Hate Crime

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

May I send our sincere condolences to the victims of yesterday’s appalling attack in Istanbul, and send an uncompromising message to the terrorists that they will never prevail?

I congratulate the Minister on her excellent statement to the House. Any referendum has the potential to create division in society, and this one was no different. We have probably all felt the rising tension on the streets of our constituencies in recent weeks. In the aftermath, it is incumbent on any elected representative to do three things: first, to respect the decision of the people; secondly, to work to heal these divisions; and, thirdly, to take on directly and defeat the small minority of people who seek to use these moments to peddle hatred and violence. That is what the whole House together should resolve to do today.

Since last Thursday, there are reports of a fivefold increase in race hate comment on social media channels. The 57% increase in reported hate crimes, which the Minister mentioned, comes on top of an already rising tide of hate crime in England and Wales. Last year, the police recorded over 50,000 individual hate crimes, most of them racially motivated, which was an 18% rise on the previous year.

As the Minister said, perhaps the most disturbing reports are those of attacks on individuals and specific communities in recent days. In Huntingdon, cards have been distributed outside homes and primary schools, saying “No more Polish vermin”. In Hammersmith, a Polish community centre was daubed with racist graffiti. On Monday, The Guardian reported that a Muslim schoolgirl was cornered by a group of people who told her:

“Get out, we voted leave”.

There have been reports of more incidents in Leicester today, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) mentioned. Yesterday in Manchester, footage emerged of a US army veteran and university lecturer being told to “go back to Africa” by three youths on a tram. As the Minister said, there have been attacks on Muslim women, and even reports of women speaking on mobile phones in a foreign language being screamed at in the streets.

What is happening to the Britain we have known? This is not taking our country back, but turning Britain into a place we have never ever been. By its very nature, hate crime is a rejection of the British values that have always bound us together. Non-British nationals living in Britain today will feel worried about their safety and will be in need of reassurance. I hope the Minister will be able to provide even more reassurance in her response to my questions.

I welcome the Minister’s promise of a new hate crime action plan. Will she tell the House when the plan will be published, because it is urgently needed? People in need of reassurance want it to be given today, so will she confirm what extra steps are being taken to monitor reports of hate crime across the country and what immediate advice the Home Office is giving to the police on tackling such incidents?

Secondly, it is crucial people know how to report hate crime. The True Vision website the Minister mentioned is very welcome, but I guess it is not widely known. What action will she take to increase awareness of it, and is there a case for national advertising to promote it?

Thirdly, confidence to report hate crime will increase only if people believe their reports will be taken seriously. There is a feeling that such reports are not always taken seriously. I hear what the Minister says about the new CPS advice. Will she assure the House that it will encourage police and prosecutors to follow up every single report of hate crime, prosecute wherever possible and make sure perpetrators face the full force of the law? To provide further reassurance at this difficult time, will Ministers provide more reassurance to people about their immigration status in this country during the renegotiations with the European Union? In doing so, will they also inform the wider public about the issue and prevent some of the more ignorant comments from being made to people in the street?

Finally, is there not now a case for a much more proactive strategy to tackle far right extremism? Racist activity and violence have been on the rise for some time, as HOPE not hate has warned. Is it not time to take its warnings much more seriously? Will the Minister tell the House whether the security services are devoting sufficient resources and attention to this growing threat, and will she ask them to review it?

It is only 10 days ago since we lost our wonderful friend and colleague Jo Cox. As the dust settles on this referendum, we need to continue to have the words of her husband Brendan at the front of our minds:

“Hate doesn’t have a creed, race or religion, it is poisonous.”

Does the Minister not agree that 99% of the British public who voted to leave did not vote for an intolerant, xenophobic or racist Britain? Do not both sides of the referendum campaign now need to unite to make sure Britain remains the open and welcoming place we know and love?

[Karen Bradley]

I join the right hon. Gentleman in condemning the attacks in Turkey yesterday. I agree with his first three points: we do and must all respect the decision that was taken by the country last week; we now need to heal those divisions; and we must take on the minority—it is a very small minority of people—that is perpetrating this evil violence. They are committing a crime, and I cannot repeat too many times, nor can any of us in the House, that this crime needs to be reported and action will be taken.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the reports we have heard. I have heard anecdotal reports of comments made against members of the long-standing Polish community in my constituency. Such comments are absolutely despicable and cannot in any way be accepted. I repeat that those crimes must be reported, because we cannot tackle this crime if we do not know its scale and where it is happening.

The right hon. Gentleman’s response was excellent. He complimented me on my statement, and I want to return the compliment. He asked some specific questions—I scribbled them down—and I will try to address as many of them as I can. He asked when we will issue the new hate crime action plan. It will be issued shortly, but we want to get it right, as I hope he will understand.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the reporting of such crimes. The increase in the reporting of and the convictions for these crimes is very welcome, but we know that they are not all being reported. I have already made this point, but I want to reiterate that we need these crimes to be reported. We welcome the increase in reporting, but we need more to be reported. He is right that every single report should be investigated and taken seriously.

I want to confirm that there is no change to the immigration status of anybody in the United Kingdom or any UK national living abroad. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the far right. Our work on hate crime is about all its forms, including hate crime perpetrated by the far right. There may have been comments about “taking back control” and “taking back our country”, but I do not want to take back a country that accepts this kind of crime. That is not the sort of country of which I want to be a part. I want to add a comment about our colleague Jo Cox: she said we have more in common, and we most certainly do.

Football Fan Violence: Euro 2016

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the incidents of violence in Marseille over the weekend involving England fans at the Euro 2016 football tournament.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

As I told the House yesterday, the trouble that occurred in Marseille involving England supporters was deeply disturbing. Yesterday I also made it clear that co-ordinated groups of Russian supporters were responsible for instigating a good deal of the worst violence. I note that within the past hour UEFA has announced that Russia is subject to a suspended disqualification from the tournament. This Government’s priority now is to work with the French authorities to ensure that the events of the weekend are not repeated.

This morning I updated Cabinet colleagues on the full range of measures we are taking ahead of the match between England and Wales in Lens on Thursday. It had already been agreed with the French that an additional contingent of UK police spotters would be deployed to help identify troublemakers. The Foreign Office is advising supporters without tickets to avoid travelling to Lens and nearby Lille; it has drawn fans’ attention to the fact that Russia is playing Slovakia in Lille tomorrow afternoon and has said that English and Welsh supporters should be on their guard.

Stadium security is a significant concern following the breakdown of segregation in the Vélodrome stadium. We are all acutely conscious of the dangers when crowd management inside a stadium goes wrong. Discussions are going on with the French police about reinforcing the stewarding operation in Lens on Thursday night.

The House will already be aware of the robust operation in place in this country to prevent known troublemakers subject to football banning orders from travelling to France before the start of the tournament, as a result of which almost 1,400 passports have been surrendered. Following the violence in Marseille, nine British nationals were arrested, six of whom have now been given custodial sentences for their involvement in that violence. We expect all to be subject to additional court proceedings on their return to the UK, to examine whether banning orders should be imposed.

I am deeply concerned at the very serious injuries suffered by some England supporters in Marseille. The Foreign Office has additional staff in France and is providing consular assistance to those who have been hurt and to their families.

I am confident that all the measures that we and the French are taking will help, but I conclude by echoing the England captain and manager, who have urged fans to stay out of trouble. As UEFA’s decision relating to the Russian team shows, the penalties for individuals and for the teams they support could be severe if there is more violence in the days ahead.

[Andy Burnham]

As the dust settles on a terrible weekend in Marseille, attention is turning to security around England’s next game. While England fans were certainly not blameless at the weekend, it is clear that they were the subject of extreme violence meted out by Russian supporters. Whatever the rights and wrongs, we cannot afford to see any repeat of that. I am sure we are all agreed on that, but there are real fears that there could be a repeat.

The chairman of the Football Association has raised serious concerns in a letter to UEFA. He identifies a number of major security lapses in the stadium on Saturday. He says that stewarding was poor and segregation insufficient, and that fireworks and flares were taken in and then let off. That is extraordinary, given the heightened security around the tournament. Greg Dyke also points to a situation where England and Russian fans may come face to face again tomorrow in Lille. The thousands of people from the three home nations who are out there to enjoy the football will now be worried about their safety. That is why we have brought this urgent question today.

With respect to the Home Secretary, she did not provide a full statement on these matters yesterday. Can she confirm today exactly how many police are being sent to France and what precisely they will be asked to do? She mentions football banning orders. In 2010, 3,174 football banning orders were in place. Now, that number is 2,181. Why has it dropped so significantly? She says that 1,400 passports were seized in advance of the tournament, but there are over 2,000 banning orders. What happened to the other 600 people whose passports have not been taken?

On stadium safety, will the Government today contact UEFA to reinforce the FA’s concerns at a very senior level? Will the Home Secretary ask UEFA to investigate claims that Russian ultras have links to the official Russian delegation?

On policing, it would appear that some tactics were heavy-handed and the indiscriminate use of tear gas added to the general sense of chaos. We accept the sensitivity of policing, but will there be any discussion with the French authorities on policing going forward? Will there be any discussions about managing particular flashpoints in Lille tomorrow and keeping supporters separate?

