Asylum Seekers: Removal to Rwanda

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I am afraid to have to say to the right hon. Lady that what I find abhorrent is people drowning in the channel. What is not acceptable is for us to abdicate the responsibility to stop that criminality and stop the risk to life. I should also be very clear about language: this is not deportation. We deport foreign criminals. Let us be very clear about the language; it is important when we debate these issues. Again, I just make the point, for the benefit of the House, that people should come here through safe and legal routes. We have generous safe and legal routes available. That is the right way to come to this country. There is not that risk to life in the same way when people come through safe and legal routes.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with Oxford’s professor of constitutional law, Richard Ekins, who wrote on Sunday that the root of the problem is the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporating the European convention on human rights into our law, which

“enables courts to interpret legislation unreasonably, contradicting the will of Parliament.”

Will he revisit that legislation? We should not have these matters decided by unelected judges in Strasbourg.

[Tom Pursglove]

It is fair to say that we believe there is a legal basis for this policy and that at all times we will be compliant with our obligations under both the refugee convention and the ECHR, but my right hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), the Deputy Prime Minister, is taking forward a programme of reform in relation to the Human Rights Act, and will no doubt want to make his views known.

National Security Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

It is certainly encouraging to hear such sombre but sensible contributions from both senior Front Benchers in agreement on the basis for the Bill.

To respond briefly to the question posed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on whether there is an oversight arrangement for special forces—no, there is not. If Parliament were ever to have such an arrangement, it would probably need to be on the model of the ISC, but we are not putting in a bid for that role unless anyone proposes proportionately to increase the resources on which the Committee depends to do its already quite substantial agenda of tasks.

Almost 20 years ago—in 2004, to be precise—the Intelligence and Security Committee first recommended the introduction of a new Official Secrets Act, recognising the constantly developing and evolving dangers posed to the United Kingdom by hostile state actors. That was almost a decade prior to our 2013 report, “Foreign involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure”—Cm. 8629, if Members want to look it up—which eventually led to the National Security and Investment Act 2021, so this Government undoubtedly deserve credit for tackling at least some of the unfinished business begun by the ISC.

As in the case of the National Security and Investment Act, unfortunately today’s proposals—while taking significant steps in the right direction—still fall short in significant respects. Given the complexity of the issues addressed in the Bill, rigorous parliamentary scrutiny is essential. Not every piece of major legislation can be processed by means of a Committee of the whole House, but where it is proposed to add a major new element to a Bill after Second Reading, the whole House must have an alternative opportunity adequately to debate it.

The National Security Bill was expected to encompass three principal elements. The first is to modernise the offence of espionage and provide the police, as well as the security and intelligence agencies, with appropriate new powers and capabilities. This the Bill clearly undertakes, with its substantial proposed reforms of the 1911 to 1939 Official Secrets Acts, which we broadly welcome. The second should be to reform, or to repeal and replace, the Official Secrets Act 1989, which deals with the unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information, whether by public servants or by others, such as journalists, who are not employed by the Government. There is no trace of that in the present Bill, nor any apparent intention to incorporate the topic later.

Finally, one searches in vain for the long-heralded and much-anticipated inclusion of a foreign influence registration scheme—long advocated by the ISC and others, including the Foreign Affairs Committee—requiring individuals to declare, in a Government-managed register, any activities that they undertake for or on behalf of a foreign state. That is what we are told will be introduced by means of an amendment to the Bill, presumably in Committee or on Report. I heard the Home Secretary say earlier that it would be in Committee, which is good, but it could conceivably have been introduced even later, in the Upper House. I am glad to see the Home Secretary firmly shaking her head and ruling that out. As things stand, however, we cannot even say, with the late, great Meat Loaf, that “Two Out of Three Ain’t Bad”, given that one of the three has yet to appear, and another—the urgently needed reform of the 1989 Act—is not going to happen at all.

It is odd, to put it mildly, that such an important component as the foreign influence registration scheme has not been incorporated in the Bill from the outset. The proposal to introduce it by means of a later amendment can only fuel suspicions that the Bill was published, for reasons unknown, before it had fully matured; or that the plan for the scheme had been dropped, then belatedly revived—the Home Secretary is shaking her head, which, again, is good; or that the Government are perfectly well aware of the details of the scheme that they intend to introduce, but wish to undermine or weaken parliamentary scrutiny by introducing it after the Second Reading debate is over, so that the Commons as a whole cannot decide on it before the Committee stage at the earliest.

