Offensive Weapons Bill (Eighth sitting)

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 6th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I went back to the definition in the Bill, and the specification of the size of the blade relates to folding pocket knives only, so the example of the kitchen scissors would fall under this legislation. I hope that clarifies that.

I appreciate that this is a complication that people setting up home or adding to their cutlery drawer have not had to contend with before, but with this Bill we are trying to stop young people from finding a way of getting hold of these sharp products online. I hope that if members of the public order their kitchen scissors or whatever, they will be able to pick them up at the post office or, if they have ordered through a shop that has branches across the country, they can go and pick them there up at some point.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Personally, I find the definition in this clause very clear, in terms of both the blade and its capacity to cause serious injury, which deals with some of the more minor points we heard earlier. Does the Minister agree that not that long ago to buy any of these products one would have had to go to a shop or a hardware store, so it is not the greatest of suffering in an area that would not have had those stores to head to the local post office to pick up those items, if needed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Lady will understand that there are a great many discussions ongoing with Northern Ireland. The fact that the Assembly is not in action in Northern Ireland complicates our passing legislation not just in this context but in others.

[Kevin Foster]

Is the Minister aware of the particularly significant trade in bladed items across the border between Donegal and County Londonderry? There are particularly large knife-selling businesses located there. On body corporates, surely it is highly unlikely that someone would send a personal courier with a weapon. Quite bluntly, if they did, I would like to see that person stopped at the border.

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend persists in popping little interesting and sometimes amusing comments into the debate. I am not personally aware of the online knife market between the Republic and Northern Ireland, but if my hon. Friend is suggesting a Committee trip to the emerald isle to explore that, perhaps he will have some support. He is right about body corporates; we are trying to get at the businesses that do the bulk of the delivery work in this country to try to secure their assistance with the aim of the Bill. I am told that there have been discussions with officials in the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. There have not been discussions with officials in the Republic, but I am happy to take that away.

Offensive Weapons Bill (Fifth sitting)

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Member for East Ham for tabling this amendment and to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley—to whom I might have referred incorrectly as the Member for Sheffield, Hallam, for which I apologise. I have found him to be a great source of information, and we have discussed this issue a great deal since I was made a Minister. I completely understand the spirit in which he tables these amendments, but it is difficult; he knows, from the discussions we have had, the difficulties that there are.

Before I turn to the amendments, it might be worth reminding the Committee of the evidence on the involvement of young people in acid attacks. The right hon. Gentleman set out the average ages thus far. The latest published information goes up to April 2017; we will no doubt discuss in due course how we can improve the availability of this information, given that we know the range of attacks. He said that 21% of acid or corrosive substance attacks recorded by the police up to April 2017 were perpetrated by people under the age of 18, where the age was known. We do not have statistics on how many attacks were committed by those over 18 but under 21, or by those under the age of 25, but more recent information, which the police intend to publish shortly, shows that between April 2017 and April 2018 the average age of those carrying out acid attacks was 23.

I mention that because, as the right hon. Gentleman set out when he was reading out the different years, the ages fluctuate and it is difficult to set an age that would encompass all those average ages. We know that from reports in the media on the most violent offences, for example the terrible case of Arthur Collins in the nightclub in Dalston. He was 25. We must find an age limit at which we can prevent sales that meets the need to protect the public in a way that is not discriminatory and does not affect vast swathes of the population who may be buying these substances for completely legitimate and lawful reasons.

Corrosive substances are not, in themselves, offensive weapons; rather like knives, they have legitimate uses in cleaning products, car batteries and a wide range of hobbies such as metalworking. However, given the attacks and the concerns we all have about them, we believe it is reasonable and proportionate to ban the sale of such substances to those who are under 18. That is what the Bill is intended to do through clause 1 and schedule 1. Under the Bill, there is a defence available to a seller who has taken “reasonable precautions” and exercised due diligence in avoiding selling to a person aged under 18. However, I should say to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—or the hon. Member for the SNP, as he is being called—that the defences in Scotland are slightly different from those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. Clause 2 applies further conditions on online sales that must be met if the seller wants to rely on the defence. Finally, clause 4 makes it an offence for a delivery company in the UK acting on behalf of a seller overseas to deliver corrosive products to someone in this country aged under 18.