What is needed now more than anything is honesty and cool heads on all sides. Many England fans were clearly the victims of violent extremists and poor security, but it is not acceptable to march into someone else’s town singing provocative songs about the second world war and launching bottles at police. Ahead of Thursday and the rest of the tournament, all sides now need to take a look at themselves and resolve, from hereon in, to make this the festival of football we all want it to be.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues. I can assure him that we are in touch with a number of people. This morning I spoke to Assistant Chief Constable Roberts, the police lead on these matters. ACC Roberts was in fact in the middle of a meeting with French police and others, so I am not able to give the right hon. Gentleman the full results of that meeting. However, I will be able to speak on some of the measures being taken. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport spoke to the Russian Sports Minister after the events that took place in Marseille at the weekend. As I said yesterday, I have spoken with my French opposite number, Bernard Cazeneuve.

As I said, the police were meeting—I think they are still meeting as we speak—to consider what extra action will be taken around Lille and Lens. My understanding is that there is an expectation that there will be a greater police presence around the stadium, for security both outside and inside the stadium. The right hon. Gentleman asks how many police we have sent to France. We do not talk about numbers for operational reasons, but we are involved in a number of things: police spotters are trained to spot potential troublemakers; we are providing support on post-incident analysis of, for example, CCTV footage; and we are providing some investigative support. Whatever the French have asked for, we have been willing to provide. As I said, that goes for both police and British transport police.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the change in number of the approximately 2,000 people subject to a football banning order here and the nearly 1,400 who have had passports taken away. The answer to his question is that we have taken passports away from those who are passport holders; the others do not hold passports.

Orlando Attack: UK Security Measures

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All those right hon. Members and hon. Members across the House who have stood up and proclaimed themselves as gay are an important symbol of freedom. That has been a very important statement for people outside this House, as well. I believe that we have more openly gay MPs in this House than there are in any other legislative Chamber in the world. That is something to be proud of.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

The words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) were powerful and intensely moving, and will reach well beyond this House. I echo everything that he has just said—and indeed that the Home Secretary has said—in condemning, on behalf of the Opposition, this sickening attack. The grief of the friends and families of those who died will be unbearable, and we send them our deepest sympathy and solidarity at this time.

This was an act of terrorism that targeted the gay community. As such, it brings back memories of the horrific bombing 17 years ago of the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho, in the heart of London’s gay village. That too targeted innocent people, and today we think of everyone affected by it.

If yesterday’s attack is eventually linked to Daesh, that will raise concerns among the LGBT community here and across the world about their safety. With that in mind, will the Home Secretary assure the House that the police and security services keep the safety of all communities, but the LGBT community in particular, under review? Will she tell us whether she has received any intelligence that something similar might happen here?

Over the weeks ahead, many Pride celebrations are planned across the UK, including large-scale events in London, Brighton and Manchester. People will rightly be concerned about the security of those events. They are planned and staffed by volunteers, and most Pride organisations pay for security themselves from the funds that they raise. Will the Home Secretary ensure that organisers receive updated advice, support and, where necessary, additional security, to provide reassurance that Pride events will be as safe as possible for all those attending this year?

It seems to be a facet of our times that rising hate, discrimination and inflammatory language are re-entering political discourse. Will the Home Secretary say whether she has seen a poster circulated this afternoon by Leave.EU, which sought to use events in Orlando for its own purposes? Will she join me in condemning that highly offensive piece of propaganda?

Terrorists want to divide our communities, and turn one set of people against another. Let everyone in this House say to them today that we will never, ever let them succeed in inciting hatred against the Muslim community or the LGBT community. We celebrate diversity and community in this country. We will not allow the haters and terrorists to foment division. Whatever it takes, we stand resolutely alongside the LGBT community and continue to fight hate and homophobia in all their forms.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly asked me about the police response. As I indicated in my response to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), the police’s position at the moment is that they have no plans to cancel or postpone any LGBT events due to take place over the coming days and weeks. They will constantly assess that position, and if they need to give additional advice or take additional action, they will of course do so. Local police forces work very closely with Pride organisers to ensure that there is appropriate and proper security for Pride events.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the Leave.EU poster. I was shown a picture of it just before I came into the Chamber. I think it is utterly irresponsible. What took place is a terrible and horrific homophobic terrorist attack; attempts to link it into the issue of membership or otherwise of the European Union should rightly be condemned on all sides of this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I gently remind Front Benchers that we must accommodate Back Benchers. I am not having the time eaten up by Front Benchers.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is right: the terrible scenes of violence in Marseille this weekend have soured what should have been a great celebration of football. As ever, the vast majority have been let down by a hard-core minority, and their actions are all the more inexcusable given the serious terror threat hanging over the tournament. Although, as the Home Secretary has said, the England fans are not blameless, it is also the case that they were the subject of extreme provocation and that there were severe failings inside the stadium and concerns about policing. Given that this is a complex matter and that we need to establish all the facts ahead of the England-Wales game on Thursday, will the Home Secretary commit to making a fuller statement at her earliest opportunity, to ensure people’s safety and that there is no repeat?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is right: we obviously want to ensure that there are no repeats of the scenes we saw in Marseilles. That is precisely why work is ongoing between the UK Government and the French Government to look at the steps that need to be taken, particularly in Lens, where the England-Wales match will take place, and Lille, where Russia will play very close to that time, and that work will continue.

[Andy Burnham]

Let me turn to Hillsborough and mention that I wrote to all parties in the House, asking for their support in making it a moment of real change. One of the reasons that the Hillsborough injustice stood for so long was the inadequacy of the original inquest, which imposed the 3.15 pm cut-off and at which families had to scrabble around to raise funds for their own legal representation. The truth is that similar injustices are still happening today. Bereaved families are all too frequently thrown into courtrooms, raw with grief, to face adversarial questioning from highly paid QCs hired by the police and other public bodies. Later today I will put a proposal to this House to create parity of legal funding for families on the simple principle that public money should fund the truth, not the protection of vested interests. Will the Home Secretary say why she is opposing that move and whether she is prepared to work with us to establish that important principle?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman has rightly raised an issue that has been a matter of significant concern to the families who were victims of the terrible tragedy in Hillsborough. He is right to say that the original inquest system did not serve those families well. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the former Attorney General, was able to reopen the inquest, with the results and verdicts that we have seen. I have asked Bishop James Jones, who chaired the independent panel that looked into the Hillsborough incident and who has also been chairing the family forums and has been my adviser on this matter, to work with the families, to hear directly from them their experiences. I expect experiences about the inquest process to be part of that, which is why I wish to look at this issue once we have the full picture from the families as a result of the review by Bishop James Jones. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a very important and valid point, but I think that we need to look at the issue in a wider sense and get all the experience from the Hillsborough families before we look at the inquest process.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

Finally, I understand the effort that Ministers have made to work with the Opposition and concerned Members in all parts of the House to try to ensure that the Bill gets on to the statute book by December. I appreciate that there is a sunset clause and that we must do something—we cannot do nothing. It is horrible that we live in a society in which these situations are emerging. For me, these are probing amendments designed to highlight specific areas of concern that need further scrutiny. I hope that they may be of interest to Members of the House of Lords and that they will consider the issues I have spoken about regarding the filter. I hope that the Government will take the amendments in the spirit with which they are offered, which is as probing amendments; not to be pushed to a vote, but as the basis for more negotiation.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

This final group of amendments covers three of the seven substantial concerns that I set out in a letter to the Home Secretary after Second Reading: first, protection of journalistic material and sources; secondly, the definition of internet connection records, and the threshold for their use; and thirdly, the independent review of the operational case for bulk powers. Let me take each in turn.

I will deal with journalistic material and the protection of sources briefly, as the matter was debated at length yesterday. Protecting the ability of whistleblowers in private or public sector organisations to speak to journalists without fear of identification is one of the important checks and balances on state and corporate power. Many journalists and the National Union of Journalists have real concerns that clause 68 weakens the existing protections in law for journalistic sources operated under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. They point to an incident in 2014 when police secretly accessed the mobile phone records and call data from a national newspaper, bypassing the PACE protections. Rightly, there are now worries that that has set a new precedent. Furthermore, they feel that the Bill might be about to enshrine that new precedent in law.

Under PACE, journalists are notified when the authorities want to access material and sources, so that they have the ability to challenge that in open court. The worry is that the Bill removes those protections. The National Union of Journalists makes the point that there is no real difference between physical notebooks and communications data held electronically; both could reveal the identity of a source. Labour shares those concerns; they were ably raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) in Committee, and they were also raised on Second Reading.

The Government have gone some way towards addressing our concerns, tabling amendments 51 and 52, which we welcome. The amendments will ensure that judicial commissioners, when considering a warrant, must give weight to the overriding public interest in a warrant being granted for the use of investigatory powers against journalists and that they must ensure that that is in keeping with wider and more general privacy points. That is a significant move. It takes points that would otherwise have been in codes underpinning the Bill and puts them on the face of the Bill.

Labour will accept these amendments, but we will do so while being clear that they do not go far enough. Indeed, they cover only the award of warrants, not general access to communications data. We therefore support the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—amendments 143 to 145—which seek to extend the same level of protection to journalists as is currently the case under PACE.

We accept that this is a difficult area to get right, particularly when the definition of who is and who is not a journalist is changing in the digital world. We accept the difficulty facing Ministers. However, we think that the general principle, enshrined in PACE, of allowing journalists to challenge in open court any attempt to access material that could reveal sources is a good one. It would allow those public interest arguments to be heard and tested in court. We hope that the Government will today commit to working with us and the NUJ to find a wording that in the end does the job.

