is precisely what the measures in the Bill, particularly the TEOs, provide.
James Brokenshire
I absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. This is not about citizenship. This is a temporary exclusion order. I have said in the House on many occasions, and indeed in evidence to Select Committees, that individuals will not be rendered stateless. They will not be left unable to return to the UK for an indefinite period—they must be issued with a permit to return within a reasonable period of time if they apply for one and attend an interview if required to do so. Quite simply, the power ensures that the Secretary of State is able to control the return of certain individuals suspected of terrorism-related activity abroad and appropriately manage the threat that they pose once they have arrived back in the UK. Obviously, they will be excluded for a time during which the permission may be granted—indeed, they may choose not to return during that time—but the power is framed in that manner and does not link into the broader issues of statelessness that are of concern to some Members and have been addressed more recently in the Justice and Security Act 2013, for example.
Sir William Cash
Would the Minister be good enough to explain why there is no condition applied for a temporary exclusion order where the individual has clearly repudiated allegiance to the UK, has adopted jihad and has sworn allegiance to an organisation such as ISIL? In those circumstances, how could we possibly not want to exclude such a person?
James Brokenshire
I will come on to my hon. Friend’s amendments later, but the test is
“that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom”
and
“that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom”
to put the measure in place. I argue that the circumstances or scenario that my hon. Friend describes are potentially captured within the terms of the existing definition. However, I will return to his specific points in due course.
In the framework that we have adopted here, the individual’s passport would be revoked and they would be placed on a no-fly list, but their daily activities would not be disrupted in the same way as, for example, a TPIMs subject. This measure must be considered in that context. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) highlighted the temporary nature of this; it is a two-year order that is capable of being renewed. As I have sought to describe, it is an issue of temporarily excluding during a period when someone may have made a request to return. The Bill clearly sets out the measures that would operate in those circumstances. Indeed, if deportation is envisaged the Secretary of State must, as clause 6 makes clear, issue a permit for return.
Turning to the amendments advanced by—
James Brokenshire
I promise that I will come back to my hon. Friend’s points, but I would like to get to the Opposition Front-Bench amendments. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to apply for permission from the courts before imposing a temporary exclusion order. The mechanism provided for in these amendments is almost identical to that in the TPIMs Act. As the Home Secretary stated in Committee, as the Minister with responsibility for national security it is right that she, not the courts, imposes an order of this kind. This is a discretionary power which will be used only in a limited number of cases where it will have the greatest impact.
Several Members have shared their views on the matter of oversight of this measure. I think a distinction is being drawn, and I will come on to the other amendments tabled in the group. It must be clear that, with responsibility for all other national security and counter-terrorism matters, it is the Secretary of State who is best placed to make an informed judgment about whether a temporary exclusion order is appropriate in each case, taking into consideration the wider context of the terrorist threat that we face. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined in Committee,
“to vest the power to impose one of these orders in the Secretary of State without first requiring an application to the courts is in line with the comparable use of the royal prerogative to cancel the passport of a British citizen.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 1208.]
We must also consider in this context the level of interference with an individual’s rights as a result of the power, and I reiterate that a temporary exclusion order does not take away the right of an individual to return to the UK. The in-country elements that might be imposed on an individual as part of it are much less restrictive than those available under TPIMs, and for this reason do not require the same level of review. That is the approach we have taken.
Sir Edward Garnier
What the Minister has just said seems to support the suggestions made by me and others that this is not a temporary exclusion order. It is not an exclusion order at all; rather, it is a managed return order. If we get the semantics right, a lot of the other stuff fits better into place.
James Brokenshire
I hear the point my hon. and learned Friend makes, and the issue came up when we considered this in Committee, but I think it is right to describe it as a temporary exclusion order because although it clearly facilitates return—it manages return; it manages the control of an individual once they have returned to the UK and consent has been granted—it is exclusionary in its nature during the period prior to return. It seeks to prevent someone from returning without that permission being granted, because there is that other aspect: if someone does seek to return to the UK when they are subject to one of these temporary exclusion orders, it is potentially a criminal offence unless they can show due justification as set out in the Bill. I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend would like to describe this in a particular fashion, but the focus is on the substance of it, and I hope he will understand the approach we are seeking to take, and how this is intended to operate in practice.
The Bill as currently framed would allow judicial review to be brought. That has been used by people to challenge decisions of the Secretary of State in other contexts from abroad. We frequently receive challenges of this nature from individuals abroad in relation to the use of other powers. It is important to recognise that.
Amendments 18 to 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), go even further than the amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench, and would give the courts the power to impose a TEO following an application from the Secretary of State. The Government do not consider these amendments to be appropriate for the reasons I have outlined. I highlight to the House that requiring the Secretary of State to apply to the courts before a TEO can be made could create undue delay and decrease the operational value of the power. It is sometimes important that we are able to act quickly to obtain the maximum benefit from the operation of the powers, to meet the goal of keeping the British public safe from terrorism.