The amendments in this group seek to raise that age from 18 to 21, and amendment 53 seeks to replicate that for bladed articles. Most products are age-limited with regard to under-18s because that is the internationally recognised age of the child. The effect of the amendments would be to introduce a new age limit, which would mean that restrictions on the sale of corrosives and bladed articles were out of step with those for other age-limited items, such as alcohol.

We heard evidence from witnesses from the British Retail Consortium and the British Independent Retailers Association before recess. They foresaw the difficulties that having different age limits for different products might pose for retailers—particularly small retailers—and their staff. Concerns have been raised about the risk of abuse and assault of shop workers, and we bear that in mind in that balancing act on the age range. We also fear that any increase in the age limit to 21 may well be challenged as an unjustifiable discrimination on the grounds of age, particularly when we think of the fluctuation in the average age of perpetrators, as we discussed earlier.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I have listened to the Minister with interest. She mentioned the issue for shopkeepers. I was formerly a deputy leader of a council responsible for enforcing some of those age limits. When the age limit was 16 for tobacco and 18 for alcohol, separate enforcement operations had to be run, whereas when the age limits were unified at 18, the same enforcement operation could deal with all those products. That suggests, as the witnesses said in answer to some of my questions, that 18 is the logical age to set for this area.

[Victoria Atkins]

That is an extremely interesting point and I am grateful, as ever, to my hon. Friend for bringing his professional expertise into Committee.

I hope Opposition Members understand that we have considered this very carefully and have had to weigh up the pros and cons of the age limits as they are. We argue that, although having restrictions against under-18s is also arguably discriminatory, if one takes a libertarian view about these things, it is justified because it replicates measures already in place to deal with knives. It is justified both on public safety grounds and because of the need to safeguard children. As I have said, corrosive products are not, in themselves, weapons, so we have come to the conclusion that there is not the evidence to justify excluding adults from being able to buy such products for legitimate purposes.

Raising the age limit for purchasing bladed articles would raise even more of an issue, because it would mean that adults—as recognised by law in this country—could not be sold products that they need to lead their daily lives. It would mean that a 20-year-old chef or carpenter could not buy the items needed to do their job. It would mean that adults could not be sold table or bread knives or certain types of gardening equipment.

This is particularly pertinent at this time of year. Over the next few weeks, thousands of students will go to university for the first time and will be setting up their flats or halls of residence, and they will perhaps buy some of those kits of pots, pans, crockery and knives that I see collected together in shops around the country. We get the sense that these people are probably over the age of 18 and trying to set up home for the first time, and the amendment would mean that those 18, 19 and 20-year-olds would not be able to set up home as they can now.

Knives and other bladed articles have thousands of legitimate uses, and restricting their sale to those aged over 21 would have a disproportionate impact on the vast majority of law-abiding adults in this country. It would also have implications for online retailers and delivery companies, because many online age verification systems, such as the electoral roll system, will not identify whether someone is under 21. It would mean that products ordered from overseas could only be handed over to a person who could prove that they were over 21 by producing a passport or driving licence, which not all members of the public have. It would also have implications for the operation of the Poisons Act 1972 and who can apply for an explosives precursor and poisons licence. For those reasons, we will resist the amendments.

As a footnote, I assure the Committee that we will continue to work with retailers on putting in place Challenge 21-type schemes of the sort that many retailers already have for the sale of alcohol. Our voluntary agreements on the sale of knives and corrosives have proven to be popular schemes for retailers. We believe that through these sorts of measures, which educate the public while also helping shop owners by giving them the confidence to challenge, we will help to address some of the terrible cases that the right hon. Member for East Ham set out. We will therefore resist the amendments. Alternatively, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Windrush

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber for Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions earlier, when he would have heard the response by the Minister for Europe and the Americas on the subject of the Chagos islanders and the Government’s long-standing policy.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is right that the Government have offered both an apology and compensation to those in the Windrush generation who have been affected. However, is the Minister aware that in many instances people feel they have to choose between being able to speak out and receiving compensation? Will she therefore confirm that no one who applies to the Windrush compensation scheme will be asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement?