[Mr John Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman has made his case in a measured way. He acknowledges that it is difficult to define journalists because the modern media include many bloggers who are part time, occasional and so forth. However, he is absolutely right that a solution needs to be found, and I am happy to say that we will look at this issue with him and others in greater detail as the Bill enjoys its passage through this House and the other place.

[Andy Burnham]

I am grateful for what the Minister has said. It must be possible to find a definition that excludes casual or voluntary bloggers from individuals who make their living from writing or who work for organisations regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation or other regulators.

[Joanna Cherry]

I and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) have added our names to the amendments tabled to clause 68 by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and we will give them our support if they are pushed to a vote. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is regrettable that the opportunity has been lost at this stage to have uniform protection across the face of the Bill for communications with journalists, lawyers and parliamentarians?

[Andy Burnham]

I made a similar point yesterday, when I said that it would have been helpful had we made more progress on these issues, and perhaps I can push the Minister on this, because I know he is meeting the Law Society and the Bar Council later this week.

The truth is that this raises quite complex issues. With all three professions, a slightly different set of issues arises, and we should not rush to legislate. We should move on the basis that we know what we are trying to achieve, which is to protect the ability of the public to go to an MP without fearing that there is any compromise on a private discussion. We want legal privilege—the privilege that belongs to the client—to be protected. We also want journalists to be able to protect their sources, as they want to do. If we work with the Government on that basis in good faith, I believe that we will be able to come to the right position.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

May I, through the right hon. Gentleman, tell the Minister that, when he says he will speak to people in the House and others, those others really must include the National Union of Journalists?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Those are the people who will be better qualified than anyone else to define what a journalist is, and they do have something of a pedigree—going back to 1936—in terms of the definitions.

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I saw was accepted on the Government Front Bench. He has tabled a detailed amendment on this issue, and he is right to do so and to press the Government on this. All of us have to apply our minds to getting these definitions right for all three professions. There is still an open question, as we discussed yesterday, about Members of Parliament and the right level of scrutiny for any warrant against them, but there is equally more work to do on other fronts.

We should not pass a Bill that weakens these professions—as I said yesterday, this is not about preserving the special status of the individuals who work in them, but about protecting the public and their ability to raise issues through those individuals.

[Mr Hayes]

I have committed to writing to the NUJ and the Society of Editors, which I have met already. I have been waiting to do so until today’s debate so that my letter can be informed by it. However, I will happily write to them tomorrow, very much on the basis of taking these matters forward.

[Andy Burnham]

I very much appreciate what the Minister has said. I think that any colleague in any part of the House who has read the NUJ’s briefing for today’s debate will struggle to disagree with anything in it. If we want this Bill to leave Parliament with a high degree of consensus across society, it is right that these professional bodies feel, in the end, that the Bill is something they can support. That is a prize worth working for. Given his comments, I get the feeling that the Minister agrees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Hayes]

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in his flow. I have listened carefully to what he has said, and it has been the subject of discussion, as he knows, in Committee and elsewhere. I do not want to anticipate my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General in his summing up, and I mean him no discourtesy, but as the Bill Minister and the Security Minister, I commit to doing what the right hon. Gentleman asked. I do so because it is really important that we have a threshold that works, particularly on ICRs.

ICRs are, as the right hon. Gentleman says, qualitatively different. He is right about cases of harassment, and so on and so forth, which is why the matter is challenging and complex. He has made a powerful case here, following the powerful case made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), and I will bring the matter back to the House during our proceedings on the Bill in the form of an amendment, in the spirit that he has described.

[Andy Burnham]

I said at the start that I was looking for considerable comfort, and I think I have just received it from what the Minister has said. To be clear, I was saying that there should be a threshold of six months for the use of communications data, and a higher threshold on top of that for internet connection records. As the Minister just acknowledged, there is a qualitative difference between the two. If that is what we are agreeing, and if we are also agreeing that there should be no restriction on the use of internet connection records for the other serious purposes that I have outlined, the Opposition can probably move forward on that basis without pressing our amendments to a vote.

This is the area in which the Bill has the ability to lose public trust if we do not get it right, because it could affect every single citizen in the land. I am sure that as constituency MPs many of us have dealt with situations where an individual falls out with the police at a local level, and they perceive that they are being investigated for all kinds of things and that all aspects of their lives might be turned upside down. We have to put in place appropriate protections that would not allow personal information to be handed over freely in relation to more trivial offences.

[Suella Fernandes]

The provisions on ICRs are designed to resolve two problems. First, our law enforcement and security personnel cannot carry out IP address resolution—identifying which device is communicating with which device—without the new powers. Secondly, even with the originating and destination IP addresses, it may not be clear which website or communications service has been accessed. The evidence from the professionals to the Joint Committee was clear: ICR retention is imperative to enable IP address resolution for investigations.

[Andy Burnham]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making a point that will enable me to be absolutely clear about what I am saying. I am not arguing against the retention of the data, as I think I made clear at the beginning. I am not arguing against ICRs per se. I acknowledge that they could be a very important tool. In an age when communications have migrated online and people have fewer voice telephone calls, this information could be crucial in detecting serious crime. I am saying that while we should legislate to allow the data to be held, we must also legislate to put in place a very precise threshold, so that the circumstances in which those data can be accessed are explicitly clear. There is not a broad reasonableness or necessity test. What I am saying is that we need a very clear definition of what level of crime permits the authorities to access those records.

I believe that if we find that definition—I feel that the Minister has given a commitment that we will get it—it will enhance public trust in this legislation. In my view, it will knock out completely that lazy label of “snoopers charter”. That is why it is so important that the Government nail this point before the Bill concludes its passage.

[Mr John Hayes]

The right hon. Gentleman has looked at these matters very closely, as is illustrated by the fact that he has rightly said that there are some crimes, such as harassment, stalking and so on and so forth, that would not neatly fit into a simple category. He is also right that the threshold must be robust. This is not about minor crimes and it is not about snooping, as the less well-informed critics have sometimes described it. I have given the commitment that we will work with him and others during the passage of the Bill to move an amendment to address this issue. He was right to raise it today. He has asked for a commitment and he is getting one.

[Andy Burnham]

We have learned to admire the Minister greatly through this process, and we have learned that when he says something, it happens. I am reassured by the words that he has just put on the record.

If it helps—perhaps it does not, but I will say it anyway—I would favour quite a high test for ICRs, and significantly higher than six months. Alongside that, it might be possible to itemise the other individual occasions on which they could be used, be it online grooming or missing persons. The danger with trying to capture it all in a single time period is that we might open the net to other offences that we would not want to be included. I fully acknowledge that this is a complex area. That is why I want to give the Ministers leeway to see whether, working with us, they can find the right definition.

[Dr Murrison]

The Joint Committee spent a lot of time on ICRs and IP address resolution; then along came clause 222, which gave us some comfort because the matter can be reviewed in five years. Some of us are of the view that ICRs will not, in any event, prove to be as useful as we might hope and as Ministers certainly hope. The Danish experience was that they were not useful and their collection was therefore dropped. It is quite possible that that will come to pass here, and that in five years’ time we will review this matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that clause 222 persuades some of us who are a bit doubtful about the utility and value of ICRs that we should allow the provision because it will be reviewed in five years’ time?

[Andy Burnham]

The review is clearly a good idea, but it is also a good idea to tighten the definition and the threshold now, because we need to ensure that there is a degree of public confidence in what is being done here. I fully accept that the review is important. The point is that although ICRs in themselves may not necessarily solve a crime, they may let the authorities know where to go to ask for more intrusive information. They will identify the app, service or whatever it is that is being used, which might allow further lines of inquiry.

I would not be casual about this point—not that I am suggesting the hon. Gentleman was being so. If we were to publish somebody’s 12-month website visiting record, which effectively is what an ICR is, it would reveal a large amount of information about them. It would give a pretty decent profile of what kind of person they were and some of the information could be highly personal. That is why I say that we need to legislate with great care in this area if we are to carry the public with us.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making good progress in getting very welcome undertakings from the Minister to review this whole business, in particular on serious crime and on the creation of ICRs; will he confirm that his concern also extends to the accessing of communications data by a huge range of public bodies, including every local authority? When he is discussing this matter in the near future he will have better access than anyone else, or at least than most other people, so will his concern extend not only to defining serious crime but to looking at clause 53(7)? In that subsection, any crime is relevant, as is any occasion of preventing public disorder, which could extend to difficult neighbour cases. It also allows collection of data

“for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department”.

It seems to me that the word “serious” should be put in all that, or else certainly some threshold should be. It is extremely all-embracing, and allows a district council anywhere to start getting access to communications data. Will he take those points into account as well?

[Andy Burnham]

I will certainly take the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s points into account. He is making the same case as we are in our amendments. To be clear, those amendments would create a general seriousness test for all communications data collection, which would have to be passed before any of those data could be released. The test created by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras in amendment 292 relates to offences for which the sentence is imprisonment for more than six months. We felt that that was proportionate. It begins to meet some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s concerns, as it would knock out some of the lower-level offences he has just described.