The Government are committed to the appropriate and proportionate use of the temporary exclusion power, but I note the views of David Anderson, the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation. I have a great deal of respect for him and the contributions he has made on a range of matters, including the issue of judicial oversight of the process of granting a temporary exclusion order. Although this issue arises at a late stage in the Bill’s passage through this House, it is important, as has been reflected in many of the contributions. The House has not had the chance properly to consider the Opposition amendments. I hope they will be minded to withdraw them at this stage, and I can assure the House that the Government will look very carefully at the constructive suggestions from David Anderson and return to this issue in the other place.
On a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), the Government have listened to the arguments made both in Committee and—with, I think, sincerity—in today’s debate, and also to the comments of David Anderson. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will reflect on them and that the next stage when we would be able to respond to them is in the other place. No discourtesy is intended. Rather, we want to get this right and to reflect on the views that have been put forward. That is why I judge that this is the most appropriate way of addressing the issues highlighted today.
James Brokenshire
There are a number of issues that require further consideration. It is better to get this right and to consider things carefully, and the debates we have had in this House have enabled us to advance in that regard. Rather than, as has happened in other cases, having legislation rushed through both Houses of Parliament, we have enabled good and proper scrutiny of this legislation, to ensure that it is appropriate and we get it right.
Pete Wishart
Obviously, I cannot speak on behalf of Labour Front Benchers, but I hope they are not prepared to accept the Minister’s dissatisfactory response. Not only did the Opposition table these amendments last year but David Anderson said these things in November 2014, and the Government have failed to act. Why should we believe that they will do something now?
James Brokenshire
I have clearly recognised the issues highlighted by David Anderson and by right hon. and hon. Members during this debate. The hon. Gentleman should take reassurance from my statements.
Amendments 21 and 23, which are in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), seek to create additional circumstances under which a temporary exclusion order may be imposed. I recognise the intention behind the amendments, and of course the Government agree that anyone who has pledged allegiance to another state or territory and repudiated their allegiance to the UK should be handled appropriately. However, the measure before the House has been carefully crafted with the specific conditions that I have highlighted. Indeed, the amendments appear to go significantly beyond the measure and would mean that an individual could be made subject to a temporary exclusion order without the Secretary of State reasonably suspecting that they have been involved in terrorism-related activity abroad; without the Secretary of State reasonably considering that the imposition of such an order is necessary to protect members of the public in the UK from the risk of terrorism; and, crucially, without the Secretary of State believing that the individual is located outside the UK, which goes against the heart of the temporary exclusion power.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone is seeking to advance an argument that is perhaps more about addressing statelessness and citizenship, which strays beyond the ambit of the Bill and the temporary exclusion order. We have previously corresponded on the issue in the context of the scope of the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness. We perhaps differ on the interpretation of some of the detail, but the Bill has been appropriately framed and allows the Secretary of State to act clearly to ensure national security by taking action against those persons whom she reasonably suspects are involved in terrorism-related activity outside the UK, which goes to the heart of the measure.
Sir William Cash
The Minister frames his response in a reasonable manner but, in line with the international convention on the reduction of statelessness, which is relevant to this measure and to which David Anderson did not refer when he appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, it is an act of treason when a person repudiates allegiance. Such repudiation is not just a theoretical, academic act under an ancient 1351 enactment; it is the repudiation of allegiance to the state. When someone repudiates that allegiance and adopts an allegiance to another state, it is treason. Surely, by their self-denial and repudiation, they have denied themselves the right to the liberties that have been referred to continually by all my colleagues who have said that we must insist on the common law and on the liberty of the subject. Such people repudiate it themselves.
James Brokenshire
I recognise the strength of feeling that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have on the need to ensure that we are acting appropriately to address the threat of terrorism and the dangers and harm that may be caused by jihadists who have travelled abroad and who may wish to return to this country. This measure is about precisely that, which is why it is framed in this manner and why we have legislated for prosecutions to be brought where people return to the UK after committing acts abroad that would justify prosecution in this country. I recognise my hon. Friend’s points, but our judgment is that the Bill properly reflects that and gives the appropriate power.
With those comments, I hope right hon. and hon. Members will be minded not to press their amendments.
Mr Hanson
This has been a useful debate, which is reflected in the fact that it has been longer than I expected. Significant concern has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Back Benches, by Liberal Democrat Members and by Opposition Members, including members of the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) did not table any amendments to the Bill, so to criticise the Labour party for doing so is slightly unnerving.
Deep down, the Minister knows that he has lost the argument on this issue. The Government will return in another place with an amendment that will be broadly similar to what we have proposed today and that will have the approval of the Liberal Democrats and his own Back Benchers. That amendment will come back to this House and we will have another debate in a few weeks’ time in which we will once again agree that this is the right thing to do.
I wish to withdraw new clause 1, but the essence of this debate is new clause 3, on the appeal mechanism, so I wish to support new clause 3, give the House an opportunity to vote for what it will ultimately agree when another place has determined it and let this House today determine this policy. Therefore, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in support of new clause 3, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Prior permission of the court
‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State—
(a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual, and
(b) makes an application to the court for permission to impose measures on the individual.
(2) The application must set out a draft of the proposed TEO notice.
(3) The function of the court on the application is—
(a) to determine whether the relevant decisions of the Secretary of State are obviously flawed, and
(b) to determine whether to give permission to impose measures on the individual and (where applicable) whether to exercise the power of direction under subsection (9).