Such suspicions could be at least partially dispelled by the Government’s agreeing that a Committee of the whole House will examine the Bill at the next stage of its journey through the Commons, and that plenty of time will be allocated for us all to examine the amendment on establishing a foreign influence registration scheme at the earliest opportunity. I will happily give way to a ministerial intervention now, offering an undertaking to that effect.

[Priti Patel]

indicated assent.

[Dr Lewis]

I am receiving indications that I may hear something in the summing-up speech, so I shall live in hope.

As I wish to leave scope for other members of the ISC to drill down into the detail of all three areas on which the Bill ought to be focusing, I shall confine myself to just a few comments on each. First—as we have said—we warmly welcome the repeal of the Official Secrets Acts of 1911 to 1939, with their references to century-old concepts of data targets, such as “sketches” and “plans”, which have long been superseded in the digital age. The new espionage offence created by clause 1 should enable the intelligence and security agencies more effectively to combat hostile state action in a world that has undergone a technological revolution in the modern era.

Clause 2 is a worthwhile attempt to protect valuable trade secrets, although we feel that there are issues of complexity and breadth of definition which will require simplification if this new system is to succeed. Clause 3 is strongly to be supported, both for criminalising the giving of assistance to a foreign intelligence service and for empowering the agencies and the police legitimately to unravel the hostile networks involved. Clause 12 creates a new offence of sabotage, at home or overseas: causing damage to vital UK assets or infrastructure, whether intentionally or recklessly. Clause 13 introduces an offence of foreign interference, but only for conduct that involves an intention to have a negative impact on the UK, for or on behalf of the foreign power in question. We suggest that it be broadened to cover those who behave recklessly, even if an intention to aid a foreign adversary cannot be proven.

Secondly, the failure radically to reform the Official Secrets Act 1989 leaves in place a requirement to demonstrate that actual harm has been caused by a civil servant or someone outside Government service when publishing classified information. However, the act of disclosing and specifying what harm has been done will often compound the problem and increase the damage; some prosecutions thus have to be dropped in order to prevent such further harm. Although the Law Commission has offered recommendations to cater for disclosures made genuinely in the public interest, those recommendations cannot even be considered other than in the context of the repeal, replacement or at least root-and-branch reform of the 1989 Act.

[Mr Steve Baker]

I absolutely support what my right hon. Friend says about the 1989 Act, section 1(1) of which states:

“A person who is or has been…a member of the security and intelligence services; or…a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection…is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information”.

There is no caveat about “damaging”. Is not the fundamental problem that a distinction is drawn between categories of person in how they are treated?

[Dr Lewis]

There is such a distinction. One could certainly argue that it is a graver offence for someone entrusted officially with secrets to breach that trust than for a journalist who thinks he has a scoop but knows that he might be harming the national interest to proceed nevertheless, recklessly or with deliberate intent to do harm. However, we are not talking about a spy rifling through a filing cabinet and taking pictures with his Minox camera; we are now in an age when a technician can download a gigabyte of information in a short period and have it published worldwide, unread even by the people who have published it. That is where there are huge gaps in the legislation, and closing them will require revisiting the 1989 Act.

The third leg is that there will be many practical issues with the contents and the proper parliamentary scrutiny of any amendment to the Bill to initiate a foreign influence registration scheme. Careful drafting will be required to catch those who are consciously and deliberately, or unreasonably and recklessly, acting on behalf of another state and its interests, without criminalising every parliamentarian who runs a bilateral international friendship group, for example. High on the agenda must be the issue of dodgy donations from questionable sources to political parties and campaigns—another good reason for the closest possible examination of the provisions that the Government eventually bring forward. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out, our Australian friends enacted their foreign influence transparency scheme as recently as 2018, while our US allies introduced their own legislation as long ago as 1938, so there is no shortage of precedents on which we can draw to get the legislation right and close at least one more gap in our national security arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to open up a very wide debate, somewhat outside the scope of Second Reading. He is absolutely right to identify the significance of disinformation and wider information operations as undertaken by foreign states and the obvious role of social media in that. The American election of 2016 remains the textbook example—there are plenty of others around the world. What I have set out is the way in which the Bill deals with people doing that on behalf of foreign states. As for platforms’ responsibility for what they do with the material and the steps that they must take—he will know about the principles in the Online Safety Bill not only to remove material but to minimise its presence in the first place—that is rightly subject matter for the Online Safety Bill.