[Caroline Nokes]

The Home Secretary has been absolutely clear: nobody applying to the Windrush compensation scheme will be asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Offensive Weapons Bill (Second sitting)

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Tulip Siddiq]

Q Why is it different from the rest of the country? Firearm offences in London are the highest per head of population. I am curious to know why that statistic exists.

Detective Chief Superintendent Chilton: We tend to see the metropolitan forces as the main ones having gun crime problems. It is a complex issue. I know from my previous role, before I was head of NABIS, having run the communities against guns, gangs and knives programme, that it is very complex and is a serious violence issue. Guns are just one factor.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Q I want to draw back slightly to the discussion about bump stocks. The example given was the Las Vegas shooting, but how many of those weapons used would have been lawful here? One of the issues in the United States is the pairing up of assault weaponry that is lawful there—unbelievably, quite bluntly—with bump stocks to make fully automatic assault weapons. How many of those weapons, given that the NCA evidence cites that incident, would have been legal here?

Also, do you think the definition in the law is drawn tightly enough? Clearly, bump stocks are being developed to get round the law on automatic weaponry in the United States and here. Do you think the definition is tight enough to prevent some sort of modification that has the same effect as the bump stock, but is not a bump stock?

Christopher Lynn: To answer your questions chronologically, because of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which prohibited full-bore self-loading rifles, the impact in the UK is limited, although we still have .22 rimfire self-loading rifles on section 1 firearm certificates. We are aware of at least two designs of bump stocks in the States that would be compatible with certain patterns of .22 rimfire self-loading rifles that are legal here, so there is some carry over, although it is very much more limited.

In terms of definitions, I was involved in a definition, and we went to the Patent Office to try to identify how the items were patented and described in the patenting, but it is always a competition on the wording. You think you have wording that is robust, and then there are some other means of getting around that. I have spent 23 years in the firearms world and throughout that time it has always been a competition of exploring the letter of the law and sometimes undermining the spirit of the law.

[Kevin Foster]

Q Do you think the wording in the Bill is the best it could be in this area, or could it be sharpened to try and future-proof it?

Christopher Lynn: We have consulted quite widely on it—the National Firearms Centre—and there has been a lot of input around it. I am sure we would be willing to have any suggestions that could be addressed, but I am not sure that there is an absolute gold standard catch-all. That is my position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

Q On age verification, you mentioned in your submission that you would prefer some explicit guidance on exactly what kind of age verification tools your members should use online. Do you want to be dictated to about which age verification tools to use, or do you just want guidance about what kind of tests that age verification tool should meet?

Graham Wynn: Ideally, we would like to see some standards, so we can be sure that online age verification systems developed by businesses such as Yoti and others will be accepted as due diligence by the enforcers. Currently, the systems for offline are fairly standard and obvious for face-to-face, but it has always been somewhat difficult to be sure that you are really complying with the online ones. You might think that the credit card companies could have done something about it, but they refuse to put an identifier on their cards to give an indication, so other means are necessary.

Technologically, things are developing, and I understand that, for some things, such as the pornography legislation that has recently gone through, there has to be some online verification. Perhaps that is slightly less dangerous than a knife sale, but nevertheless it would be useful for retailers to be sure that the system they are using meets certain standards. Of course, more will develop over time as technology advances.

[Kevin Foster]

Q Earlier, we were discussing the issue of what age should be set, and 18 was proposed. Do you see any issues for your retailers and members if there was a different age? I think we can say that it would not be under 18, but let us say 21 for the sake of argument.

Graham Wynn: The difficulty is that most age restrictions are at 18, although not all, so in store, people use challenge 25 to try to capture it. Some still use 21, but most use 25, so you can see roughly whether a person is likely to be 18 or not—it gives a margin of error. If you start to have a wider range of ages, it becomes a matter of training for the shop assistant in the store, and training becomes more difficult because there is quite a high turnover of shop assistants. The ideal is to try to keep things roughly in the same area.