Given what the Minister has said, I do not intend to press that amendment to a vote, but it is the bottom line from where we start. On top of the general six months test for all communications data, we want a higher threshold for the more personal data in an internet connection record. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervened because we have now made that explicitly clear to the House.

I turn now to the independent review of the operational case for bulk powers, which allows me to finish on a more positive note. All the bulk powers in the Bill—bulk interception, bulk equipment interference, bulk acquisition, bulk personal datasets—give rise to privacy concerns because of the more indiscriminate way in which they might be used. That is why it is important that they are granted on the basis of what is strictly needed rather than what it would be helpful to have, a point made by the Intelligence and Security Committee in its extremely valuable report. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill also recommended that there should be an independent review of the bulk powers. It was a point upon which I laid great emphasis in my letter to the Home Secretary, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras has done the same throughout the passage of the Bill.

We are extremely pleased that the Government have agreed to that request. We agree that David Anderson, the independent reviewer, is the right person to lead the review. I understand that, following correspondence between my hon. and learned Friend and the Security Minister, terms of reference have now been agreed and the review can start in earnest. It will be concluded in time to inform proceedings in the other place. Crucially, it will consider the necessity of the powers and whether the same result could have been achieved through alternative methods. It will also have a balance of security expertise and human rights expertise. This is a significant move by the Government and will ultimately help build public trust in the Bill.

To hark back briefly to the debate on the last group of amendments, it is too early to say what we will do on the back of the review. We will have to see what it concludes, but our working assumption is that it will be incumbent on Members on all sides of the House to respond to the review and if necessary reassess their position on the back of it.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that at the Dispatch Box the Security Minister initially said the review would focus on necessity, but when winding up the last debate would not concede in any way, shape or form that the powers were not necessary? Does that not raise some concern in the right hon. Gentleman’s mind?

[Andy Burnham]

There is an exchange of letters between the Security Minister and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, which I hope is in the public domain, and which I believe allays the fears of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). To be clear, it was a sticking point for Labour that the review had to consider necessity and not just utility. That is enshrined in the terms of reference, so I hope I can reassure him on that point.

Clearly, there is further to go on journalistic material and internet connection records, although it appears from what the Minister has said this afternoon that we are heading in the right direction. I stress again that progress on the ICR points that I have made are a personal red line.

That said, I thank the Home Secretary, the Solicitor General and the Security Minister for the constructive way in which they have approached our discussions. Because of the consensus we have been able to find, the legislation is more likely to succeed and to stand the test of time.

[Mr Grieve]

I say to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that, as far as the review is concerned, I have no doubt that the Intelligence and Security Committee will respond positively and provide input if David Anderson wants to discuss those matters with us. I certainly look forward to seeing his conclusions in the review on bulk powers, which I hope will be helpful to Parliament in identifying what improvements we can make.

Amendment 13, which is in my name and those of my colleagues on the Intelligence and Security Committee, concerns clause 54, on the additional restrictions on the grant of authorisations of communications data. In the Committee’s report into privacy and security published in March 2015, we recommended that, just like the police, the intelligence agencies should always ensure a separation of roles between those requesting access to communications data and those who provide the authorisation. Previously, that has not been the case. I am grateful that the Government accepted that principle, and that it is enshrined in clause 54(1). That is an important safeguard that the Government have added to the Bill.

I hope the Minister will forgive me, but notwithstanding that, the Committee, having looked carefully at the Government’s amendment, believe that, although it is 90% of the way there, 10% might do with some improvement. The Bill provides that there may be exceptional circumstances in which a separation is not required. I entirely accept that that is the case. There will be a small and probably very infrequent number of such examples where there is an imminent threat to life, which is provided for in clause 54(2) and (3). However, clause 54(3)(b) simply cites

“the interests of national security”,

which I should tell the Solicitor General is rather a broad concept, particularly as it features in all sorts of places in the Bill and can be extended to encompass almost anything that falls within the agencies’ remit.

The Committee believe that it is too vague and potentially too broad. Therefore, in amendment 13, we have proposed a measure that tries to narrow the matter down without in any way affecting operational effectiveness. The amendment would limit exceptional circumstances to those where the operation is so sensitive that knowledge of it must be kept to an absolute minimum, or where there is an unplanned, time-critical but very significant opportunity to obtain information that might be lost owing to any delay in obtaining a separate approval.

The Committee very much hopes that the Government are in a position to accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. I will come to that point shortly.

The question of who retains the information is secondary to the fact that it will be retained and accessible in the first place. The Government have, true to form, merely contracted out data retention to the private sector. Many people share unease about the security of this information. As we have seen recently, private providers are susceptible to sophisticated hacking operations. The consequences, should this information get into criminal hands, are deeply worrying. Indeed, the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill shared similar concerns when it said that storing weblog data, however securely, carried the risk that it might be hacked into or fall accidently into the wrong hands.

[Andy Burnham]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he is obviously aiming some of his comments in Labour’s direction. In a world where people are making fewer voice telephone calls—and if he is proposing that he would not want to collect this data—how would he propose the authorities go about locating a missing child in the early hours after the disappearance?

[Gavin Newlands]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

I was first elected to the House 15 years ago to this very day. In that time, debates on security and privacy have produced some of the most fractious exchanges I have seen. It is treacherous territory littered with past failure. Too often, such debates are pitched as a clash between two absolutes of privacy and security, where there can be no compromise and only one winner—witness the Apple versus FBI debate in the US.

I have always started from the point that people should not be forced to choose between the two. We all have an interest in maximising both our personal privacy and our collective security. We have to work to find the best point of balance between the two. Over the past three months, this House has got closer to finding that balance than ever before. We have elevated the debate above simplistic loyalties to the security or privacy lobbies. As a result, we are now significantly closer to developing the balanced, modern, world-leading framework, which the Home Secretary spoke about, for the use of investigatory powers that this country needs in the digital age.

I echo the thanks the Home Secretary gave to right hon. and hon. Members of this House and its various Committees: all Members who have contributed in the past two days; the members of the Public Bill Committee; the Chairs of that Committee, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen); and the Clerks and the Public Bill Office for overseeing such a high quality process.

The Bill leaves this House in a much better state than we found it. That is due in no small part to the forensic mind and engaging approach of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). By setting out clearly after Second Reading our seven substantial concerns, we have been able to bring a focus to this debate that I think has been to the benefit of this House. I am pleased to say that we have secured major commitments on all seven concerns, in particular on bulk powers, the independent review, the privacy clause, judicial oversight and the double lock, and trade unions. Thanks to the constructive work of Labour, there are stronger safeguards in the Bill that protect people’s privacy and their human rights. I say this to those who might be planning to vote against the Bill tonight: a vote against it is to deny people those safeguards and to leave on the statute book a much weaker piece of legislation that does not afford those protections.

Our consideration has also been helped by the way in which we, as a country, continue to shine a light on some of the darkest chapters in our past. We continue to learn of instances where the power of the state has been unfairly used against ordinary people. By being prepared to open up about that and be honest about how we were governed and policed in the past, I believe we are now beginning to make better legislation in the present. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for the courage she has shown in being prepared to do that, but I say again that she should be prepared to carry on going wherever that evidence takes us. Following the Hillsborough verdict, I believe that that trail now leads very firmly to Orgreave, and, following the court settlement last month, to blacklisting.

I will continue to press the Home Secretary on those matters, but I congratulate her on how she and her Ministers have handled discussions on the Bill. The Security Minister, or Brother Hayes as we might now call him after his starring role in today’s papers, has brought all his considerable experience and personality to bear in moving the Bill forward. It is all the better for it. Although he probably does not want me to mention him, I feel the need to mention the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby), who has been the most helpful Government Whip I have ever come across.

Let me be clear: the Bill is not there yet. We need further changes on internet connection records—the Home Secretary alluded to that—and on the protection of journalists and their sources, and on legal privilege. However, if the Government continue with the same approach as the one they have adopted in recent weeks, I have every confidence that we will get there. We must do that for those who depend on the Bill we are debating. The police and security services do incredibly difficult work on our behalf and we thank them for it. Their job has got harder as both the level of the threat has risen and the nature of communication has changed in the modern world. To fail to respond to that would be a dereliction of our duties to them; it would also fail our constituents. The Bill is ultimately about their safety, the safety of their families and their privacy. I think we can look ourselves in the mirror tomorrow and say we have done our level best to maximise both.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

I recall that the first Public Bill Committee on which I served was on the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, when the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) led for the Conservatives. I seem to recall that he made the same point about the Order Paper in 2001. Despite the modernisation that we have seen over the past 15 years, it remains a piece of work that is outstanding.

My party voted against this Bill on Second Reading, and it is a matter of profound regret that I will be doing the same again tonight on Third Reading. Notwithstanding the progress that has been made, the Bill is still not yet fit for sending to the other place.

The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) reminded us that it was 15 years ago today that he and I were elected to this House. I have seen a lot happen in that time, and I like to think that I have learned a thing or two, one of which is that when Government Ministers and Government Back Benchers shower the Opposition Front Bench with praise, it is time to head for the hills because we are going to do something that is seriously bad and dangerous.

The first time that the right hon. Gentleman and I saw that in this House was in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003 when the Conservatives, then in opposition, said that they would take the Government position on trust. Later on, they said, “Of course, if we had known what we know now, we would not have supported them at the time.” They could not have known then what they knew later, because they never asked the questions. It is not the job of the Opposition to take the Government’s views on trust, but that is what they are doing. I do not question their principle, but I am afraid I cannot share their judgment.