Finally, on the foreign influence registration scheme—this has been raised by many colleagues across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and others—as the Home Secretary indicated when opening the debate, we are committed to introducing a foreign influence registration scheme through a Government amendment. It is important that we take time to ensure that such a scheme is effective and proportionate in the way in which it counters state-threat activity and protects UK interests. That was a clear message in the public consultation, and we continue to review requirements in the light of Russian attempts to undermine western and European state stability.

If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight illustrated rather well the great complexities of trying to deal with this subject. I absolutely commit to communicating with the Opposition parties and the Intelligence and Security Committee as we introduce this measure. We want to do it as soon as possible, and we absolutely recognise the importance of scrutiny in both Houses. However, I want to make it clear that we cannot commit to doing that for the beginning of the Committee stage; but we want to do it as soon as possible thereafter.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

The Minister will recall that when I asked for a commitment from the Home Secretary about a Committee of the whole House, she indicated that he might be able to give that commitment when responding to the debate. Will it be a Committee of the whole House?

[Damian Hinds]

I hear the request from my right hon. Friend. That is a question partly for the business managers and the usual channels, who have heard the request and have to balance it against all the other things that they need to balance for the operation of the House. Overall, I can assure him that I have heard colleagues—him and others—on the importance of having time for scrutiny.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Damian Hinds]

Very briefly.

[Dr Lewis]

We have nearly half an hour. I do not know why this Minister is making such a fuss about the urgency to conclude a debate that is scheduled to run until 10 o’clock if necessary.

For some very unclear reason, the Government decided to introduce what should be a major plank of the legislation not at the beginning, so that we could include a proper debate on Second Reading, but through an amendment, when the process was under way. All we want to know is that the whole House can debate properly something that we have not yet seen, so there must be a Committee of the whole House, otherwise we will have only the meagre opportunity offered by Report. He should not be blasé in dismissing that suggestion.

[Damian Hinds]

I do not think that I have been blasé in the slightest. I have spent my winding-up remarks trying to cover as fully as I can the various themes—[Interruption.] I have taken quite a few interventions, including, I think, from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), which was important. The decision about the timetabling of debates on the Floor of the House is not mine fully to make. In terms of this debate, I am not trying to rush things at all. Normally, Ministers would take the same amount of time, broadly speaking, as Opposition Front Benchers, and I am simply trying to follow those conventions.

[Dr Lewis]

One last time: the Minister has taken a lot of interventions about the matters that are in the Bill, but there is a whole tranche that is not in the Bill that will be introduced in an amendment, and he has only briefly touched on that. That is inevitable, because it is not in the Bill. When that tranches comes into the Bill, the whole House should have an opportunity properly to debate it.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As I have said, I have heard those points, as, I am sure, have the business managers.

In closing, I want to repeat my earlier thanks to everybody for their insightful and eloquent contributions to this debate. I thank the Opposition and the Scottish National party for the spirit and the attitude with which they have taken part in this debate. I look forward to further debate and scrutiny from them and from colleagues across the House as we go through Committee. These are issues of the very greatest importance for our country and for the Government. The stakes are high. It is about protecting our security and our prosperity. It is about preserving our democracy and our way of life. It is about keeping our citizens safe. This Bill will enable us to achieve those most critical of aims and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.



National Security Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the National Security Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 13 September 2022.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Scott Mann.)

Question agreed to.



National Security Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Scott Mann.)

Question agreed to.

Public Order Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

To put this into context, I remind the House that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services has argued that stop-and-search powers would be an effective tool for the police in this case. Stop and search is a critical tool in policing and, as I highlighted, is absolutely crucial when it comes to saving lives and preventing the loss of life.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am a little concerned about the point raised by the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), because many, if not most, of these protesters feel that their cause is the most important thing in the world—in fact, some of them think that they are saving the world. If, therefore, they can give excuses of that sort by way of a reasonable explanation of what they are doing, is not the legislation leaving a loophole? In particular, I have in mind some previous cases where anti-nuclear protesters broke into military bases and damaged military equipment, and certain courts felt that they should be acquitted because their motives were to try to prevent nuclear war, even if, in fact, it has the opposite effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is certainly right to suggest that it is an unwise Government who try to silence those who disagree with them; it is also an undemocratic Government who seek to do so.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will in due course.