[Kevin Foster]

Q Do you see 18 as the optimum, given so many other things are at 18?

Vin Vara: At BIRA we recommend challenge 25, but most of our members are looking at 21 years old.

[Kevin Foster]

Q Just to be clear though, challenge 25 means that if you look under 25, I will ask for your ID to see whether you are 18; it is not about being 25.

Vin Vara: From the ID you can work out their age. We say that 21 is a good age to challenge and to make as law, but the problem is that not all our members have the tools to verify—they do not have the ecosystems to challenge when you scan the barcodes. They still use the old tills. They and their staff need to be better trained on selling, which we are doing at the moment.

[Tulip Siddiq]

Q Mr Wynn, you mentioned age verification and how the face-to-face encounter is more obvious. Which is the acceptable form of identification for retailers when they check age? In my experience of speaking to small businesses in my local area, there is a real challenge with fake IDs and what is an acceptable form of identification. If someone presents an international driving licence that states that they are the right age, sometimes a retailer will be forced to accept that, but a lot of those have turned out to be fake in the long run. Do you feel the legislation around that is strong? Do you feel like things need to be changed and that the acceptable form of identification needs to be dictated more strongly?

Vin Vara: Most people will produce a driving licence or a provisional licence, or young people will bring in a passport copy. There are not many other forms of ID. They bring bank and credit cards, but they do not verify their age, so we will tell members not to accept them. Something with a photo ID, date of birth and probably an address on it would help, but we need to standardise it. There are so many different types and, as you say, there are a lot of fakes out there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman. The Home Office is not undermining good maritime jobs; it is working with all partners to ensure that as we leave the EU there are appropriate employment opportunities, which will be set out in the forthcoming immigration White Paper.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I know that, in seeking to tackle terrorism, the Home Secretary will always ensure that the security services have the resources and powers that they need, but will he reassure me on one point? Does he agree that, in ensuring that there are no safe spaces for those who wish to do us harm, we should consider tackling the incitement of terrorism in private as well as public settings?

[Sajid Javid]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. As he will know, the House is considering the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, which gives us a fresh opportunity to review the possibility of loopholes in earlier legislation.

Stalking Protection Bill (First sitting)

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 9th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I welcome hon. Members to the Committee, which will consider the Stalking Protection Bill line by line. This is a warm day but, unless anyone requests otherwise on a point of order, I think that we should maintain our usual dress standards.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. Are you prepared to exercise your discretion to allow gentlemen to remove their jackets, and perhaps their ties as well?

[The Chair]

Mr Foster knows perfectly well that my personal inclination in these matters is to be traditional, and therefore to say no. However, as he is a very close friend of mine, I will allow gentlemen to remove their jackets, if they so wish.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Fourth sitting)

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

There are a large number of regular events in Torbay, such as the Bikers Make a Difference festival and others. Will the Minister work with the Local Government Association to make sure that clear guidance is issued to councils on the points he makes—that this should not be seen as something that they must do, and that this is not an excuse to levy further charges.

[Mr Wallace]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I will make it clear to police chiefs and to the LGA on the conclusion of the Bill’s passing that this should not become a wheeze to either not do something or to impose fines. That is important.

On reducing costs and maximising policing at events, we are also keen to enable the better use of personnel charged with protecting sites subject to ATTROs. To put this in context, the 1984 Act provides that an ATTRO may include a provision that enables a constable to direct that a provision of the order shall be commenced, suspended or revived, or that confers discretion on a constable. We want the police to be able to make more effective use of officers’ time and also of the other available resources in providing security for a site protected by an ATTRO.

To that end, subsection (9)(c) will provide that an ATTRO may

“enable a constable to authorise a person of a description specified in the order or notice to do anything that the constable could do by virtue of”

the 1984 Act. Under such delegated authority, it might be left to a security guard or steward to determine when a provision of an ATTRO is to commence or cease operating on a given day. The ATTRO might, for example, provide for a road to be closed off from 10 am to 10 pm, but a security guard could determine that, on a particular day, the road could be reopened an hour earlier.

