Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

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

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When the police make one of these immediate arrests, how long do they have before they have to allow the suspect to go?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about safeguards. He will see that the arrested individual will need to be before a judge as soon as practicable after arrest. That is one of the safeguards that I wanted to highlight, as it underpins this Bill. The new arrest power, in the prescribed circumstances, is the only change—this is another important point to stress—to current extradition law and practice that is introduced. It is designed to bring a wanted person into extradition proceedings under part 2 of the Extradition Act in an expedited way, without changing the likelihood of successful extradition. It does not change the current legislative framework, nor any of the process for the extradition proceedings themselves. The Bill is purely about shifting the point at which the police can intervene and arrest a wanted person. It in no way reduces the safeguards that must apply to any subsequent extradition proceedings considered by the court or the Home Secretary. Judicial oversight will continue as it does now after any arrest. The courts will continue to assess extradition requests as they do now, to determine, for example, whether extradition would be compatible with the individual’s human rights or whether the person would receive a fair trial. If they would not, extradition would be barred.

The Bill includes five main safeguards. It applies only to certain specified countries. Countries with a poor human rights record or those that have abused Interpol systems could not be considered suitable for this provision. The addition of any countries would require the consent of both Houses, and it only applies to sufficiently serious offences; the power will only be available in relation to offences that would be criminal in the UK for which an offender would receive a prison sentence of at least three years and which is a sufficiently serious form of that offence to justify arrest.

The designated authority must be satisfied that arrangements are in place to ensure that requests made by the country concerned are made on the basis of an underlying warrant or a conviction. Also, as I have indicated, the arrested individual will need to be brought before a judge as soon as practicable after arrest, and the power does not alter extradition proceedings in any other way and does not interfere with the court or the Secretary of State’s role in extradition proceedings.

I hope that that sets out quite clearly the importance of the safeguards. I know that some Members raised the issue of Interpol. I stress that the UK continues to work with Interpol to ensure that its rules are robust, effective and complied with. It is notable that the former chief constable of Essex was recently made the executive director of policing services for Interpol—the most senior operational role in that organisation—and a UK Government lawyer has also been seconded to Interpol’s notices and diffusion taskforce to work to ensure Interpol rules are properly and robustly adhered to by Interpol member states.

I turn to Government amendments 11 and 15, which provide a contingency to keep an important current law enforcement protection for the UK public in place after the end of the transition period, whatever the outcome of the current negotiations. As the House knows, the negotiated outcome we are seeking with the EU would create a warrant-based system based on the EU’s surrender agreement with Norway and Iceland. The purpose of amending the Bill in this way at this time is to ensure the continuation of relevant arrest powers, should that prove necessary. Amendment 11 is a consequential amendment that will ensure that amendment 15 will be commenced only if we do not have in place new extradition arrangements with the EU at the end of the transition period. If an agreement is reached, these provisions will not need to come into effect. This is simply a contingency, and the provisions also provide a contingency in the event that we do not agree new extradition arrangements with Norway and Iceland to maintain the arrest power currently available by virtue of the EU-Norway-Iceland surrender agreement.

Opposition amendment 17 covers similar ground, although framing it in EEA terms. I hope the hon. Member for St Helens North will appreciate that we should approve participants on a state-by-state basis, which he would probably acknowledge, and that is therefore why we think the better approach is to name countries individually.

On the progress of the negotiations on law enforcement and criminal justice, I think there is a good degree of convergence in what the UK and the EU are seeking to negotiate in terms of operational capabilities. We will keep working to bridge the gap where differences remain. There is still an agreement to be had and we will continue to work hard to achieve it.

Government amendment 12 specifies the National Crime Agency is to be the designated authority for this legislation. The designated authority is the agency that will have the task of certifying that the international arrest alerts conform to the right criteria for them to carry the new power of provisional arrest. The drafting is future-proofed, as it allows for the designated authority to be changed by regulation should the need arise. We have taken that approach as the direct alternative to using secondary legislation on this occasion, to ensure the best use of parliamentary time. The amendment therefore represents a change of process rather than policy and is reflected by Opposition amendment 16. I hope that the Opposition will recognise, because of the future-proofing arrangements, that this is an improvement to the technical approach they would take.