The Home Secretary said to us this afternoon:

“From day one, this Government have put the safety and the interests of the law-abiding majority first.”

She claimed that she was prosecuting more criminals, but the opposite is the case. Since she came to office in 2019, crime has gone up by 18% and prosecutions have gone down by 18%, so I have to ask her what planet she is living on. Just because she says things stridently, that does not make them true. When she wonders about being on the side of criminals, maybe she should remember that it is a Conservative Government, and a Conservative Home Secretary, who are literally letting more criminals off—literally. There are hundreds of thousands’ fewer prosecutions every single year than there were under the Labour Government. Prosecutions, cautions and community penalties are going down, even now when crime is going up, and that genuinely means that rapists, abusers, serious offenders, thieves and thugs are all less likely to be prosecuted than they were seven years ago. There is just a one in 20 chance of someone being prosecuted on this Home Secretary’s watch.

The Home Secretary said too that she would not “stand by” while antisocial behaviour caused misery for others, but she is. There are 7,000 fewer neighbourhood police than there were six years ago, and the police are failing to send officers to more than half of all reported antisocial behaviour offences. People and communities across the country are expressing serious concerns about antisocial behaviour being ignored time and again by this Home Secretary.

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way first to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and then to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I cannot see what these general points about the record of individual Ministers have to do with the substance of the Bill. What does have to do with the substance of the Bill is the difference between the right to protest peacefully within the rules and the right to insist on repeatedly bellowing a message—on and on and on—irrespective of the fact that other people have heard it and now want to exercise their right to go about their normal life. If I had insisted on intervening on the right hon. Lady when she was not allowing me to do so, that would be the parallel with the sort of abuse these measures are designed to stamp out. I obey the rules, and so should protesters.

[Yvette Cooper]

I do not think this is about bellowing; I think this is about serious offences and the committing of crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point: people across the country want to be able to protest against big new projects that are planned for their area, such as major transport projects, or plans to turn a woodland into a car park or to close a library. That is why it is important to ensure that we have our historic freedoms to protest and people’s voices can be heard, and that we have the right to be protected from intimidation and harassment and we fulfil our responsibilities to keep essential services running. There should be a shared understanding across the House that there are rights to be balanced and important principles that should be respected on both sides of the House—for example, the principle that respects the historic freedom to protest, but also ensures that our essential services keep running.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving me a second bite of the cherry. I fear I have to confess that I am possibly the only Member here today who was actually arrested once—for taking part in a counter-demonstration 40 years ago, when we played the national anthem in public against a group of protesters against the Falklands taskforce, which was embarking to the south Atlantic.

The point that I am trying to get over to the right hon. Lady with the use of the words “bellowing” or indeed “incessant bellowing” is this: when the huge pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear demonstrations took place, everybody stopped and allowed each other to have their protest; and then the protest was over, and that was that. The idea that the same people could go on protesting day after day after day without being interfered with by the police, either for obstruction or causing a public nuisance, is ridiculous. What will she do to defend the right of other people to go about their normal lives once the protest has been made but the protesters will not stop?

[Yvette Cooper]

There are two different issues: there are issues in respect of the kinds of protests that might cause serious disruption to the vital public infrastructure that we all depend on, but there may also be protests that, to be honest, might be a bit annoying but do not actually disrupt anybody at all. In a democracy, we should recognise that even though the right hon. Gentleman and I may think that the world should move on, if people have strong views, they should be able to express them.