An ATTRO’s ability to confer discretion on a constable may be utilised, in particular, to enable a police officer manning a barrier or gate that has closed off a road to exercise his or her discretion to allow accredited vehicles or persons through that barrier or gate. Subsection (9)(c) would enable another authorised person to exercise such discretion. I suppose that that is where I differ from the hon. Member for Torfaen. I want our police officers to be in a lead position at events. Freeing up constables from checking passes at barriers and handing that responsibility to a security guard enables them to better use their powers at an event. That is why we are keen to give that discretion to constables.

The clause will place on a statutory footing the power of the police to deploy obstructions to enforce compliance with temporary traffic restrictions imposed under section 67 of the 1984 Act. That section empowers the police to deploy temporary traffic restrictions in exceptional circumstances linked to the prospect of terrorism, and to deploy signs on the road indicating what those restrictions are. Those powers currently only relate to vehicular traffic, so the clause will apply them to pedestrian traffic.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Kevin Foster Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the Australian extraterritorial offence that has been created, and I am looking at just that. There is a bit more work to do, and it is not as straightforward as it might sound. If it is to become a legislative proposal, I obviously want to make sure that we have considered it properly. If I am persuaded by it and we can complete the work in time, I intend to bring that forward as a Government amendment to the Bill.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

The Home Secretary has my support on the thrust of the Bill. However, on matters such as the one that has just been raised, will he assure me that he will ensure there are exemptions and defences for quite legitimate purposes? For example, we do not want to get into arguments about whether an aid worker has crossed a particular line when they are in an area for purposes that none of us would view as criminal.

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, I absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. As with many of these types of measures, there is always the need to consider what I would call a reasonable excuse defence.

Once we have brought terrorists to justice and secured their conviction by a jury, we want to make sure that the public are protected by locking up terrorist offenders for longer and allowing more robust supervision on their release. The punishment for terrorism must properly reflect the severity of the crime. That is why the Bill allows for the introduction of longer sentences, of up to 15 years, for a number of offences, including the collecting of terrorist information, the encouragement of terrorism and the dissemination of terrorist publications. Previously, the maximum sentence was up to 10 years for such offences.

As well as increasing the maximum length of sentences, we need to ensure that terrorist offenders are not released from custody until it is safe to do so. When they are released, they need to be subject to longer periods of supervision on licence. The Bill will achieve this by enabling the courts to impose a public protection sentence for a wider range of terrorism offences. Offenders will not be released automatically at the halfway point of their sentence, but will instead stay in prison until the Parole Board decides to release them.

We are also extending sentencing provisions to Northern Ireland that already operate in the rest of the United Kingdom. The sentences handed down by the courts in Northern Ireland have been of particular concern to some hon. Members, and the Bill will help to address that.

The Bill will make it easier to monitor terrorist offenders once they have been released by requiring them to notify the police of their bank or passport details and any vehicles that they may possess or have access to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate and particularly to follow the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who made a thought-provoking speech. It was certainly interesting to hear references to one or two of his party’s Front Benchers, although it is probably better that I focus on the substance of the debate than on whether I agree with his comments.

It is important to discuss how to ensure that those who actively set out to support terrorists and organisations that wish to destroy democracy, rather than to engage in debate and democracy, feel the force of the criminal law. I am pleased that this Bill will update the legislation to reflect the fact that we are now in the internet era. However, we must temper this with ensuring that nobody can innocently fall foul of the offences. That can be considered in detail in Committee. I was reassured to hear the Home Secretary’s responses to a number of interventions on this point. He said that there will almost certainly be a reasonable excuse defence for those who might stumble on material or for those who might be engaged in research that we would want them to do and that is not connected to another intention.