(4) The court may consider the application—
(a) in the absence of the individual;
(b) without the individual having been notified of the application; and
(c) without the individual having been given an opportunity (if the individual was aware of the application) of making any representations to the court.
(5) But that does not limit the matters about which rules of court may be made.
(6) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.
(7) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State that condition A, condition B, or condition C is met is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section.
(8) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section.
(9) If the court determines that the Secretary of State‘s decision that condition D is met is obviously flawed, the court may (in addition to giving permission under subsection (8) give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual.
(10) 1n this section “relevant decisions” means the decisions that the following conditions are met—
(a) condition A;
(b) condition B;
(c) condition C; and
(d) condition D.”—(Mr Hanson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division, and Madam Deputy Speaker having directed that the doors be locked—
Mr Hanson
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Logicality is a matter of judgment. We have chosen on this occasion to table an amendment introducing a sunset clause, as we did in Committee. We voted on it in Committee and we have chosen to revisit the issue because we think it is worth revisiting, particularly because, as we shall discuss in a later group of amendments, there is no appeal mechanism in place—[Interruption.] The Minister says there is. Our view is that there is not, but we will discuss that on the next group of amendments.
We believe that there should be a sunset provision in place. The Minister has the opportunity again to discuss that, having previously rejected the principle. Were the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on the Opposition Benches and were I on the Government Benches, I suspect that he would be arguing for such a proposal, though perhaps not just on clause 1. We will be happy to consider extending it in due course, if that is what the Minister wants. For today, we believe that a sunset clause should be in place. It is a fairly straightforward issue and should not detain the House for long. I commend the amendment to the House.
James Brokenshire
We discussed this matter in Committee, and I do not intend to detain the House for a great deal of time given the succinct way in which the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) highlighted his case.
Mr Hanson
The Minister issued a consultation document on 18 December, which was either the last day or the second-to-last day the House was sitting, and expected Members to know that at the time. He did not have the courtesy to inform me, although we had a debate on these matters. He needs to reflect on that fact. A consultation over Christmas? Perhaps he could do it in a better way.
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman was very clear to us about the need for consultation documents to be produced prior to Report stage, and that is precisely what we have done on this and on other matters. Equally, he should reflect on the fact that the Government have not, as has happened previously, waited until Royal Assent before publishing a number of these codes. We have absolutely adhered to the requests that were made in Committee by publishing consultation documents and drafts to enable a proper consideration of the relevant provisions. If that is preying on his mind in seeking to advance his request for a sunset clause, then I draw his attention to the fact that the code of practice has been published and the detail he may think is lacking is in fact available.
The power is subject to scrutiny through an initial review by a senior police officer and a further review by a senior police officer of at least chief superintendent level within 72 hours, with notification to the chief constable, and then, as we will debate in the next group of amendments, the ability, if the police wish to retain travel documents beyond 14 days, for a court review. Clear safeguards have been placed in the Bill. This will give the police, or Border Force officers directed by the police, an important power to seize travel documents, including passports and travel tickets, at a port to disrupt immediate travel based on “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is travelling for terrorism-related activity. The passport is not cancelled. The document can be held for up to 14 days, or up to 30 days if the retention period is extended by a court. As I said, we will discuss the detail of that in the next group of amendments. It would be a criminal offence for a person to refuse to hand over their travel documents when the power had been exercised. Crucially, the power gives the authorities time to investigate the individual involved and provides an opportunity to take alternative, more permanent disruptive action if appropriate. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman indicated, as he did previously in Committee, the broad support of Opposition Front Benchers for this measure, recognising the utility of the power set out in the Bill. The safeguards we have established should ensure that the power will be used in a fair, reasonable and lawful manner.
Introducing a sunset clause may send an inadvertent message to would-be jihadist travellers of our lack of intent to deal with the threat they pose. I know that that is not the right hon. Gentleman’s intention, but it could have that impact if they believe that the powers would end in two years’ time. Indeed, the proposal would inject an element of uncertainty into a measure that has been clearly framed and drafted, that is limited in scope and time, and that has clear oversight of police scrutiny measures and the court-related process set out in the Bill. The House has scrutinised the measures over several days of debate, both in Committee and, indeed, in the House this afternoon, and it is our judgment that those are not the usual circumstances in which a sunset provision would be contemplated.
Mr Hanson
Does the Minister think that a sunset clause in prevention of terrorism legislation gave succour and comfort to those people for whom it was intended, such as terrorists in Northern Ireland? I do not think it did and I resent the suggestion that we are trying to give succour to terrorism.
James Brokenshire
If the right hon. Gentleman was listening, he would know that I was clear that I do not believe that to be his intention. I said that it may be an inadvertent consequence. Often, it has become customary for sunset clauses to be inserted when legislation is passed by both Houses over a small number of days. That is not the context of this afternoon’s debate. We have had many hours of debate and discussion on the provisions, so it is our judgment that those circumstances do not apply.
Terrorism-related travel is a serious and ongoing issue and I think we will see an enduring threat of terrorism from Syria and Iraq for the foreseeable future. That is the reality of the challenge we face. The proposal is to inject a two-year sunset clause, but I think we will face continuing challenges during that time and law enforcement agencies need to have a range of tools at their disposal to deal with the threat in a necessary and proportionate way.