Government amendment 13 will overturn one of the two changes made in the other place. Statutory requirements are added for the Government to consult on the merits of adding, removing or varying a territory from the Bill with the devolved Administrations and relevant interested stakeholders. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have been clear in our commitment to ensuring that Parliament can scrutinise any decision to bring a new country in scope of this power in exactly the same way as Parliament does in relation to the Extradition Act. To that end, the Bill mandates that the addition or removal of any territory is by the affirmative resolution procedure. This gives Parliament the right to scrutinise in detail such proposals and to accept them or, indeed, reject them.

It is important to stress that while extradition is a reserved matter, relevant officials are engaged in regular discussions with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations and law enforcement agencies who operate right across the UK to collaborate on operational policy and ensure the effectiveness of our extradition system. Indeed, such discussion and consultation has already taken place in relation to the Bill and the amendments. Of course, given that any countries being added would be subject to the affirmative procedure, there will be opportunities for Parliament to probe the extent to which the views of the devolved Administrations and other organisations have been sought. Therefore, we believe that there is no need to add this provision to the Bill.

Amendment 14 would overturn the second provision altered in the other place, which provides that the removal or addition of a country must use a single statutory instrument. Any additions will be dictated by the will of Parliament, not by an unusual process such that this would impose. If a country is proposed that Parliament does not agree should be specified, then the regulations will be voted down in the normal way. We judge that that remains the rightful process.

Turning to amendments 1 and 2 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I am grateful to him for the way in which he has approached this and for the important points that he and other Members have made. It might be useful to set out the measures the Government have taken in dealing with the situation in Hong Kong since the amendments were tabled. As the Committee will be aware, because of the new national security legislation in Hong Kong, the Government have indefinitely suspended the 1998 UK-Hong Kong agreement on the surrender of fugitive offenders—our extradition treaty. As a result, the Government will not deal with extradition requests sent by Hong Kong to the UK under that treaty. We are also creating a new bespoke immigration route for citizens from Hong Kong to come to the UK, reflecting the unique and unprecedented circumstances in Hong Kong and the UK’s historical and moral commitment to British nationals overseas citizens.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and Members across the House who have brought this issue to the House in ensuring that we stand with the people of Hong Kong. This Government have demonstrated our absolute commitment to the people of Hong Kong. Any changes to the Bill in the form of these amendments would not change our extradition relationship with Hong Kong, as I think my right hon. Friend has recognised. However, the points that he has made are very powerful, and I know that colleagues in the Foreign Office will equally have recognised them. We will certainly keep this issue under careful review.

In relation to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, I would reiterate that the purpose of this Bill is to rectify a policing capability gap, to better protect the public. I recognise that he perhaps makes his points within a broader purview and that his amendments were probing and there are other issues that he might like to return to on another day. The US is just one of the UK’s extradition partners, and the legal processes in each of those jurisdictions will be different. He has been a champion of the important liberties that this Government seek to protect in relation to each and every extradition case that goes to the UK courts. I recognise and respect the approach that he takes. While we take a different view on these issues of imbalance, he will recognise some of the previous reviews that have looked at these issues in seeing whether that imbalance does exist. As I have indicated, we keep all our extradition arrangements under review, and I look forward to continuing this conversation with him in the weeks and months ahead.

I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend for rightly drawing attention to the case of Anne Sacoolas. Harry Dunn’s death was a terrible tragedy. We have every sympathy with his family for their tragic loss and share their desire to ensure that justice is done—a point that the Prime Minister himself has reaffirmed in the last few days.

Finally, I turn to new clauses 1 and 2. Throughout the passage of the Bill, there has been considerable cross-party consensus on its aims and measures, alongside the robust scrutiny that I have come to rightly expect from this House. New clause 1 would require the publication of an annual statement on arrests. The National Crime Agency already keeps data and publishes statistics on arrest volumes in relation to part 1 of the Extradition Act. It does that without having been required to do so by primary legislation. We have no doubt that it will similarly do so in respect of arrests under this new arrest power, as this is sensible operational practice. While I have some sympathy for the new clause, I am not persuaded of the necessity of a statutory obligation at this time. I hope that we will be able to review this as that information is published.