I am conscious that these definitions need to be drawn fairly tightly to ensure that we do not create a loophole that could be used by someone just claiming that they were engaging in research. For example, we would need them actively to show that they were part of a recognised research project. I am sure that we can sensibly work out such matters when we discuss the Bill in detail. We must always ensure that our intention is clear in the legislation that we pass, rather than hoping that the courts will listen to what we have said. It is the wording of the legislation that courts will ultimately consider when making decisions about any defence.

I am very pleased with what I have heard. It is right that we end the position whereby the law is not necessarily brought into effect by people streaming material, especially given the explosion—figuratively, not literally—of available sources. People can now stream video to their mobile devices in particular, whereas they would have downloaded material from sharing sites in the past. It is also appropriate that the protections are in place to ensure that nobody is innocently caught by such offences.

It is appropriate that more significant sentences are available to the courts for the offences listed in the Bill. Those who are looking to take part in plots to cause significant loss of life should know about the sentencing powers available to the courts and that those powers will actually be used. I was particularly interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) mention the possible sentence for someone who pleads guilty. This legislation is not just about everyone getting the maximum sentence, which is very unlikely to happen, but it will raise the bar for each person convicted or pleading guilty to such offences and ensure that they get time in prison that is commensurate with their offence, time in which it might also be possible for prisons to do useful work with them to turn them away from an extremist path.

We have debated Prevent. Ultimately, the motivation behind this type of behaviour does not matter. It could be the politics of the extreme left or right, or a totally perverted interpretation of a religion. I must be clear that in such cases of extremism or terrorism, the interpretation of the religion is always a perverted one. No religion genuinely backs the actions of extremists walking into a concert and blowing themselves up among women and children who are just enjoying the evening. We need provisions in place to turn people away from that path.

I have certainly found it interesting to listen to this debate. The public are clear that there should be increased sentencing provisions to allow the courts to deal with those who commit such offences. We have seen many stories over the past few years. In particular, I look back at the events of a year ago, when those who were hoping to use terror attacks to deflect from the general election campaign attacked innocent civilians. They hoped that they would somehow terrorise people to change policy or elect people to this place who might not agree with tackling such issues. In fact, all they did was strengthen the resolve of those of us who are democrats, as happened when this Parliament and its Members—some of whom are commemorated on the walls of this very Chamber—were under attack in the past. We were not deflected from our confidence in democracy then, and we will not be deflected in the 21st century from tackling those who wish to destroy democracy. We will ensure that those who believe that they can express views with impunity online that they would never think of expressing in another public forum know that the law will catch up with them.

Members have discussed the retention of materials, particularly fingerprints, as the shadow Home Secretary picked up on the point regarding biometric details. This issue clearly needs further detailed scrutiny and debate. I think that we would all say that there are legitimate intelligence grounds for the police keeping such details following an arrest in circumstances where particular conditions are met. We would not say that details should be destroyed immediately merely because an offence was not proceeded with. I accept that this needs to be balanced with the fact that those who are wholly innocent should not think that their data will always be on a database. For example, there may be a case of mistaken identity that leads to an arrest, or a piece of intelligence may be found leading to the discovery that someone is not, or is unlikely to be, guilty of an offence. It will be interesting to explore how this balance can struck in more detail in Committee. Clearly, it would not be sensible to throw away potentially valuable evidence that might at a later stage allow us to proceed on an offence, to prevent the commission of a further offence, or simply to identify someone. Again, we have to balance that against rights. The principle is right and the overall thrust of the Bill is correct in this matter, but we could explore it in more detail in Committee and on Report.

Overall, the Bill is timely. The threats against this country are growing—not just from non-state actors such as Daesh, but from rogue state actors who seek to engage in behaviour that few of us would have thought likely even a few years ago. The use of chemical weapons against two people on our soil would have been unimaginable only a decade ago. It is therefore right that our legislation is kept fully up to date. The Bill will allow the House and Parliament as a whole to review the legislation, look at it in more depth and produce an Act of Parliament that is firmly rooted in the digital era. In the past, we would have been talking about people displaying flags in public places as our main worry. Now it is about what people are displaying online, particularly under a false flag of a fake digital identity.