There should be a shared understanding across the House—

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The fact is that going equipped to commit an offence is a criminal offence in itself. We are creating a new offence here and it is necessary to provide that preventive measure as well. The Bill allows the police to take action in a dynamic and fast-flowing situation to search and to prevent the commission of a crime, so I support the measure.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

As someone who, for decades, has gone around with a heavy chain and padlock to secure my motorcycle, I have never found myself in a situation where I was carrying that device but did not have my motorcycle with me, so hon. Members should think about that. However, what my hon. Friend is explaining so lucidly has been thought of before. To return to the anti-nuclear protests, there was even a term for it—NVDA, which is non-violent direct action. It is not violent, but it is not really peaceful, because it is deliberately breaking the law. I think that is the distinction that he is correctly trying to draw between that and peaceful legitimate protest.

[Danny Kruger]

I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his intervention. He is absolutely right.

I end with the observation that the protesters we are dealing with, even if they have honourable intent and they are entitled to their opinion—who knows, they might be right about the climate crisis—are not allowed to use our tradition of liberty against us. It is necessary to update the law to criminalise that form of protest.

Ukraine: Urgent Refugee Applications

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

On engagement with the Welsh Government, I understand that colleagues in the Department that lead on this have spoken to the Welsh and Scottish Governments about the provisions. Of course this will depend on how many sponsors come forward and how many people want to be part of welcoming people into their own homes and own community across Wales—I suspect we will see a generous amount. On urgency, we took 16,000 people out of Kabul in two weeks, we worked at pace and we are still evacuating people out of Afghanistan as we speak. We will soon be welcoming many thousands from Ukraine into the UK, alongside having the most generous sponsorship scheme that exists, given that it is completely uncapped.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Many of the Ukrainian refugees who eventually get here will be vulnerable women and children, not all of whom will have relatives here who can offer a roof over their heads. Have the Government given any thought to setting up some sort of portal or clearing house where offers of accommodation can be made and basic safety checks can also be made before vulnerable people take up those offers?

[Kevin Foster]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are talking about potentially vulnerable individuals arriving in a cohort, and we will need to make sure that basic safeguarding checks are in place, particularly where people are offering to welcome people into their homes. I know that my colleagues are closely looking at how that can be done, but without it becoming a barrier to enabling the swift movement of this scheme.

Ukraine

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

There are a number of measures, and it is not just about Border Force—this is a conversation I had with the Ukrainian ambassador today—because of people without documents that can be verified, and all sorts of issues. We are trying to use both systems, out of country but in country as well. We have an operation in Lviv, in particular, trying to verify the data of those who are trying to leave, and match it against our systems. Quite a lot of work is taking place on this, but the hon. and learned Lady should provide me with details of the case she mentioned, and we will absolutely take it on board and pick it up.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

These welcome efforts will put huge extra strain on the Home Secretary’s Department. May I urge her to bear in mind the situation of those other refugees who fled from Afghanistan to Pakistan, and who have been granted entry visas to this country but are stuck there because they entered Pakistan undocumented in an emergency? The Pakistani authorities could well grab them and send them back to a terrible fate in Kabul. Will she reach out to the Ministry of Defence to set in place safe extraction measures for those people who we have agreed can come here, but who cannot show themselves in Pakistan because our so-called ally is too close to the Taliban?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that important point. The Afghanistan resettlement and the plight of Afghan refugees absolutely has not ended. As Members of the House will know, we welcomed more than 20,000 Afghan refugees, and the Minister for Afghan Resettlement, who is sitting on the Bench beside me now, is in constant contact with the MOD, and particularly with our Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office partners in Pakistan. There absolutely are challenges, and we cannot just move from one international crisis to another. We must continue to work on this issue, and that is a whole-Government effort. We are using the FCDO and the MOD to deal specifically with those cases.

Foreign Interference: Intelligence and Security

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to Dr Julian Lewis, Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will undoubtedly be aware of the important distinction between agents of influence or covert propagandists, and espionage agents or spies. In her statement she referred to new national security legislation. In precisely what areas does she anticipate that new legislation interfering in the activities of agents of influence and of espionage agents?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend has made an important point. In my statement I also alluded to the fact that, when it comes to interference and influence, there are so many facets, including in commercial and economic life. Those are the strands that we are pulling together—in fact the Security Minister, other colleagues across Government and I are developing that legislation so that we can close down that permissive environment and space where, frankly, there has been too much exploitation in the past.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

They most certainly should, and it should not have taken all this time for the Government to accept the need to deal with this matter. This is a left-behind group of ex-servicemen, and they really do need to be given the right of abode here in the United Kingdom.