Intelligence and Security Committee: Russia Report

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Again, we are certainly hearing some questions that are about trying to refight the referendum. Actually, we should respect the referendum, and that is what this Government have done, and we have been elected on a mandate to deliver on the Brexit referendum. None the less, the hon. Lady certainly has my assurance that we are vigilant against that sense of intrusion and disinformation and I have outlined the steps that we are taking to guard against that.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It comes as no surprise to me that the Russian state seeks to infiltrate and influence so many aspects of our society, but I am particularly worried by Russian cyber-activity, especially attempts to steal our secrets, intellectual property and new technologies. I know that, in recent years, more resources have been given to the security and intelligence services, particularly GCHQ and the Army’s 77th Brigade, but does my right hon. Friend agree that our offensive cyber-capabilities may well have to be enhanced further given the persistent and increasing threats from Russia?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend, with all of his experience, has highlighted a very important point about the need for offensive cyber-capabilities. We were the first NATO ally to offer offensive cyber-capabilities to the alliance. I am quite sure that this is an issue that will be of core interest and focus as we look at the integrated review. He sets out a compelling argument for further investment. I am quite sure that that will be reflected on very carefully.

Definition of Islamophobia

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)]

The holy month of Ramadan marks one of the most sacred times for Muslims across the country and across the world. So let me start by wishing Members of this House, and others observing this period, Ramadan kareem. I know that in the coming days many Members across the House will be attending iftars—events that bring people and communities together, and celebrate the values that we share and the diverse country that we are. As a country, we are stronger because of the contribution that British Muslims make at every level and in so many different ways. That is why it is right that we should celebrate and be proud of this rich diversity and of how British Muslims make this country—our country—so special and a place that we all rightly call home.

So it is with regret, but also resolve, that I must turn to this debate focused on a subject that is the polar opposite of that shared drive for inclusion and understanding—confronting Islamophobia. Some of the examples that have been provided here today have been utterly shocking. At the heart of this debate is the intent to stand against those who would cause hatred or intimidation towards, or make threats against, our Muslim brothers and sisters, and the false narratives that underpin or give succour to this.

Hon. Members have commented on social media, the press and other issues. It is right that we reflect on some of the powerful contributions that have been made.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I hope my hon. Friend will understand if I say that he has not been part of the debate and I am slightly tight on time.

I welcome the chance to respond to this debate. There have been a number of powerful and important contributions. As several Members acknowledged, the shadow of what happened in New Zealand just two months ago is inescapable—people murdered while at prayer and so many lives devastated and tragically cut short. It was a senseless and shocking assault on New Zealand’s values of freedom, openness, democracy and decency—values that we all share. It was an act that I would describe as the epitome of evil. That is why it was right that as we grieved for those affected in mosques, synagogues, churches and other places of worship up and down the country, we reaffirmed our unity against all forms of hatred. We stood together with that sense of purpose against extremism and the false narratives that so often underpin it. We came together in love and solidarity, underlining not only our condemnation, in the strongest possible terms, of this attack, but the fact that all communities stand shoulder to shoulder with our Muslim brothers and sisters, because we know that an attack on one group is an attack on us all. To persecute anybody because of their race and religion goes against everything I believe we stand for as a country and underlines the need to tackle this hatred head on and the need to do more.

That is why the Government have taken steps to ensure that, for the first time, police forces are required to disaggregate religious hate crime data, to allow us to better identify anti-Muslim hatred. As a number of Members have underlined, that data has sadly revealed that Muslims are a commonly targeted religious group, accounting for over half of religiously motivated hate crime, and that the number of all religiously motivated hate crimes has gone up by 40% from 2016-17 to 2017-18. It is utterly unacceptable and deeply troubling for our Muslim neighbours, colleagues and friends to be living in fear, as so many Members have described.

No one should feel unsafe while practising their religion. No one should feel unsafe living in their community. That is why we doubled the places of worship fund to £1.6 million, to physically protect mosques and other places of worship and reassure communities, and are making it easier for people to apply for the funding from July 2019. In addition, we have announced a new £5 million fund to provide security training for places of worship and a consultation on what more can be done to protect faith communities. There is nothing more important than keeping people safe and ensuring that they feel safe.

As well as doing more to protect vulnerable communities, we must get a firmer grip on the nature of the bigotry they face, which I believe means creating a formal definition of Islamophobia to strengthen that. I am grateful for the input of Members across the House and their work on this important issue and hope that today’s debate acts as a further step of progress. I note in particular the incredibly valuable work undertaken by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims to develop a definition of Islamophobia. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) for leading that work. I hope, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said in his foreword, that the APPG’s report

“can give all of us food both for thought and positive action.”