[Andy Burnham]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating an argument that we can only achieve progress by being oppositional or party political. Surely there are occasions when we can do more by working across the House. We have shown that on this issue and on others, such as Hillsborough and other past injustices.

[Mr Carmichael]

I do not need to take any lessons about working with other parties from the right hon. Gentleman. I did that for five years in a coalition Government when the Labour Front Bench could do nothing but tribally oppose.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

With respect to my right hon. Friend, I think it does, because we are putting in the Bill the Prime Minister’s role in approving the warrant; what we have for the first time is a very important statutory protection. Again, let us not forget the progress we have made in getting to the position we are in today. A few years ago, some of these conventions and operations were not even avowed, although that is not the case with the Wilson doctrine. Let us pause for a moment to remember what that doctrine is all about, which is making sure that hon. Members can carry out their public functions as office holders in a free and proper way, subject to the same laws as everybody else in this country—equality before the law applies to Members of this place as much as it does to other members of the public. I am sure that debate will be developed as we hear from speakers on this group.

On technical capability notices and national security notices, we have been very clear throughout this process that we will work closely with industry to ensure that the Bill provides the strongest protections to those who may be subject to obligations under this legislation. In Committee, we heard concerns that these notices were not subject to the same strict safeguards as the authorisations of warrants. We have listened to those concerns and responded with new clause 10, which applies the full double lock to the issue of notices under part 9 of the Bill. Following further engagement with industry, we have taken steps to address further concerns, and so amendment 86 will make it clear that national security notices cannot require companies to remove encryption; amendment 87 makes it clear that national security notices will not subject companies to conflicting obligations in law; and amendments 45, 70 to 73 and 122 make it clear that warrants must be served in an appropriate manner to a person who is capable of giving effect to it. That deals with the problems that companies with an international dimension have if these things are served to an inappropriate employee—somebody who does not have the power to deal with the warrant.

We have also tabled a number of minor and technical amendments, many of which respond directly to issues raised by the Opposition and by the SNP in Committee. Others, such as amendments 92 and 126, provide important clarification on issues relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner in Scotland.

These important changes reflect this Government’s willingness to listen to suggestions that will improve this vital piece of legislation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Security will respond to other amendments when winding up. In the meantime, I look forward to another informed and wide-ranging debate.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

Labour has taken a responsible and pragmatic approach to this Bill. We have supported the principle of a modern legal framework governing the use of investigatory powers, recognising that as communications have migrated online, the police and security services have lost capability, but equally, we know that much stronger safeguards are needed in law to protect individuals from the abuse of state power. That is the balance we have been trying to achieve.

Following Second Reading, I wrote to the Home Secretary setting out Labour’s seven substantial areas of concern, and I said that unless there was significant movement from the Government in those areas, we would be unable to support moves to put this Bill on the statute book by the December deadline. The group of amendments before us covers three of those seven issues: the double-lock process and the test to be applied by judicial commissioners; the protections for sensitive professions; and the position of trade unions with respect to this Bill. I will discuss each of those issues in turn, but I start by raising an issue that emerged in Committee.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Immigration Minister, identified a potential loophole that allowed warrants to be modified after initial approval without proper scrutiny by judicial commissioners, thereby undermining the double lock. The Government have part-closed this loophole for sensitive professions, but we feel they need to go further and close it for everyone, to ensure that people cannot be added to thematic warrants by modification without the involvement of a judge. I hope that Ministers will listen to that concern and reassure us that they are open to further discussion.

I know that the judicial review test and the double lock have been discussed today, so I will not detain the House long. As Members on both sides of the House know, one of our earliest demands was that there should be independent judicial oversight of the approval of warrants, and we were pleased when the Home Secretary conceded that point some months ago. Labour has always believed that the judicial commissioner must be able to consider the substance of the Home Secretary’s decision to issue a warrant, not just the process. Put simply, it must be a double lock, not a rubber stamp.

My hon. and learned Friend has done painstaking work on this issue in Committee and outside, and we thank in particular the Minister for Security for his willingness to listen to our concerns and for the manuscript amendment tabled today by the Home Secretary. It accepts the spirit of the proposals we tabled in Committee by ensuring that judicial commissioners will have to take into account their duties under the overarching privacy clause when reviewing the Home Secretary’s decision to grant a warrant. Judicial commissioners’ decisions must therefore be taken in line with human rights concerns. They must consider whether the same result could have been achieved by other means, and whether public interest concerns are met. In short, it will require much closer scrutiny of the initial decision of the Home Secretary and, significantly, bring greater clarity than the Government’s initial judicial review test would have done. We believe that that does indeed amount to a real double lock and, I have to say, a real victory for the Opposition. I confirm that we will support the Government’s amendment tonight.

When we talk about protections for sensitive professions —lawyers, journalists and Members of Parliament—it might sound to anyone watching this debate as though we in this House were once again seeking special status for ourselves in the eyes of the law. That is why it is important that I emphasise that these are not special privileges or protections for Members of Parliament, but protections for members of the public. If someone seeks the help of an MP at a constituency advice surgery or of a lawyer, or blows the whistle to a journalist, they should be able to do so with a high degree of confidence that the conversation is confidential.

[Robert Neill]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a point we need to make is that the privilege is not that of the lawyer, but that of the client? It is therefore entirely proper for us to emphasise that particular care should be taken when dealing with privilege, which is attracted to the client. It is not ourselves as lawyers or as Members of Parliament that we put in a privileged position; it is the person who comes to seek advice who has to have protection.

[Andy Burnham]

The hon. Gentleman makes a tremendously important point very well. This is about a basic protection for the public—a safeguard for the public. Also, on MPs and the Wilson doctrine, it is also a protection for our democracy that people can seek the advice of a Member of Parliament without fearing that someone else is listening. The hon. Gentleman is spot on, but I have to say that we do not feel that the Bill as it stands provides sufficient reassurance to the public that that confidentiality will be mostly respected. To be fair, the Government have moved on this point, but we believe that further work is needed, and that they need to continue to talk to the professional representative bodies. I will take each group in turn, starting with MPs.

We believe that the Bill is the right place to codify the thrust of the Wilson doctrine, but in our letter to the Home Secretary we expressed concern that the Bill required only that the Prime Minister be consulted before investigatory powers were used against MPs. We argued that the Prime Minister should personally be asked to approve any such action, and we are pleased that the Government have accepted this. I note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), has proposed a further strengthening of the doctrine and a role for the Speaker, who should be notified and able to challenge a decision on intercepting the communications of a Member of Parliament. We have not yet taken a view on that proposal. It is right to debate it as the Bill progresses to the Lords, and perhaps we can return to it later.

[Joanna Cherry]

Bearing in mind that the protection is for parliamentarians across these islands, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Presiding Officers in the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly would have to be involved, not just the Speaker in this House?

[Andy Burnham]

That is a fair point, and the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham seeks to ensure that. Perhaps this is an issue that the Government need to think about. Of course the provisions should apply to Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) should be accepted.

On journalists and journalistic sources, we welcome the fact that the Government have moved to put protections originally in the codes underpinning the Bill into the measure itself. We note, however, that the National Union of Journalists believes that wider protections are still needed, and the Government should continue to work with it to get that right.

Finally, on legal privilege there has been the least progress of all. Serious concerns have been expressed by the Bar Council and the Law Society about the fact that the provisions would weaken privacy protections currently enjoyed by lawyers, but those concerns are not adequately reflected in the Bill. It is disappointing that Ministers have yet to meet the legal bodies. [Interruption.] I did not quite hear what the Solicitor General said. I am happy to give way if he wants to clarify the position.

[The Solicitor General]

I have met the Bar Council, and I am meeting the Law Society on Wednesday, so I can assure him that there is engagement.

[Andy Burnham]

My mistake; I did hear the Solicitor General say that he was meeting those bodies this week. It is a little disappointing—I am not making a petty point—as we wish we could have made more progress before this debate. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said, this is extremely important, and our debates would be improved if there had been more progress in this area. Nevertheless, it is clear that this is firmly on the Solicitor General’s radar, and the excellent points made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) show that there is concern in all parts of the House about moving further to get this right. In the absence of acceptable Government amendments, amendments 139 to 141 tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham are a step in the right direction. If amendments were forthcoming from the Government, we would certainly support them.

[Mr David Davis]

This point has just occurred to me, looking at the exchange of letters between Front-Bench spokespeople on bulk collection. What the right hon. Gentleman has been saying about privilege, whether legal, parliamentary or journalistic, applies only to targeted interception, but a great deal of bulk interception is shared with our allies, the National Security Agency, and there is no carve-out for any of the protections that he has discussed. I can think of circumstances in which lawyers might be targeted by the NSA because their clients are suspects—or, indeed, irritating Members of Parliament might be targeted; I am thinking of the right hon. Gentleman. In the discussions between the Front-Bench spokespeople, when the bulk collection inquiry is progressed, that should be picked up, so that the issue is dealt with.

[Andy Burnham]

I do not know whether that was a compliment, but I will take it as such. The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. To be fair to the Government, there has been movement on thematic warrants: if an MP or a journalist was to be added to a thematic warrant, there would be a judicial oversight process. The right hon. Gentleman mentions taking that principle even further and relating it to bulk data. I think that David Anderson would need to consider how practically possible that would be, but the right hon. Gentleman’s point needs to be considered.