Only 159 of the 654 British Hong Kong servicemen who applied under the 1990 to 1997 British nationality selection scheme prior to the handover of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China were offered full UK passports for service to the Crown. I believe that those who applied for UK passports and were denied them have been discriminated against, and it is time that was rectified. They should have been treated equally to the 159 and given British citizenship for their armed forces Crown service.

The campaign for the right of abode of former British Hong Kong servicemen has established the number of servicemen still seeking recognition from the Government at around 301, with immediate family growing the group to around 1,000. That is a very low number of people when compared with the 3 million citizens affected by the changes made last year to introduce the BNO passport, which was such a welcome support for the people of Hong Kong.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Am I right in thinking that these very patriotic individuals are seeking the right to come here if they need to in case of future discrimination? They are not necessarily all likely to have to take up that right.

English Channel Small Boats Incident

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

First and foremost, there is a great deal of work. I should emphasise that the right hon. Gentleman’s comments are presented in a light that is actually quite unfair and unreflective of the work that takes place across Government with multilateral organisations and the global situation. Humanitarian crises lead to displacement and climate crisis leads to displacement—that is a fact of life. None of this is new; it has existed for decades and decades. That is why the international community comes together, whether that is in convening power through the European Union, through the UN or through multilateral systems. That is exactly how it works.

The reality is that it is not the case that everyone who has come to this country illegally, whether on the back of a lorry or in a small boat, historically, is an asylum seeker. When they have their rights exhausted and we try to remove them, there are many barriers to removal. That is effectively what the Nationality and Borders Bill will address; I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to support the Bill.

Migrants are not just in the hands of people smugglers. They are travelling through safe countries where there are functioning asylum seeking systems and where they could claim asylum. That is something that all international partners should support and work to achieve.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Did not the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) put her finger on the problem when she referred to Afghanistan, where there are many legitimate asylum seekers who deserve to come here? Is not the problem that if we have the fairest asylum seeking system in the world, a queue will form and that there will always be some people who are not prepared to queue, but want to jump to the head of the queue? Therefore, is not the only way to deter that to show, not that they will not get across the channel or that getting across the channel is terribly dangerous, but that if they do get across the channel and if they have jumped the queue, they will be returned to another country? How can the Home Secretary secure that?

[Priti Patel]

I think I have spoken in this House a few times about bilateral returns agreements and the difficulties with getting them. I state again for the record that I have today put on the table another offer to my French counterpart, Minister Darmanin, that I am very happy to discuss returns agreements with him in the usual sense, but also to look at family reunions and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We do not want children—kids—and family members in the hands of traffickers. Having established routes and working with our partners to establish returns agreements is absolutely the right thing to do.

I have stated many times with regard to EU countries that the matter sits with the Commission; it is a Commission competence. There is a great deal of frustration among EU member states about the issue, which is why I continue to pursue my discussions with the European Commissioner for Home Affairs.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I will be very happy to drop the hon. Gentleman a line with the full facts about the amendment, rather than responding to the rhetoric that he has just given.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Like the Home Secretary and many other Members of this House, I am the descendant of immigrants who came to this country legally. I am campaigning for more immigrants to be brought here legally who are at risk in Afghanistan.

What I cannot understand is how people who come here illegally—particularly those who, having done that, commit very serious crimes—cannot then be deported because they apparently have absolute rights conferred by various conventions. Most rights are capable of being overridden in extreme circumstances. If we are signed up to such conventions, is it not about time we reviewed them?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend makes some important points. First, as a country we always stand by our international obligations when it comes to people who are fleeing persecution and in need of refuge. That is what the Nationality and Borders Bill does and why we are creating safe and legal routes. My right hon. Friend will be familiar with much of our work that has taken place thus far with, for example, British nationals overseas—people from Hong Kong—and the work that is taking place on Afghanistan.

The removal of people with no legal right to be in the United Kingdom and all rights exhausted is at the heart of the new plan for immigration and the Nationality and Borders Bill, because too many last-minute claims come through immigration courts and tribunals and prevent the Government from removing people who have no legal right to be here. They include foreign national offenders, including rapists and murderers—people who have committed awful and abhorrent crimes on the streets of the United Kingdom. I have to say it is quite telling that there is a great deal of lobbying from the Labour party to actually stand by many of these foreign national offenders and keep them in our country.