The APPG’s work makes an important and—I underline—serious contribution to how best to tackle bigotry, division and the pernicious narratives within our communities.

The issue of the definition was discussed at a roundtable on Islamophobia that I chaired on 5 March with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, where members of our anti-Muslim hatred working group and expert stakeholders such as the Runnymede Trust and the Commission for Countering Extremism shared their views. It is vital that we get this right and that any definition reflects the experiences of those who have experienced hatred because they are Muslim; that we are satisfied that it will have the positive effect it sets out to achieve—a point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood)—and do no harm; and that it commands broad support within communities and wider society.

The APPG definition, with the best of intent, does not yet meet those criteria, and further work and consideration are needed; I frame it in those terms. The proposal defines Islamophobia as “a type of racism”. I am in no doubt that racism forms a part of the bigotry that we need to confront, but combining race and religion within the definition causes legal and practical issues. As a starting point, it is not in line with the Equality Act 2010, which defines race as comprising colour, nationality and national or ethnic origins, none of which would necessarily encompass a Muslim or Islamic practice. There are potential consequences for freedom of speech. I recognise, as stated in the report, that that was not the intention behind the recommendation. There is also the issue of how we address sectarian hatred. I will reflect on how we can best respond to that, so that we are moving this issue forward.

It is clear that we must interrogate this complex issue further as matter of urgency. The Home Affairs Committee is undertaking a review into the issue, but the Government need to do more. That is why we will appoint two advisers. We will ensure that that reflects the need for community representation and drives the process forward, building on the important work already undertaken by the anti-Muslim hatred working group, and other bodies, which will remain central to our efforts to engage with Muslim communities. Our priority is to arrive swiftly at a collective position that strengthens our resolve when tackling anti-Muslim hatred and challenging the false narratives that underpin it, and we must reflect on and respond to the strength of feeling that we have heard in the House this afternoon.

I know there is more work to do, and we must do everything in our power to stand up for our diverse, tolerant and vibrant society. In so doing, we must stand up for our Muslim friends, and for all communities that face hatred and bigotry. In the immortal and incredibly powerful words of Jo Cox, there is so much more that unites us than divides us, and I hope that Members across the House will go forward in that spirit to make Islamophobia, and all forms of hate, a thing of the past.

Appointment of Sir Roger Scruton

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I will not comment on my right hon. Friend’s last point, because I want the commission itself to come to some of those conclusions, but I know that he is a passionate advocate of this debate and that he has shown himself to be so on previous occasions. His comments on the contribution that Sir Roger will make are well made, as his comments always are.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Sir Roger Scruton has shown true courage and humanity through some of his journeys, particularly to the east, and that his writings and speeches are actually pretty good—

[Bob Stewart]

I have to say that my hon. Friend is absolutely right: they are better than mine. But I will finish my question. Does the Secretary of State agree that Sir Roger Scruton continues to have massive respect for all sectors of our society?

[James Brokenshire]

Sir Roger is a leading philosopher, and his extensive work clearly provokes responses and debate, as it is intended to do. However, my focus is on the core skills that he brings to his work on beauty in the built environment, which is why he is so well placed to do this work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman firmly sets out the constitutional framework for Northern Ireland: the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the principle of consent, and, very firmly, the three-stranded approach. To be clear, it is ultimately for the UK Government to provide certainty over the delivery of public services and those strand 1 issues in relation to Northern Ireland.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that regardless of the border that is set up, which we hope will be invisible, the security services and police services of the north and the south must work together in the closest possible way—that is part of Brexit as well?

[James Brokenshire]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend about the strength of co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana, and at all levels, in relation to fighting the threat from terrorism and organised crime. We must remain resolute against this severe continuing threat, and we are strengthened by that co-operation, which needs to deepen and flourish further in the years ahead.

Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I do not want in any way to prejudge the outcome of the coming weeks. I earnestly hope, believe and want to see devolved government re-established in Northern Ireland. That is profoundly in the best interests of Northern Ireland, so that there is local decision making. There should be a strong message across the House of wanting to put that in position at the earliest opportunity. I have been careful in what I have said in laying out the position on the budget, and I have given assurances to allow flexibility for the Northern Ireland civil service to use residual emergency powers to deal with the pressures that it is experiencing and to ensure that public services continue to be run.