We cannot be confident that conflicts that attract these individuals will have been resolved in two years’ time. It would not be right to plan on that basis. That is why the Bill Committee overwhelmingly rejected a similar amendment when it was pressed to a vote. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. I appreciate that he is seeking to probe to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are scrutinised and challenged appropriately. I entirely respect that. Clearly, it would be open for a new Government to repeal the provisions if they saw fit and judged that appropriate changes were required if there was a subsequent review of counter-terrorism legislation. That would be the right time to do it, so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Hanson
I have heard what the Minister has said, but the Opposition still wish to examine the issue in detail and it would be useful for the other place to know that we believe that consideration should be given to a sunset clause. Perhaps it could also take on board the concerns of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). I therefore wish to push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
James Brokenshire
I recognise that the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) advances a number of themes that we touched on in Committee. Equally, I recognise his ability to challenge and scrutinise the level of oversight provided in respect of this particular power. I respect that and the fact that the Opposition have given their broad support and recognition of the need for this provision, but the Government believe that the power strikes the right balance in the drafting between our freedoms and our right to safety and security.
A rigorous authorisation process is in place, which establishes a number of safeguards to ensure that the power will be used in a fair, reasonable and lawful manner. Under paragraph 4 of schedule 1, senior police officer authorisation must be obtained to retain the seized documents. The senior officer, who must be at least the rank of superintendent, must determine whether the test for exercise of the power is met in order to authorise. If not granted, the documents must be returned as soon as possible.
In addition, within 72 hours of the document seizure, a senior police officer of at least the rank of chief superintendent and of a rank not lower than that of the authorising officer in the case must review whether the decision to authorise the retention of the travel documents was flawed and communicate his findings to the relevant chief constable. The chief constable must consider those findings and take appropriate action.
Unless a court agrees to extend the retention period, the police may retain the travel documents only for a maximum of 14 days from the day after the documents were seized. If the police need to retain the documents beyond this period, they must apply to a court for an extension of time. This is provided for in paragraphs 8 to 12 of the schedule. The court will grant the extension only if satisfied that those involved in considering whether further disruption action should be taken in relation to the person had been acting diligently and expeditiously. The court can choose for how long to extend the retention period based on the circumstances of the case up to a maximum of 30 days from the day after the passport was seized.
Paragraph 13 provides that if the power is used two or more times against the same individual in a six-month period, the police would be allowed to hold the documents a third time for any five days before they need to apply to a court for an extension of time. The court is required to refuse to extend the duration of the travel documents’ retention unless exceptional circumstances apply.
Amendments 10 and 11 provide for a process for an individual to appeal to the courts against the decision to remove his or her travel documents at the port. Let me reiterate my earlier reassurance to right hon. and hon. Members that the current level of oversight of the exercise of this power is proportionate to the level of interference, and stringent safeguards already in place should ensure that the power will be used in a fair, reasonable and lawful manner. The advantage of the power is that it can be used immediately and to a threshold of reasonable suspicion. At the point of seizure, the individual will be informed that his or her travel documents were seized because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that he or she was intending to travel overseas for the purposes of involvement in terrorism-related activity outside the UK. The police are not detaining the individual or removing their passport privileges permanently.
To safeguard the use of the power, however, the legislation places a statutory duty on the police to return the travel documents as soon as possible if their investigations reveal that there are no reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual was seeking to travel outside the UK in connection with terrorism-related activity. The Bill already provides for a specific court procedure whereby the court may only grant an extension of the period for which the police can retain the travel documents if it is satisfied that investigations are being conducted diligently and expeditiously. If it is not, the documents must be returned.
After 14 days, the investigation should have progressed to the extent that a court can meaningfully consider whether the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously, and the evidence that is heard should be tailored to the case that is being considered. As well as providing for a court hearing, the Bill allows an individual to seek, at any time, a judicial review of the initial passport seizure in the High Court, where closed material procedures will be available to allow full consideration of any sensitive material that led to the passport seizure. I do not believe that the amendment adds a significant extra safeguard in relation to the use of this power.
The amendments provide for a court to hear an appeal against the police officer’s original decision to form a reasonable suspicion that a person was travelling outside the United Kingdom for terrorism-related reasons. Amendment 10 provides for regulations to set
“a time limit by which the appeal must have been heard”,
while amendment 11 provides that the appeal must have been heard within seven days.
In view of the nature of the appeal, the amended provision would need to provide for closed material procedures with the appointment of special advocates. As the House will know, closed material procedures are resource-intensive and potentially time-consuming. Preparation for such a procedure—which amendment 11 requires to take place in under seven days—would divert resources at what is likely to be a significant time for the investigation, and I think that such a short period for a closed material procedure would pose serious problems of practicability. The new power would therefore be unlikely to be used as intended, to disrupt immediate travel on the basis of “reasonable suspicion” of terrorism-related activity.