Labour amendment 262 relates to trade unions and would amend clause 18 to ensure, in statute, that undertaking legitimate trade union activities is never in future a reason for the security services or police using investigatory powers. In recent times, we have been shining a light on this country’s past and learning more about how we have been governed and policed. Revelations about Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, phone hacking, child sexual exploitation and other matters have all in different ways shaken people’s faith in the institutions that are there to protect us. They raise profound questions about the relationship between the state and the individual. Confronted with those uncomfortable truths about abuses of power, this House needs to provide a proper response and legislate to prevent them in the future. We need to redress the balance in favour of ordinary people and away from the Executive.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Unite, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and the GMB, which fought a long campaign to raise the scandal of the illegal blacklisting and secret vetting of construction workers? Can he assure the House that such a gross injustice could not be perpetrated against innocent workers again, and that his amendment would provide an absolute guarantee that legitimate trade union activities would be excluded from monitoring by the security services and the police?

[Andy Burnham]

I will indeed pay tribute to Unite, GMB and UCATT, which, in the past couple of months, have reached out-of-court settlements on blacklisting—a major and historic victory on their part. I will come on to explain the prime concern behind the Opposition’s amendment, and the case that most justifies our bringing it forward.

In the past, the actions of some in senior positions in politics and in the police have unfairly tarnished the reputation of today’s services and today’s policemen and women. That is precisely why it is crucial that we continue to open up on the past. Transparency is the best way of preventing lingering suspicions about past conduct from contaminating trust in today’s services, and it will help us to create a modern legal framework that better protects our essential freedoms, human rights and privacy.

One such freedom essential to the health of our democracy is trade union activity. Historically, trade unions have played a crucial role in protecting ordinary people from the abuses of Governments and mighty corporations. It is that crucial role, and the freedom of every citizen in this land to benefit from that protection, that amendment 262 seeks to enshrine in law. There will be those who claim that it is unnecessary and the product of conspiracy theorists, but I have received confirmation from the security services that, in the past—under Governments of both colours, it has to be said—trade unions have indeed been monitored. In the cold war, there may well have been grounds for fears that British trade unions were being infiltrated by foreign powers trying to subvert our democracy. That helps to explain the wariness of many Labour Members about legislation of this kind. Outside the security services, it seems that some activity went way beyond that. There is clear evidence that such monitoring was used for unjustified political and commercial reasons, breaching privacy and basic human rights. I mentioned the case of the Shrewsbury 24 on Second Reading, and I remain of the view that that is an outstanding injustice that needs to be settled.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) anticipated, however, I want tonight to focus on the blacklisting of construction workers, which clearly illustrates the necessity of the amendment we have tabled. We have seen the settlement of claims, as I have mentioned, against companies such as Carillion, Balfour Beatty, Costain, Keir, Laing O’Rourke, Sir Robert McAlpine, Skanska UK and Vinci. It has now been proven that those companies subscribed to central lists of workers that contained information on their political views and trade union activities. Those lists were used to vet people and deny them work. That affected the livelihoods of hundreds of people, and it was an outrageous denial of their basic human rights.

By seeking an out-of-court settlement, it would seem that the companies concerned are trying to limit reputational damage, but I do not think that the matter can be allowed to rest there. We need to understand how covertly gained police information came into the hands of a shady organisation called the Consulting Association, which compiled and managed the blacklist.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the remit of the Pitchford inquiry, which has been set up to look into the use of undercover policing, really needs to be extended to cover what went on in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom or we will never get the full truth of this?

[Andy Burnham]

That is certainly one way of addressing the concerns that I am putting on record tonight, but another would be to have a separate inquiry into blacklisting per se. Not only was it outrageous, but it is still largely not known about. Most people outside trade union circles do not know that it happened. That is why, by one means or another, there needs to be a process of inquiry about it.

We would not know about the practice were it not for the outstanding work of the Blacklist Support Group and individuals such as Dave Smith who have exposed how much of the information held on individuals appeared to emanate from police sources. For instance, the files hold detailed descriptions of the movements of a number of people at the June 1999 demonstration “Carnival Against Capital”. As a Guardian article by Dave Smith and Phil Chamberlain pointed out, it seems highly unlikely that that intelligence was the product of a site manager who just happened to be passing through London on that day.

The Blacklist Support Group referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission in 2012. I want to put on record what it found, because it is pretty shocking. Having looked into the concerns, the IPCC wrote in a letter to the Blacklist Support Group:

“The scoping also identified that it was likely that all Special Branches were involved in providing information about potential employees who were suspected of being involved in subversive activity.”

All special branches were likely to have given information that was used to compile the blacklist.

[Steve Rotheram]

May I expand on the point that my right hon. Friend is making? Perhaps some people outside the Chamber will not understand what subversive activities were. In those days, subversive activities included complaining about health and safety because a person was dying on a building site every single day. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is hardly subversive activity?

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those were people who were trying to protect their workmates and colleagues. An individual who protested outside Fiddler’s Ferry power station near us in the north-west was trying to safeguard people’s safety at work, but they were subjected to this outrageous abuse of their rights.

[Mr George Howarth]

My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. I do not know whether he is aware of this, but when the issue first arose during the last Parliament, I took it up with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to ask whether there was any involvement on the part of the Metropolitan police. I got a letter back not from the commissioner himself, but from a senior member of his staff, who now works for one of the agencies, flatly denying that there was any such involvement. Something was happening, as the excerpt my right hon. Friend has read out shows, yet even as recently as three or four years ago, the Metropolitan police utterly denied it.

[Andy Burnham]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is quite clear that “all Special Branches” provided information. There it is in the letter from the IPCC in 2013. I do not think that its pretty astounding confirmation has been properly followed up. As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), people have a right to know what information was passed by whom in the police service, who sanctioned the passing of that information to such organisations and the policy under which passing that information was justified.

This is yet another scandal from our country’s past, in which it seems that the establishment rode roughshod over the rights of ordinary people. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for the courage she has shown in facing up to our past, but the evidence trail has not yet reached its end. This process must continue: we must continue to go wherever the evidence takes us. Such evidence is now taking us to blacklisting and, of course, to Orgreave and its aftermath. In my view, the case for inquiries into both is unanswerable. I again call on the Government to initiate those inquiries so that people can have the truth.

For tonight, we call on the Government to accept Labour’s amendment to provide protection in law for legitimate trade union activity. Had that provision been in place years ago, it could have prevented the abuses that we saw with the blacklisting of workers. If it could be agreed, such an historic move would give some recognition to the long and proud campaign for fairness in the eyes of the law that has been fought by trade unionists. It would also show a real willingness on the part of the Government to create a modern law that is as much about protecting the rights of the working person as it is about keeping us safe in the 21st century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Notwithstanding that technical point, which I will happily deal with after the debate—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making it—I will certainly accept what the Opposition have proposed as a matter of principle. It seems absolutely right that they have brought it to the House’s attention, and they can perfectly properly claim it as a victory, because I am persuaded of the need to do this. It was not in the original Bill, but it will be in the Bill as it goes forward. In that spirit and that mood, it is vital to understand that the Bill is in our national interest and there to promote and preserve the common good. It is therefore right that it make further progress.

[Andy Burnham]

The Minister’s comments at the Dispatch Box will have given hope to thousands of trade unionists in this country. Their legitimate role has been properly recognised by him at the Dispatch Box—long may that spirit continue from the Government Benches!

[Mr Hayes]

I cannot add to that, so I had better just sit down. Thank you very much.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 7 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Removal of Foreign National Offenders and EU Prisoners

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I accept that my hon. Friend has his own personal reasons for remembering very much the impact of the D-day landings. It is true that those who gave their lives on the beaches of Normandy did so to protect our freedoms. The Government, as I indicated in my response to his question, have put in place a number of measures, and we continue to work to do more to ensure that we can protect the public from those serious criminals—rapists and others—who may choose to come here from whichever country they come from. My hon. Friend referred to the Bill of Rights: it is the Government’s intention to bring forward a Bill of Rights, and that was referred to in the Gracious Speech that we heard a few weeks ago. I can assure him that the action that the Government have taken, for example in rebalancing the interests of the public and the interests of foreign national offenders, in the reference to article 8, show that we take seriously the need to ensure that the human rights of the British public are recognised when we deal with these issues.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

While I congratulate the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on securing this question, I hope that he will not be too offended that I do not agree with every word of his opportunistic election broadcast on behalf of the leave campaign. Is it not plainly the case that this is not an EU question but a question of the competence, or lack of it, of his Government and his Home Secretary? As last week’s Select Committee report makes clear, while there has been progress on the deportation of foreign national offenders, it has been too slow.

Does the Home Secretary agree with what the Prime Minster told the Liaison Committee in May? He said that she and the Home Office “should have done better” on this issue. This is not the first time that the Home Secretary has been warned about these failings. In the last Parliament, the National Audit Office found that more than a third of failed removals were the result of factors within the Home Office’s control. Despite that, we now learn that the problem is getting worse, not better, in some areas. The Select Committee said that it was deeply concerned that there were nearly 6,000 foreign national offenders living in the community—the highest figure since 2012. Can the Home Secretary explain why the figure is so high? How many of those people are still subject to active deportation proceedings, and what is she doing to bring the figure down? She urgently needs to get a grip on the issue.