I have published a written ministerial statement that sets out indicative departmental allocations which reflect the budget priorities and decisions of the last Executive. They provide a basis for allocations in the absence of an Executive. It is important to make the point that those numbers are not UK Government numbers, but reflect the advice of the head of the Northern Ireland civil service and his assessment of a position that takes account of the priorities of the political parties before the Dissolution of the Assembly, as well as further allocations that he considers are required. They are intended to give clarity to Northern Ireland Departments about the basis on which they may wish to plan and prepare for more detailed decisions, and to discharge their responsibilities in the meantime.

We should, however, make it clear that those totals would not constrain the freedom of an incoming Executive to amend spending allocations, nor would it prevent the UK Government from reflecting on the final allocations in the light of circumstances at the appropriate time. I underline the position set out in the Bill. If agreement is not reached by 29 June, the electoral duty would essentially return to the Secretary of State, who would call an election in a reasonable period. Any incoming Government would need to reflect carefully on the stability of Northern Ireland and, as I have said, the need to deal with certain financial issues. We need to be resolutely focused on the need to get an Executive into position. That is precisely what the Bill allows for.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, but has he seen the slightest indication from Sinn Féin, in the detailed and long negotiations that he has no doubt had so far, that they might consider being part of an Executive?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, I have. That is why I believe that agreement is possible. The discussions that have taken place over recent weeks have shown where the space for agreement and compromise may lie. It is important that the Bill provides that space and opportunity for the parties to be able to find resolution of the outstanding issues and get back into devolved government, which is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for.

To go back to the budget, that budget does not allocate the resource and capital funding provided in the Chancellor’s March Budget. This funding was not allocated before the dissolution of the last Executive, and it is right that funding is available for parties to allocate to further priorities as they deem appropriate. Further detail on the spending plans will need to be provided through the Appropriation Act. My hope and belief is that the Act will be taken through the Northern Ireland Assembly, but that obviously relies on the Executive being formed. As I have indicated, that is where the focus should lie. If not, as I have said, we would be prepared to legislate to provide certainty, in line with our ultimate responsibility for political stability and good governance in Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland: Political Developments

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the RHI inquiry is now up and running and starting to take effect, and everyone wants to see the answers and conclusions from it at the earliest opportunity. It obviously crystallises a lot of the situation we find ourselves in at the moment, and it is important that it reports as soon as possible. Obviously, public inquiries set their own timeline, procedures and processes, but the right hon. Gentleman powerfully makes his point about the need to see the inquiry’s conclusions and to ensure we move things on and are demonstrably seen to do so.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Because of its bloody recent history, Northern Ireland has earned the absolute right to have a decent future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a solution to the current impasse is crucial to the economic and social, as well as the political, welfare of the children of Northern Ireland, most, if not all, of whom never knew the dark days of the last third of the 20th century?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, I do agree on the positive outcome we should be looking for for young people growing up in Northern Ireland at the moment. That is what the Government should be delivering on—fulfilling those young people’s hopes, dreams and aspirations. We have seen increases in employment and prosperity in Northern Ireland, and that is at the heart of what everyone would want to see continuing.

Child Refugees: Calais

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I think that is an unfair criticism. The French Government have taken significant steps to provide alternative accommodation and to see that there is information so that people are able to make their asylum claims effectively. However, the right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point about the role of organised crime. The figure of about 90% that he highlighted has been confirmed by Europol, so the work we are doing with our organised immigration crime taskforce is absolutely right. By getting intelligence to Europol, we are taking action against gangs that, frankly, do not care whether these young people live or die.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have a great deal of time for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Will my right hon. Friend outline the UNHCR’s role in Calais?

[James Brokenshire]

We are working closely with the UNHCR in relation to the resettlement programme, particularly through work in-region to see how unaccompanied children could potentially come to this country. The UNHCR is monitoring the situation in and around northern France but, as far as I am aware, has no formal remit.

Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I assure the hon. Lady that we have regular discussions with the Republic of Ireland Government about issues of security and safety and the operation of the common travel area, recognising some of the shared risks and themes. Indeed, the most recent discussion took place only last week, when I had a conversation with the Irish Justice Ministers. We take these things extremely seriously, recognising the specific issues and challenges that we need to keep in mind, which is why there is open dialogue.