This has been a useful debate. I look forward to seeing the Bill progress. It has my support. It has been encouraging to hear the views from across the House that indicate that it is likely to receive cross-party support at this stage, subject to the further debate that we can have only by giving the Bill its Second Reading today.

G4S: Immigration Removal Centres

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Gentleman talks about simply taking matters back in-house, but we have to acknowledge the complexity of providing services to people who often have vulnerabilities. When these people are in the centres, they may well be pursuing live claims on their immigration status themselves. Given the need to continue to provide these services at the standards that we expect, the view was taken that we would extend the current contract by two years, thus enabling a proper procurement process to occur in the light of the two reviews and allowing a decision on the next contract to be taken in good time and with care.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Where there is bad practice, it is of course important that staff who witness it feel empowered to speak out. How has the Minister satisfied herself that G4S has appropriate whistleblowing procedures in place to allow that to happen?

[Victoria Atkins]

The need for G4S drastically to improve its whistleblowing procedures was part of the action plan. As I have set out already, G4S has taken various steps, including embedding the culture of making available telephone numbers that enable people to raise their concerns confidentially and training staff to be “speak out” champions—promoting and embedding the expectation that staff will speak out. In addition, body-worn cameras help to take the burden from people who may be worried about reporting. Of course, the independent monitoring board has an important role in ensuring that there are people who inspect and are monitoring the behaviour of the staff and organisations in this world.

Windrush

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. It was particularly welcome to hear the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) a few moments ago and his comments about the contribution that migrants are making to his community. In the same way, those who have come to make Torbay their home, to make their life there and to exercise their legal rights within the community have made my community a stronger and better place.

When I first saw the heading for this debate and saw that this was what the Opposition had selected, I thought we might see a motion that celebrated the contribution the Windrush generation had made and referred to the achievements of that generation, who are as British as any of the rest of us in this Chamber and have made this country stronger through their presence. Unfortunately, that is not what the motion does. It is focused on getting certain documents and paperwork. It is an interesting one to read, with the selection of the dates being the most interesting part. It contains yesterday’s date, stating

“up to and including 1 May 2018”.

It makes sense to specify yesterday—I can see the logic there—but why the selection of 11 May 2010 as the start of the period? What happened on that day that makes it such a significant date? The Opposition chose not 1 May 2010 or 1 May 2009, but 11 May 2010. That will not be because it was the date of the last flight of a particular type of Nimrod; it will be because it was the date that the coalition Government came into power, which perhaps reveals some of what this motion is actually about.

This motion could have been an opportunity to have pushed the Government for particular dates by which certain cases will be resolved. It could have specified compensation payments, but it does not do so. It is about getting emails and texts about policy discussions—I am surprised it did not list WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook and anything else. I accept that government has to have a space behind the scenes, as any former Minister in this Chamber and anyone who has run their own local council will know, in which the discussion of policy can take place. Clearly, if there are differences of opinion, assessment papers might be presented later to back up policy coming through this Parliament, but that space is there. That says to me that the motion is the product of something rather different from a motivation to celebrate the fantastic contribution that the Windrush generation have made to this nation.

It was right for the Government to apologise for the handling of many cases. In my constituency, we have had only one email relating to Windrush, although it probably is not directly related, but it is right that the Government have apologised, as evidenced by some of the cases that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) described.

It is probably worth saying that we should celebrate the fact—it is quite significant, thinking of the contribution that that generation has made to this country—that two members of an ethnic minority in this country, the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, were the leading spokesmen for the Government and the Opposition. Despite obvious disagreements between the two, it is a significant moment for our country that that has been seen here today, particularly when we are discussing this particular issue.

It has been a welcome debate. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) said, it would be welcome to have clarity about whether the issue applies to the whole Commonwealth, because we should remember that the Commonwealth includes not only Caribbean countries, but many countries in Africa and in the Pacific, and other nations.

I welcome the opportunity to have been able to speak for a few moments and pay tribute to a generation that is British, that has done a huge amount for this country and that has not been treated well. It was right that there was an apology. The wording of the motion, however, reveals motivations other than the celebration of that legacy.