James Brokenshire
The review process does not provide for that, but the consultation on the code of practice that governs the arrangements is open until 30 January, so there will be an opportunity for further representations to be made on the details of how the power would be used in the context of the code. That includes the details of the initial, immediate review by the senior officer and the 72-hour review by a further senior officer, followed by the submission of a report to the chief constable.
Bob Stewart
My children have three passports: French, Swiss and British. Is there any provision enabling someone whose British passport is taken away to be prevented from using another passport? I am sorry; that may be a silly question, and we may not be able to provide for such a power.
James Brokenshire
The Bill is, of course, a wider subject than the amendment, but my hon. Friend may wish to consult paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1, which defines a passport as
“a United Kingdom passport… a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom”,
or
“a document that can be used (in some or all circumstances) instead of a passport.”
Mr Grieve
I think that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) made a good point. If a policeman forms a “reasonable suspicion”, subsequent evidence or information may cause him to change his view. It seems to me that at each stage of the review process it should be possible to take on board what the individual concerned has said, because that might change the view of the police and deal with the matter administratively at a much earlier stage.
James Brokenshire
Clearly, the police officer must hold the reasonable belief at that time, as I think my right hon. and learned Friend has accepted. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states that the paragraph applies where
“a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person—
(a) is there with the intention of leaving”
the UK
“for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity…or
(b) has arrived…with the intention of leaving”
again, for such purposes. Therefore, there is a requirement for that to be assessed. As I say, those issues can be considered as part of the consultation on the code of practice. I note the specific points that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made in that regard.
I turn back to the specific amendments. Given that the appeal is against why the police officer formed a reasonable suspicion about the individual’s travel intentions and exercised the power under the provision, the hearing would not take into account what the investigation had subsequently found about the individual’s intentions and whether that information strengthened the original decision or damaged it. That could result in a finding that the original decision was flawed and, regardless of the fact that the investigation has subsequently found evidence to strengthen the decision, the appeal is upheld and presumably the travel documents are returned. That is a risk that the Government are not prepared to take. Again, the right hon. Member for Delyn may wish to reflect further on that issue, taking into account some of the more detailed drafting issues that he has been alerted to in the debate.
Given the points that I have raised, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman’s initial indications, I hope that he will feel able, in the context of the safeguards in the Bill and the code of practice, to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Hanson
The Minister has tried to reassure the House that the clause and schedule provide sufficient safeguards. I still worry about the safeguards that are in place for those people who are aggrieved and feel they have a case that they wish to draw to the attention of the authorities.
Under amendments 10 and 11, an individual may have their appeal heard in court within seven days of an application. In most cases where the passport is seized, that right would not be exercised by the individual because I suspect that the Government would have taken sufficient steps to ensure that there were good grounds to seize the passport in the first place. However, I still think it is right and proper that individuals have the right to make representations effectively. Even if there are amendments that we can look at in due course, it is worth while the House sending a signal to the other place that this is an issue of principle for us and that we wish the issue to be revisited by the Government or by the other place in due course.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for raising these important issues. This is a complex and technical area, and I am grateful for the opportunity to return to some of the points that we discussed in Committee. Communications data—the who, where, when and how of a communication but not its content—are a vital tool in the investigation of serious crime, including terrorism, and in safeguarding the public.
The hon. Lady explained that her amendment seeks to limit the scope of the provision to the retention of data that are necessary to allow the identification of a user from a public internet protocol address. She is trying to restrict the provision and to gain clarity, and as I explained in Committee, I do not think there is any difference between us on the principle. It is important that the provision goes only so far as is necessary to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time—in other words, to link person A to person B. At the moment, internet service providers might not be required to retain that level of information. That was the Government’s clear intention when drafting the clause, so the provision is already limited in a way that I believe reflects what the hon. Lady intends.
Subsection (3) restricts the data to be retained to data that might be used to identify or assist in identifying the internet protocol address or other identifier that belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication. Any data that cannot be used to identify or assist in identifying the user of an IP address is already outside the scope of the provision, which deals with a number of the specific points about communications platforms that the hon. Lady highlighted.
I appreciate that the wording in the clause is quite technical, but I want to assure the House that great care has been taken to ensure that the Bill is tightly drafted. In particular, clause 17(3)(c) excludes so-called weblogs, a record of internet communications services or websites a user has accessed. The Bill provides for the retention of data relating to IP resolution and only such data. Anything else is already beyond the scope of what clause 17 permits. It is also important for the House to note that any requirement for communications service providers to retain data under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which the clause amends, may be imposed only where it is necessary and proportionate. Access to that communications data is then subject to robust safeguards, and the UK already has one of the most rigorous systems in the world for safeguarding the acquisition of comms data.
Before such data can be acquired, an application must be made that clearly demonstrates that the request is both necessary and proportionate to the objective of a specific investigation for one of the statutory purposes in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The process is clear and accountable and includes a strong and rigorous system of oversight, which includes the interception of communications commissioner, who must have held high judicial office. Following DRIPA, he will report every six months on the interception of communications data, and of course he regularly inspects all relevant public authorities.
The hon. Lady asked whether we intend to issue new retention notices. The Government will issue new data retention notices to affected communications services providers following the enactment of the legislation. We will also enable law enforcement agencies to resolve a communication to an individual or device, not to ascertain which services or websites an individual has accessed. The data would be considered to be weblog data, as I have said, which is already excluded from the Bill.