Does the Home Secretary agree that it is much easier to do that while remaining part of the European Union, and that leaving would make it harder to deport people? Is it not the case that the prisoner transfer agreement at least provides a framework to speed up the process and that country-to-country deals are far harder to achieve? Is it not also true that our access to the Schengen information system and the European criminal records information system helps us to stop criminals arriving here, and the European arrest warrant means that they can be brought to justice?

Finally, would not the British people be better off listening to the two former Met commissioners and other senior police who, at the weekend, said that our membership of the EU helps us to fight crime, rather than to the unpleasant scaremongering of the leave campaign?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman’s early remarks do not sit well with the facts that I have presented to the Commons. Last year, we deported a record number of foreign national offenders. Of course, the Government should always do more and always seek to ensure that we can improve our ability to do so. He talked about the higher numbers of people in the community, but it is also the case that because of the number of criminal record checks that the police now undertake with other countries we have secured a higher level of identification of foreign national offenders, which has increased the number available for us to deal with, and for all of them we make every effort, and continue to make efforts, to deport.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, I agree that it is easier for us to deal with these issues as a member of the European Union. He mentioned a number of tools and instruments available to us. On the figure I quoted in relation to foreign criminal checks, he mentioned ECRIS and SIS, which mean that information is available to us at the border which would otherwise not be available.

Hillsborough

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her powerful statement and her kind words. At long last, justice—for the 96, for their families, for all Liverpool supporters, for an entire city. But it took too long in coming, and the struggle for it took too great a toll on too many. Now, those responsible must be held to account for 96 unlawful deaths and a 27-year cover-up.

Thankfully, the jury saw through the lies. I am sure—to repeat what the Home Secretary said—that the House will join me in thanking the jury for their devotion to this task and for giving two years of their lives to this important public duty.

When it came, their verdict was simple, clear, powerful and emphatic, but it begged the question: how could something so obvious have taken so long? There are three reasons: first, a police force that has consistently put protecting itself over and above protecting people harmed by Hillsborough; secondly, collusion between that force and a complicit print media; and thirdly, a flawed judicial system that gives the upper hand to those in authority, over and above ordinary people. Let me take each of those issues in turn, starting with South Yorkshire police.

Can the Home Secretary assure me that there will be no holding back in pursuing prosecutions? The CPS has said that files will be submitted by December. While we understand the complexity, can she urge it to do whatever it can to bring that date forward?

Of course, the behaviour of some officers, while reprehensible, was not necessarily chargeable, but, through retirement, police officers can still escape misconduct proceedings. In her Policing and Crime Bill, the Home Secretary proposes a 12-month period after retirement where proceedings can be initiated, but one of the lessons of Hillsborough is that there can be no arbitrary time limits on justice and accountability. Will the Home Secretary work with me to insert a Hillsborough clause into her Bill, ending the scandal of retirement as an escape route and of wrongdoers claiming full pensions? Will she join me in making sure that that applies retrospectively?

The much bigger question for South Yorkshire police to answer today is this: why, at this inquest, did they go back on their 2012 public apology? When the Lord Chief Justice quashed the original inquest, he requested that the new one not degenerate into an “adversarial battle”. Sadly, that is exactly what happened. Shamefully, the cover-up continued in that Warrington courtroom. Millions of pounds of public money was spent retelling discredited lies against Liverpool supporters. Lawyers for retired officers threw disgusting slurs around; those for today’s force tried to establish that others were responsible for the opening of the gate. If the police had chosen to maintain their apology, this inquest would have been much shorter. But they did not, and they put the families through hell once again. It pains me to say it, but the NHS, through the Yorkshire ambulance service, was guilty of the same.

Does the Home Secretary agree that, because of his handling of this inquest, the position of the South Yorkshire chief constable is now untenable? Does she further agree that the problems go deeper? I promised the families the full truth about Hillsborough. I do not believe they will have it until we know the truth about Orgreave. This force used the same underhand tactics against its own people in the aftermath of the miners’ strike that it would later use to more deadly effect against the people of Liverpool. There has been an IPCC report on Orgreave, but parts of it are redacted. It has been put to me that those parts contain evidence of direct links between Orgreave and Hillsborough.

This is a time for transparency, not secrecy—time for the people of South Yorkshire to know the full truth about their police force. So will the Home Secretary accept the legal submission from the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign and set up a disclosure process? This force has not learned and has not changed. Let me be clear. I do not blame the ordinary police officers—the men and women who did their very best on that day and who today are out there keeping our streets safe—but I do blame their leadership and culture, which seems rotten to the core. Orgreave, Hillsborough, Rotherham: how much more evidence do we need before we act? So will the Home Secretary now order the fundamental reform of this force and consider all potential options?

Let me turn to collusion between police and the media. The malicious briefings given in the aftermath were devastatingly efficient. They created a false version of events which lingered until yesterday. No one in the police or media has ever been held to account for the incalculable harm they caused in smearing a whole city in its moment of greatest grief. Imagine how it felt to be my constituent Lee Walls, who came through gate C just before 3 pm with his friend Carl Brown. Carl died but Lee survived, but days later he had to read that he was to blame. Given the weakness of the press regulatory system back then, the survivors of this tragedy had no ability to correct the lies. But is it any different today? If a tragedy like Hillsborough were to happen now, victims would not be able quickly to undo the damage of a misleading front page. Leveson recommended a second-stage inquiry to look at the sometimes unhealthy relationship between police and press. I know the Hillsborough families feel strongly that this should be taken forward. So will the Government end the delay and honour the Prime Minister’s promises to the victims of press intrusion?

I turn to the judicial system. I attended this inquest on many occasions. I saw how hard it was on the families: trapped for two years in a temporary courtroom; told to show no emotion as police lawyers smeared the dead and those who survived—beyond cruel. I welcome Bishop James’s new role in explaining just how cruel this was to the House and to the country. The original inquest was similarly brutal, but that did not even get to the truth. Just as the first inquest muddied the waters after the clarity of the Taylor report, so this inquest, at moments, lost sight of the Hillsborough Independent Panel report. One of the reasons why it produced a different outcome, though, is that this time the families had the best lawyers in the land. If they could have afforded them back in 1990, history might have been very different. At many inquests today there is often a mismatch between the legal representation of public bodies and those of the bereaved. Why should the authorities be able to spend public money like water to protect themselves when families have no such help? So will the Government consider further reforms to the coronial system, including giving the bereaved at least equal legal funding as public bodies? This, the longest case in English legal history, must mark a watershed in how victims are treated.

The last question is for us in this House. What kind of country leaves people who did no more than wave off their loved ones to a football match still sitting in a courtroom 27 years later begging for the reputations of their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and fathers? The answer is one that needs now to do some deep soul-searching. This cover-up went right to the top. It was advanced in the Committee Rooms of this House and in the press rooms of 10 Downing Street. It persisted because of collusion between elites in politics—on both sides—police and the media. But this Home Secretary stood outside of that. Today I express my sincere admiration and gratitude to her for the stance she has consistently taken in righting this wrong.

But my final words go to the Hillsborough families. I think of those who did not live to see this day: of the courageous Anne Williams; of my constituent Stephen Whittle, the “97th victim”, who gave his own ticket to a friend on the morning of the match and later took his own life. I think of people like Phil Hammond, who sacrificed his own health to this struggle. I think of the many people who died from outside Merseyside, recognising that this was not just Liverpool’s but the country’s tragedy. I think of Leigh lad Carl Brown and his devoted mum Delia who still visits his grave most days. I think of Trevor and Jenni Hicks and their heart-breaking testimony to the new inquest. But I think most of my friend Margaret Aspinall. She did not just sacrifice everything for her own son James: she took on the heavy burden of fighting for everyone else’s loved ones—and, by God, didn’t she do them proud? It has been the privilege of my life to work with them all. They have prevailed against all the odds. They have kept their dignity in the face of terrible adversity. They could not have shown a more profound love for those they lost on that day. They truly represent the best of what our country is all about. Now it must reflect on how it came to let them down for so long. [Applause.]

[Mrs May]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words, and particularly for his kind words about myself? May I, as I said in my opening statement, once again commend him for the way in which he has stood by the families for so long and carried their cause in this House, and indeed in government when he was in government?

I will respond to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s specific points, but first to the final point that he made. It is absolutely right, as was reflected in the statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made after the independent panel’s report came out, that what the families faced was a combination of the state in all its various forms not believing them, all the various attempts, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to cover up what had really happened, together with other agencies—the media and others—and indeed, dare I say it, most of the general public believing the stories that they read about the fans. To have stood against that for so long shows steel and determination but also an affection for their lost loved ones and a passionate desire for justice for those who died that is, as I said, extraordinary. I think we will rarely see the like again.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s individual questions, he asked me about the time for the files to be prepared by the two investigations. Both Operation Resolve and the IPCC say that they expect to have those case files prepared by the end of the year—I recognise that for the families this is a further wait—and there will be then be a period of time for the Crown Prosecution Service to consider them. I think everybody recognises—including those bodies, because they do of course interact with the families through the family forums—the importance of doing this in a timely fashion, but it is also important that it is done properly and thoroughly. I do not want to see anything in the way of this being done in the right way.