[Bob Stewart]

I am still confused about why Interpol takes months to provide such information when this Prüm organisation can do it in minutes or seconds. Something is wrong. Why is Interpol so incompetent?

[James Brokenshire]

In making his point, my hon. Friend conflates two different things. The Prüm process that we are contemplating is an automatic one: in effect, it is a means, a system or a portal through which member states can search information held by other member states. Interpol processes are much more manual and therefore more intensive, which explains the differences in time. We have obviously considered the issues very carefully. The Interpol arrangements remain absolutely valid, and we will continue to seek further improvements in them, but that does not stand in the way of what has proven to be an effective and fast system that will aid us in the fight against criminality.

Crucially, security, public protection and civil liberties all need to be balanced. I have been very clear about that from the outset. That is why I, along with the Home Secretary, have insisted that searches should be made only against the DNA and fingerprints of those convicted, that UK scientific standards apply before we release any personal data and that both the Biometrics Commissioner and the Information Commissioner will be involved in the process. With the oversight arrangements that have been outlined, drawing in representation from across the United Kingdom, that point remains valid. I believe that we have got the balance right: Prüm will help us to protect the public in a way that fully respects civil liabilities. The National DNA Database Ethics Group believes the same. That is why we have brought the motion before the House today.

I will respond to several of the themes expressed, particularly in relation to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I want to make it very clear to the House that the UK is clear that it cannot support an EU criminal justice system. In any case, Prüm is about making existing co-operation work more efficiently, rather than about creating rules of criminal procedure.

To respond to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry and for Berwick-upon-Tweed, we will look at new proposals in this area case by case. We will put the national interest and the benefits to our citizens and businesses at the heart of our decision making. We will consider each opt-in decision with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting civil liberties, preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system and our common law systems, and controlling immigration. Equally, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that this Government will not opt in to a proposal concerning a European public prosecutor.

On the specific issues of the oversight and role of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—for example, whether it has an impact on the operation of our DNA database—I underline that Prüm decisions are all about the exchange of data, not the manner in which we hold data for domestic purposes. Article 72 of the treaties makes it very clear that how we deal with DNA for our own security is a matter for member states.

On the broader themes of ECJ jurisdiction, I repeat what the Home Secretary said earlier. It is very clear that we are allowed to limit searching to conviction-only profiles. Articles 2.1 and 2.3 of the principal Prüm decision make it clear that we simply need to inform the general secretariat of the Council about which profiles will be made available for searching under Prüm. In terms of imposing a higher scientific standard before we release personal data, article 5 of the principal Prüm decision makes it clear that the process for following up a hit is subject to national law, not EU law.

Points have been made about whether there is evidence of benefits, and I think reference was made to anecdotal data. I would highlight the results of our pilot: about 2,500 pilot crime scene profiles were sent to four member states, which yielded 71 scene-to-person matches and 47 scene-to-scene matches. Those hits involved a wide range of crimes, including rape, sexual assault and arson, as well as domestic and commercial burglaries. That again highlights the real benefits that have been shown by the measure.

Riot Compensation Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to remember Malcolm Wicks, and the steps that he took in his community. That is reflected by the hon. Members who represent Croydon today and who are following through on that tradition of representing their constituents at what was an extraordinarily difficult time. That shows how we as Members of Parliament can respond and be community champions in seeking to provide aid and assistance to our constituents at times of significant trouble in their lives. The right hon. Gentleman is right to remember those who have served this House with dignity and honour in achieving that, and I underline what he has said.

We recognise that change is needed, and in keeping with the overall objective of modernising riot compensation arrangements, the Bill simplifies the definition of a riot that is to be used when determining claims. Currently, decision makers must consider the definition in the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, and the Public Order Act 1986 when determining whether individual claims should be considered as relating to a riot. The Bill would introduce such simplification, for which there is a clear need.

If the Bill is enacted, guidance will be produced to better inform decision makers about how to apply the right definition. That will help when dealing with more difficult scenarios, such as whether all members of a riotous group must have entered a building where damage occurred in order for it to meet the definition. There will always be claims that are likely not to qualify, and guidance must be included to enable decision makers to weed out opportunistic claims. We are clear about the need to provide further guidance, which we hope will assist with that.