A communication can include any message sent over the internet. The legislation relates not to the retention of what the message contained, but purely to the fact that a message was sent, which is the key distinction between comms data and what might be regarded as the interception of a communication. The provision amends the definition contained in DRIPA, not the meaning of the regulations. The definitions in the Act are used in the regulations, so there is no requirement to amend the regulations. Accordingly, I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. If I have any reflections on the detail of the further points that the hon. Lady has highlighted, perhaps I can write to her further. However, with these assurances, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister for going through this very technical part of the Bill. I think it is helpful to have heard that explanation on the Floor of the House. I do not wish to press the amendment any further at this stage, although I think that it might be returned to in the other place, and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be further considered tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
5. When she next plans to meet the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I take this opportunity to thank John Vine, who left his post as the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration at the end of December. His work has been invaluable in assisting Ministers and improving the operation of the immigration system, and I shall meet his successor once appointed.
Nick Smith
Recent National Audit Office figures have shown that the Government’s border management and immigration policies have not stopped 10,649 foreign national offenders sitting in British prisons. One of the Home Secretary’s predecessors lost his job over this issue. A year on from the Department’s latest plan of action on this matter, there is still no real impact on the figures. When will the Home Secretary and a new chief inspector get a grip and deal with the problem properly?
James Brokenshire
As the Home Secretary has already said, we have got a grip on the issue. We are taking further steps through the operation of the Immigration Act 2014 to ensure that if there are appeals, they are heard outside this country’s jurisdiction, and that article 8—the right to family life—does not trump the ability to remove someone from the UK. It is that work and work across Government that are making sure that we are able to remove foreign national offenders from the UK.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I join the Minister in paying tribute to John Vine for his work as chief inspector of borders and immigration.
The chief inspector’s latest report on British citizenship applications shows that, on the Minister’s watch, scant regard was given by the Department to checks on criminal behaviour, fraud or immigration status. Since that report’s publication, what steps has the Minister taken to check histories and remove citizenship, if appropriate? Will he instigate proper investigation and record keeping? If he will not, a future Labour Government will.
James Brokenshire
Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman just stated, the chief inspector was clear that criminal record checks had been carried out in all cases that were examined. We have reminded caseworkers of the need to ensure that the appropriate guidance is adhered to, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the issues identified by the chief inspector arose in large measure from decisions of the last Labour Government to grant leave to people without going through the full requirements. We are still clearing up the mess that they put us in and we are focused on turning the ship around.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
7. What assessment she has made of changes in the level of crime since May 2010.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
9. What assistance her Department offers to people without five years’ residency applying for indefinite leave to remain, who have been delayed in entering the country on a spouse visa because they are waiting for a determination on a British passport application for a child born outside the UK due to delays in obtaining the initial spouse visa.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
In considering immigration applications, UK Visas and Immigration will not generally take into account the time taken to establish the British citizenship of a child of the applicant. That is because the child’s status will affect the immigration requirements on the applicant, such as the minimum income threshold to be met by foreign spouses, which should be dealt with before an application is made.
Mr Ward
Is the Minister aware of the impact on family life of these long delays? Such are the delays that by the time the spouse’s visa is granted, there may be one or two children, and then the mother will often have to make a decision about whether to stay abroad and be delayed there by starting the probationary period or to come to this country and leave the children abroad.
James Brokenshire
I am obviously happy to look at any individual cases that my hon. Friend may wish to highlight and I can examine further. A British passport is not issued to a child born overseas until the Passport Office is satisfied that all the relevant identity, nationality and child protection issues have been identified. I am sure that my hon. Friend would support that.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
10. How many Syrian refugees have been resettled in the UK under the Government’s vulnerable persons relocation scheme to date.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
We remain on track to relocate several hundred people under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme over the next three years. Between the first group of arrivals on 25 March and the end of September, 90 people were relocated to the UK under the scheme. In addition, over 3,400 Syrians and their dependants have been granted asylum or other forms of leave to remain since the start of the crisis.
Sarah Teather
The Minister will no doubt be aware that 2015 has already seen two worrying trends for Syrians fleeing the violence of war: first, an increase in restrictions imposed on those seeking to settle in neighbouring countries such as Lebanon; and secondly, even more refugees boarding boats and taking risky journeys in the Mediterranean. Does he recognise that our unwillingness to offer anything more than tokenistic safe legal routes for resettlement and family reunification of refugees exacerbates both those trends? We have no moral standing when arguing with neighbouring countries that they should keep their borders open, and desperate people will take any route to try to improve their lives when facing violence such as Syria’s.
James Brokenshire
This Government have taken important steps by providing aid that is benefiting hundreds of thousands of people in the region, and focusing on some of the most vulnerable cases that the vulnerable persons relocation scheme is designed to address. On borders, we are supporting the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and we are in dialogue with Syria’s neighbours, recognising the importance of effective management and also the fact that international law is clear that refugees should not be turned back in these circumstances.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Italian Ministers told the European Scrutiny Committee that increasingly people coming on boats and being rescued from them are refugees from areas such as Syria, not just economic migrants. When will the Government sign up to the UN programme so that we do our fair share, like other countries?