Security Update

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and, I must say, for the joint and collective recognition that we have a shared responsibility in how we conduct ourselves and how we act. If I may say so, that has been reflected in the way in which, organisationally, everyone across the House has come together—from the support given by you, Mr Speaker and your team, and of course the Lord Speaker at the other end of Parliament, to the parliamentary policing support and the teams that we all depend on for MPs’ security in our own constituencies.

There has been an incredible effort nationwide, and I want to pay tribute to all police operatives under Operation Bridger for the work they have been doing. As ever, my thanks go to the intelligence agencies, the security services, JTAC and counter-terrorism policing. The work has been quite remarkable—it really has.

The right hon. Gentleman made a number of points, and to be fair they are points that we touched on in the Chamber on Monday. It is very sombre that we are having this statement today after the terrible tragedy that took place on Friday. It is also a recognition of the fact that we want our democracy to be defended and, rightly so. We want to conduct our business in the open and transparent way that all Members have successfully done over so many generations.

On that note, that is exactly why, through the agencies and Government structures, we have stood up the wider work of the defending democracy team in the Cabinet Office, which will look at other elected representatives. The right hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of councillors and other elected representatives, as I did in the House on Monday. We all collectively acknowledge and know—many of us have been in some of these roles previously in public life—that there are public servants across society and our country who, day in, day out, do a great deal of work in representing their communities and, importantly, in delivering public services. They have been subject to abuse, for example, and that is part of the wider work taking place.

The wider review taking place on policing is all linked to Operation Bridger, and rightly so, because that is the structure that has been set up, and is effective. We are constantly working to enhance that. Our role is to close down any perceived gaps in security, or even risks for MPs and wider assessments that may materialise. Of course, again, that is a collective effort.

My next point—and I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members will appreciate the context in which I make this remark—is that it is not for us to publicly and openly discuss our security measures. We protect ourselves by working with the agencies and police. We act in a responsible way on the basis of the advice and guidance we are given, and, I should add, the support that we are given, as Members of this House to enable us to function and do our jobs as elected representatives. I would just like to emphasise that point to all colleagues, and colleagues will understand the context in which I make that remark.

Finally, all Members should be aware that through your good offices, Mr Speaker, and the support teams you have, you and I will continue to keep all Members of this House updated. Of course, there are protective security measures and packages available to Members, which we will be sharing, and we will once again be reiterating the support that is available to all Members.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call Dr Lewis, let me say that, with the Home Secretary, we will be sending a letter to all Members of the House with a further update and we will try to keep the House informed as much as possible. I reassure the House that meetings between each of our offices have been going forward continuously to ensure that we are doing the right thing by everybody. I would add this to what the Home Secretary said. You are being contacted about doing service. Please do not do this because that gives information we do not want to give. The other part of that is: what will happen to the data that you are giving? It puts not just you at risk, but others at risk.

[Dr Lewis]

May I draw particular attention to the wise words of the Home Secretary in what I think was her penultimate point about the discussion of security measures that MPs decide they will or will not take? Most right hon. and hon. Members have ideas about ways in which their security can be improved. It is very unwise—is it not, Mr Speaker?—for us to state what those ideas are in public. I am sure that, like me, every Member present in the Chamber was contacted by local and national media asking, “How are you going to proceed in future? Are you going to continue with face-to-face surgeries? What changes will you make to your arrangements?” Does the Home Secretary agree that it is quite inappropriate for the media to ask such questions, and it is quite counterproductive, and indeed self-endangering, for us to answer them?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his observation and comments, as well for as his question. This has been a sombre week for all of us in this House —it really has. We have lost colleagues through the most appalling attacks, first Jo Cox, and then Sir David Amess. It is not for us to be publicly discussing security measures at all. As the House has already heard me say, I urge all hon. Members, for the sake of protecting the public, our staff and our functioning democracy, to respect some of the parameters that we are speaking about now. We must also respect the fact that, to carry on in our roles as elected representatives, we have to take advice that should not be in the public domain—advice that we listen to and that will effectively shape our own behaviours. That will lead to greater public protection from safeguarding and security. We all have a responsibility to follow the words of my right hon. Friend and be very conscientious about what we say when it comes to security.