On the retirement of police officers, I have always felt that it is wrong that police officers should be able to avoid misconduct or gross misconduct proceedings by being able to retire or resign. That is why we have already changed the disciplinary arrangements; and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we have a clause in the Policing and Crime Bill. I, or the Policing Minister, will be very happy to meet him or the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) to discuss the various issues in relation to that matter.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Orgreave. Together with the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), I met representatives from Orgreave last year. I then received a submission from Michael Mansfield QC on behalf of the relevant group, and that is being considered.

We have always said that a decision on Leveson 2 will be made when all the investigations have been completed. Some cases are still being considered, so that point has not arrived.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the availability of funding for families at inquests. That is precisely the sort of issue that can be encompassed in the work that Bishop James Jones will do in hearing from the families about their direct experience and reflecting that to Government. As I said, it is right and appropriate that we then take a clear look at what further action we need to take.

Nobody should be in any doubt about the experience that the families had to go through at the inquests in not being able to show any emotion. The right hon. Gentleman referred to that. Also, for 27 years, many people did not know what had actually happened to their loved ones. They did not know how or at what time they died. Those details have come out only through the inquest. It must have been particularly difficult to sit through that, but I hope that the families have now found some peace through the truth coming out.

Border Force Budget 2016-17

Andy Burnham Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement setting out the details of the Border Force Budget for 2016-17.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The first priority of government is the safety and security of its citizens, and the Government have always made the integrity of the UK border a priority. We will never compromise on keeping the people of this country safe from terrorism, criminality and illegal immigration.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will publish the Treasury main supply estimates in just over an hour’s time, setting out estimated budget allocations for the whole of government, including Border Force, for the financial year 2016-17. In advance of those figures being laid in the Library, I can inform Members that these estimates will show that the indicative budget for Border Force is £558.1 million in 2016-17—a 0.4% reduction in overall resource spending compared to the supplementary estimate for 2015-16. At the same time, we will increase capital spending at the border by just over 70%, from £40.1 million in 2015-16 to an estimated £68.3 million in 2016-17. That means that Border Force spending is, to all intents and purposes, protected compared to 2015-16, with increased capital investment to improve the technology at the border, to improve security and intelligence and to strengthen control.

Over the next four years, we will invest £130 million in state-of-the-art technology at the border. Since I became Home Secretary six years ago, we have pursued an ambitious programme of reform at the border to keep this country safe. In the last Parliament we abolished the dysfunctional UK Border Agency, set up by the last Labour Government, and made Border Force directly accountable to Ministers within the Home Office. Since then, Border Force has transformed its working practices, command and control and leadership, and we have invested in new technology such as e-gates at airports and heartbeat monitors at freight ports to improve security, prevent illegal entry to the UK, benefit passengers and deliver efficiencies.

At the same time I have worked closely with my French counterpart, Bernard Cazeneuve, to secure the juxtaposed controls in Calais and Coquelles, reduce the number of migrants attempting to reach the United Kingdom, and safeguard UK drivers and hauliers travelling through those ports. We have developed a robust, intelligence-led approach to organised crime at the border, working closely with the National Crime Agency, which we established in 2012. We have supported greater collaboration between counter-terrorism police and Border Force, while increasing counter-terrorism budgets to prevent foreign fighters from returning and dangerous terrorists from travelling to the UK.

These reforms are working. Border security has been enhanced. Border Force continues to perform 100% checks on scheduled passengers arriving at primary check- points in the UK. When passengers are deemed a threat to public safety, we can and do exclude them from the UK, and 99,020 people have been refused entry to the UK since 2010. We are disrupting more organised crime at the UK border than ever before. In the past year, Border Force has seized nearly 8 tonnes of class A drugs, more than 2.5 times as much as in 2009-10. Meanwhile, legitimate passengers and hauliers of goods continue to be provided with excellent levels of service.

The Government remain committed to making further investments when necessary to exploit new technology and strengthen controls. As a result, Border Force will grow more efficient year on year, while improving security for the safety of citizens, businesses and the country as a whole.

[Andy Burnham]

Finally, an answer—and yet another U-turn—from the Home Secretary. Let us be clear: it is Labour pressure that has brought her to the House today, and Labour pressure that has made her back down on her planned deeper cuts in the UK border. Just as we forced her to U-turn on police funding, we have now forced her to U-turn on the Border Force budget. She has spent the last two weeks ducking and diving, refusing to answer questions that I put to her in the House and that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), put to her senior officials—I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his determination. Why could the Home Secretary not answer our questions? Because she has been furiously back-pedalling for the last two weeks, and patching up holes in the Border Force budget.

Let us be clear about what has just been announced to the House. The Home Secretary has announced a revenue cut in the Border Force budget. Let me put that into context. She has announced a budget of £558 million. In 2012-13, the budget was £617 million. It has fallen by more than £50 million on her watch. That is this Home Secretary’s record on border funding. How can she justify it when the terror threat has been increasing all the time? Will she guarantee, on the back of the budget that has been announced today, that there will be no cuts in the number of front-line immigration officers, and that officers will not be replaced by less-trained staff?

The bigger question, however, is whether the budget that the Home Secretary has announced is anywhere near enough. Today, a group of the most eminent police and counter-terrorism experts have written an open letter saying that attacks in Paris and Brussels must be

“a wake-up call for the British Government”

on lax border security.

Worryingly, the letter reveals that the National Crime Agency has evidence that people-traffickers are now specifically targeting weaker sea ports. I have repeatedly warned the Home Secretary about that. Will she accept the call from the group of experts for a review of border security, and for extra resources to plug the gaps?

Those gaps are very real. A whistleblower working at the port of Immingham, the country’s largest freight port, has been in touch with me to reveal that the staff of ferry companies, who are carrying out the Home Secretary’s border exit checks, are simply not trained to do it; that the passports of lorry drivers are not checked on arrival by anyone; and, worst of all, that school leavers are now being recruited to check passports, replacing experienced border officers. Border security on the cheap: that is the reality of what is happening at Britain’s borders today, under this Home Secretary. It is the direct consequence of the cuts that she has already made in the UK border during her time in office—and, unbelievably, she wanted to make even further cuts in the border before we in the Labour party stopped her.

The Home Secretary has spent the last two weeks running scared, scrabbling for loose change behind the back of the Home Office sofa; but, worse, she has weakened our borders, has damaged our security, and is only now pledging to stop the cuts. On an issue of such importance to the British public, she is going to have to do a lot better than this.

[Mrs May]

I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that in so much of what he said he simply does not know what he is talking about. He talks about U-turns on funding, but the only such U-turn we have seen is from a Labour Front-Bench team that now claim to have wanted police funding to remain steady and not to be cut when they actually suggested that police funding could take a 10% cut.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about border security and the National Crime Agency, but I remind him that it was the coalition Government and me as Home Secretary who set up the NCA. The reason why we have a border command that is looking at serious and organised crime across our borders is because of what the Conservatives have done in government. Labour did none of that in 13 long years.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman, who was of course at one time a Home Office Minister, that it was under Labour that we saw the creation of the dysfunctional UK Border Agency that we had to abolish. We had to change how we dealt with such issues. Under the last Labour Government, there was no operating mandate at the border, and as people came through the primary checkpoints, they were not all getting the necessary 100% checks. We have enhanced security and will continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Burnham Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

I congratulate all hon. Members who take part in these parliamentary schemes. I would also recommend the fire scheme and the armed forces scheme. With the Chancellor’s help, we have managed to protect budgets, subject to the precept. For anyone interested in neighbourhood policing, I would say that those who have a Conservative police and crime commissioner and a Conservative mayor have more chance of having more officers on the beat.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

In the aftermath of the attacks in Brussels and Paris, the security of the UK border is uppermost in people’s minds. However, we are a fortnight into the new financial year, and the Home Secretary is still refusing to answer questions on the budget for Border Force. A whistleblower says staff were told three weeks ago to expect front-line cuts of 6%, although, since media reports of that came out, we hear that the Home Office has been back-pedalling. I hope the Home Secretary is backing down, because our borders cannot face cuts on this scale. I therefore invite her to clear the issue up today: what is the 2016-17 budget for Border Force, and is it up or down on last year?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman has written to me on this subject, and I have responded to him. The Home Office’s budget was published under the comprehensive spending review as normal last November. As with the rest of the Government, individual allocations within Departments are not routinely published. However, what matters—he is right—is that we have a secure border, and that is why we have a transformation plan with Border Force and why we have changed Border Force over the last few years from the dysfunctional United Kingdom Border Agency we inherited from the last Labour Government.

[Andy Burnham]

It will not have escaped the notice of the House or anybody watching that the Home Secretary has not answered the question. We know that financial transparency and this Government do not go well together, as we are about to hear, but what are the Government trying to hide? I hope the delay in publishing the budget is due to the fact that she is listening to us and backing down on those 6% cuts.

Let me turn to another area where the Home Secretary is moving under Labour pressure: police bail for terror suspects. I have called on the Government for months to close a loophole that has allowed individuals on bail, such as Siddhartha Dhar, to leave the country for Syria. I welcome the fact that the Government last week indicated that they are prepared to move on the issue, but I am worried that they are not going far enough. Does the Home Secretary agree that passports and travel documents should be surrendered as a condition of release from police custody? Will she work with Labour to amend the Policing and Crime Bill to that end?