James Brokenshire
This country is doing its fair share in many different ways through the direct aid that is being provided—£700 million that is directly affecting and benefiting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people—and the asylum that is being granted through the vulnerable persons relocation scheme. We are also working overseas with countries affected to create a long-term settlement of this issue, as well as confronting the organised crime that exploits the vulnerable.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The UK does indeed have a very proud tradition of offering refuge to those in desperate need. The Government’s relocation programme for Syrian refugees was supposed to help orphan children, sexually abused women, victims of torture, and those needing specialist medical treatment. Other European countries are providing this support, with 310 people going to Ireland, 1,000 people going to Norway, and 1,200 people going to Sweden. As the Minister said, in the UK last year only 90 people were accepted. How many victims—specifically, how many orphan children and sexually abused women—will the UK be offering support to this year?
James Brokenshire
We remain on track to support several hundred vulnerable individuals over the next three years. The figures underline that. Those who benefit from the scheme are chosen by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, with whom we work in close co-operation. It is therefore the UNHCR that advances and puts forward individual cases based on the vulnerability-type factors that the hon. Lady identified.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
11. What recent discussions she has had with the French authorities on border security at Calais.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
It is in the interests of both the UK and France to work together to tackle migratory pressures at Calais. The Home Secretary last met the French Interior Minister on 5 December. We continue to work closely with the French authorities on all matters of border security and cross-border criminality to maintain the integrity of our joint border controls.
Charlie Elphicke
Can my hon. Friend confirm that the £12 million in the agreement will be spent on bolstering security and not on a welcome centre at Calais? Will he also reject representations from UKIP that the border controls at Calais should be scrapped and brought back to Dover?
James Brokenshire
I am very pleased to underline the points that my hon. Friend makes. We are not providing financial support for any day centres. Our financial support is focused on security at Calais and on confronting the organised criminality that seeks to take advantage of those trying to come to the UK. The juxtaposed controls absolutely benefit this country and we have no plans to change that.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I saw for ourselves the security measures that have been introduced with the help of the Government, though part of the fence that we saw blew down over the Christmas holidays because of high winds. As the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said, the area is now a magnet for those who wish to come to our country. Does the Minister agree that the problems in Calais are best addressed at the external frontiers of the EU? That means Frontex doing much more to ensure that the Mediterranean is policed properly but humanely, so that there is no repetition of what happened to the Ezadeen ship as it arrived in the EU very recently.
James Brokenshire
I agree that the problems lie beyond the UK’s shores. That is why, for example, we have taken part in the Khartoum process, which is an EU-African Union mechanism to focus on human trafficking. With reference to the EU border, Frontex has in place Operation Triton. As we are not within the Schengen zone, we do not participate directly, but are providing assistance. This is a matter that we continue to discuss with other EU Ministers.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee is quite right about our trip to Calais, where we found that in the past year more than 10,000 potential migrants had been apprehended by the good work of the border police and by the investment of no less than £150 million by Eurotunnel on fencing over the past 10 years. Is not the real problem that when potential migrants are apprehended, the French police take them 2 miles outside town and release them without even taking their fingerprints, so they can come and do it all over again?
James Brokenshire
I agree with my hon. Friend on some of the incredibly good work being undertaken at the northern French ports, particularly the work of Border Force, and the investment that has been provided there. We are investing further in security at Calais. We continue to have discussions with the French authorities on how we can strengthen the response, and those discussions will continue in the weeks ahead.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
Given these discussions, why have the French authorities set up a Sangatte 2 camp in Calais? What effect does the Minister think that will have on the situation?
James Brokenshire
The French Government will clearly make their own determinations and responses on matters relating to what happens on French soil. Our focus is on security at the juxtaposed controls and on combating organised crime, on which we have good joint working with the French and other Governments. It is clear that we should not establish measures that may act as some sort of magnet and may make the problem worse.
Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
12. What plans her Department has to regionalise police forces in England and Wales.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
20. How many applicants have been granted citizenship over the last 20 years; and what estimate she has made of the number of errors or mistakes made in decisions on citizenship in that period.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
The published national statistics of British citizenship grants show that there have been more than 2.4 million grants of citizenship over the last 20 years. The recent report by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration endorsed decision making in the overwhelming majority of cases examined.
James Brokenshire
The Government are clear that the grant of UK citizenship is a privilege for those who deserve it, not an automatic right for those who do not. Some of the issues identified by the chief inspector relate to a decision in 2007 to grant a large number of people the right to remain here indefinitely even if they did not meet the rules, and we are working through a process on that. We have also tightened the rules so that if someone has a bad immigration history, they are banned from becoming a British citizen for at least 10 years.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
T8. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary’s earlier answers on immigration, but may I ask her to ensure that efforts to curb immigration will not harm our higher education system or deny British businesses access to skills that they can find only internationally as a result of any new restrictions on visas for graduates at British universities?