[Bob Stewart]

Huge damage was done in areas such as Tottenham and Croydon, but in Beckenham just three businesses were damaged. The riot was not as big, but those affected suffered just as much. When we define a riot, we must be careful about the language we use so that those people can be included in compensation arrangements.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend rightly makes a point about the need for certainty and clarity, and that is precisely what the Bill provides. Clause 1(6) seeks to achieve that by reference to the 1986 Act, and it is right to provide the sense of certainty outlined by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Tottenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North mentioned the need to inform the public about this issue, and if the Bill is enacted we would produce guidance to inform the public about the process and entitlements in the Bill, and subsequent regulations.

There has been some debate about why the Bill seeks to set the cap at £1 million. Alternative proposals were considered, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South has captured well the analysis that informed his thinking, which I know is based on research. Such a cap would have dealt with around 99% of claims made after the 2011 riots. We have also discussed the fact that the Bill does not provide cover for consequential loss. The independent reviewer thoroughly considered that issue when considering recommendations, but believed that that would be a step too far in a Government scheme. We agree with that analysis, particularly given the potential impact on the public purse, which is likely to run to tens of millions of pounds. The Bill is not intended as a catch-all, but it was right to raise the issue of its inter-relationship with insurance. This is intended as a safety net, not as an alternative to insurance provision.

We have touched on how the Bill would seek to cover motor vehicles—an issue that, as we have heard, could not have been captured by the original 1886 Act. Again, the cover is not intended to replace insurance, and any claims would be checked to ensure that the vehicle was maintained in full compliance with the law. My hon. Friend has struck the right balance in bringing forward those provisions.

The Bill would also make provision for a riot claims bureau. It is not intended for a bureau to be in place for every instance of rioting—for example, it would not be efficient to make such arrangements where a small-scale disturbance occurred that was perhaps confined to one force area. Experience has highlighted the approach that should be taken to allow for a speedier, more efficient and effective response. The Bill provides for that flexibility, as well as allowing for further regulation.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham talked about how the arrangements would differ from those in the past. If the Bill were to proceed, our approach would be to create regulations setting out the detail of the bureau. The Home Office has had discussions with the insurance industry, police and loss adjusters, and I anticipate that there would be a management board made up of relevant experts, overseeing contracted loss adjusters who would have the capability and capacity to respond quickly. Again, that reflects some of the lessons we have learned.

Humanitarian Crisis in the Mediterranean and Europe

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Wednesday 9th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The Royal Navy and Border Force continue to provide support to the efforts of Operation Triton to save lives in the Mediterranean. HMS Enterprise is also supporting the effort against trafficking, identifying those vessels that are linked to people smuggling. On 22 and 23 August, HMS Enterprise contributed to a major rescue of migrants in the Mediterranean, working with the EU-led mission, which saved about 4,400 people in a single day. It is contributing as part of a wider network of vessels and is absolutely playing a role in dealing with the immediate issues in the Mediterranean.

I want to move on to how we will ensure that the resettlement programme works effectively. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will hold their first meeting on Friday to discuss the arrangements and the Home Secretary will update the House next week. We are listening to the representations of the devolved Administrations and local government, and are keen to ensure they are reflected in our proposals. This is not only about speed and delivery, but about ensuring that the support we provide is effective and will deliver the welcome that we all want to see for those who arrive here. That point was highlighted by a number of Members.

We will continue to work with our European partners to solve the immediate issues, but the EU needs to deal collectively with the causes of the crisis, not just its consequences. That can be done only with a comprehensive solution. That is why we need to continue to build stability in source and transit countries, and to develop economic and social opportunities by targeting development aid and increasing investment. We need to continue to assist those who are in genuine need of international protection and swiftly return those who are not.

We also need to tackle the organised crime networks that facilitate people smuggling. Organisations such as Europol have an important part to play in that and we are working closely with them to put in place the intelligence flows that are needed to go after the people traffickers. Equally, we must understand the way in which those organised crime groups are using social media, so that we can disrupt them and take direct action against them.

[Bob Stewart]

Is any effort being put into the fractured society in Libya, perhaps through aid or money, to get it to try to stop the boats leaving its shores?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are working at a number of levels to create stability in Libya, which will be a key part of the solution to the problem of these flows across the Mediterranean.