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of the UK’s excellent offer to international students. I am pleased that Britain remains the second most popular destination for international higher education students, but it is right that we clamp down on abuse. As the Home Secretary has indicated, there is a migration issue to address when 121,000 non-EU students come to Britain and stay for more than 12 months, and yet only 51,000 leave. Many universities are acting appropriately to ensure that students leave at the end of their studies, but we are clear that our policies support the brightest and the best coming to the country, and that they support the university sector in that way.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The charity Youth with a Mission provides missionaries in Wrexham who help with food banks and work hard in the local community. On 23 December, the charity received notification that its highly trusted status was being suspended. Will the Home Secretary look closely at that faith-based organisation? Many churches within Wrexham have approached me because they are concerned that that help will be removed from my local community.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
In October the Immigration Minister said, in response to a National Audit Office report, that he intended that this country would join the Schengen information-sharing agreement, which would provide our border posts with information about people involved in serious crime—such as the person who murdered the son of my constituent, Mrs Elsie Giudici—during the course of the year. Is that facility now available, and if not, when does he expect that to happen?
James Brokenshire
We are finalising the arrangements for joining the second-generation Schengen information system for the benefits that I have identified and to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I regard it as an important enhancement to our work in identifying those with criminal records. It is being advanced and I expect it to be in place very shortly.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
The Government are today publishing for public consultation a number of documents relating to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. These are:
A draft code of practice for officers exercising functions under what will become schedule 1 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 in connection with seizing and retaining travel documents.
Draft guidance relating to the duty under what will become chapter 1 of part 5 of the Bill for named authorities to have due regard to the need to prevent people from
A draft revised code of practice for examining officers who exercise port and border controls under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 to examine goods.
A consultation on the proposed Privacy and Civil Liberties Board under clause 36 of the Bill.
The first consultation document seeks responses to a draft code of practice on the proposed powers under schedule 1 of the Bill to seize and retain travel documents temporarily at a port where there is reasonable suspicion that the person is travelling for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom. The responses to this consultation will inform the development of the code to ensure that the power is exercised appropriately and effectively.
The Bill proposes to place a duty on named authorities to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. The provisions in the legislation allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance to specified authorities about discharging their duty. The draft guidance sets out the type of activity we expect specified authorities to consider when complying with the duty. It has sections on each of the sectors under the duty, which aims to give sufficient detail for specified authorities to have clarity about the types of activity they need to consider when complying with the duty, while allowing for local differences and innovation.
Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (schedule T) allows an examining officer, normally a special branch police officer, to examine goods to determine whether they have been used in commission, preparation of instigation of acts of terrorism. Clause 35 and schedule 5 of the Bill include amendments to schedule 7 and other legislation, which would clarify the legal position in relation to where goods may be examined and the examination of goods which comprise items of post. We are consulting on a draft revised code of practice for examining officers who exercise schedule 7 powers at ports and the border, which reflects changes that would be made to the code should these provisions receive Royal Assent.
Clause 36 of the Bill provides the Home Secretary with a power to create a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. The board will support and provide extra capability to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in delivering robust independent scrutiny and oversight to UK counter-terrorism legislation. This is an important area and any changes to existing arrangements must be carefully considered. This consultation therefore invites comments on the proposals and provides an opportunity for all interested parties to influence key elements of the board, including its composition and functions. We will carefully consider the outcome of the consultation before bringing forward regulations to set out the detailed arrangements of the board.
Copies of these documents will be placed in the House Library.
Intercept Evidence
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
The interception of communications plays a vital role in preventing terrorist attacks and tackling serious and organised crime. Interception is used in some form in the majority of MI5’s top priority counter-terrorism investigations. It plays a crucial role in the work of the police and the National Crime Agency to bring serious criminals to justice.
The prohibition on the disclosure of warranted intercept in court is a long-standing one. It has served to protect the most sensitive capabilities of the security and intelligence agencies. And it has set the context in which the current interception regime has evolved.
The Government are committed to securing the maximum number of convictions in terrorism and serious crime cases. The experience of other countries is that the use of evidence gathered through interception may help to achieve that. For that reason, the Government have sought to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept as evidence in criminal proceedings.
I am today publishing the findings of the Government’s review of intercept as evidence as a Command Paper (Cm 8989).
This review considered whether it would be possible to introduce intercept as evidence in a way that was consistent with the right to a fair trial. The costs of translation, transcription and retention in order to disclose material to the defence would be substantial, diverting considerable resources away from investigative work.
The review found that the benefits—measured in additional convictions—would be highly uncertain. On some assumptions, the use of intercept as evidence would lead to a small increase in convictions. On others it would lead to a significant decrease.
The review concluded that the costs and risks of introducing intercept as evidence are disproportionate to the assessed benefits. This conclusion was unanimously endorsed by the advisory group of Privy Counsellors who have overseen the review from its inception.
Based on the outcome of the cost-benefit analysis, the review concluded that intercept as evidence should not be introduced at this time. However, the Government will keep this position under review.
This review has benefited from the experience and advice of the advisory group of Privy Counsellors, chaired by the right hon. Sir John Chilcot and comprising my noble Friend the right hon. Lord Howard of Lympne, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and the right hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Mr Woodward), who replaced the right hon. noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. The Government are indebted to them for their hard work, which is now complete.
Copies of the review will be available in the Vote Office.