The UK has a strong history of protecting those who flee persecution. We granted asylum to about 12,000 refugees last year alone and have resettled from overseas more than 6,300 refugees over the past 10 years in direct co-operation with the UNHRC under our gateway programme. We have granted asylum to more than 5,000 Syrians since the start of the humanitarian crisis. That is in addition to providing protection to people under the UK’s Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme, which was launched in January 2014. That scheme has made a life-changing and potentially life-saving difference to hundreds of the most vulnerable refugees, including women who have been subject to abuse, children traumatised by war and those in need of specific medical assistance. Again, that scheme will be extended after the Prime Minister’s announcement earlier this week.

The Government have made clear their view on the relocation of asylum seekers within the EU on many occasions. We think that it is the wrong response and will not take part in a mechanism for relocation within the EU, whether temporary or permanent. We judge that criticism of this decision misses the point. All member states in the EU have a duty, both moral and legal, to provide refuge to those who need it and to provide the support that those people require. Many member states have not done that and it is time that they stepped up to the plate.

On the issue of notification raised in the motion, the Government will keep the House fully updated on this issue. The Home Secretary is due to provide a detailed update next week, and through our transparency agenda we have committed to providing quarterly data on the vulnerable persons relocation scheme. We see no reason therefore formally to lay a report—

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The review process does not provide for that, but the consultation on the code of practice that governs the arrangements is open until 30 January, so there will be an opportunity for further representations to be made on the details of how the power would be used in the context of the code. That includes the details of the initial, immediate review by the senior officer and the 72-hour review by a further senior officer, followed by the submission of a report to the chief constable.

[Bob Stewart]

My children have three passports: French, Swiss and British. Is there any provision enabling someone whose British passport is taken away to be prevented from using another passport? I am sorry; that may be a silly question, and we may not be able to provide for such a power.

[James Brokenshire]

The Bill is, of course, a wider subject than the amendment, but my hon. Friend may wish to consult paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1, which defines a passport as

“a United Kingdom passport… a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom”,

or

“a document that can be used (in some or all circumstances) instead of a passport.”

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, he will recognise the challenges. He is right to underline the significance and to reiterate what I said on Second Reading—that security and liberty should be mutually reinforcing. His point about it not being a zero sum game is well made.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who speaks for the Opposition, identified a list of 10 points, and I will do my best to respond to some of them. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) underlined the role of sensitive categories of person and additional safeguards that may be provided in respect of them when we consider communications data and the ability of the police to request such data. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) pointed out, we are looking at metadata—who said what to whom, when and where—rather than the content.

It is clear from the contributions that we have heard that gaps in communications data capability have a serious impact on the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to carry out their functions—the point that was made clearly by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and the shadow Minister. One such gap is internet protocol address resolution. The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 maintained our lawful data retention regime. It did not create any additional powers, nor did it address any of the gaps in capability. To respond to the point made by the hon. Lady, we remain confident about the manner in which it did that in seeking to address the points raised by the European Court of Justice.

Clause 17 amends that Act—DRIPA—to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time. Every internet user is assigned an IP address to ensure that communications service providers know which data should go to which customer and route it accordingly. Addresses are sometimes assigned to a specific device, such as a broadband router located in a home or within the work environment, but they are usually shared between multiple users—hundreds or even thousands—and allocated automatically by the provider’s systems. Many providers currently have no business reason for keeping a log of who has used each address. It is therefore not always possible for law enforcement agencies accessing the data to identify who was using an IP address at any specific point in time.

The provision would ensure that these data are available to law enforcement. It would improve the ability of the police and other agencies to identify terror suspects who may be communicating with each other via the internet and plotting attacks. It would also help to identify and prosecute paedophiles, organised criminals, cyber-bullies and computer hackers, and to protect vulnerable people. For example, it could be used to identify a child who has threatened over social media to commit suicide. The IP address has direct relevance to all these issues and it is evidence that can be brought before the court. In the context of the previous debate, it is often instrumental in bringing prosecutions. Communications data are used in about 95% of all serious crime prosecutions, so they have a direct utility.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Just a question to the Minister—does this also apply to medical in confidence communication between, say, a doctor and a patient, and documents being intercepted, or am I totally out to lunch, as it were?

[James Brokenshire]

I am not sure that my hon. Friend would ever be out to lunch, particularly at 3.26 in the afternoon. I think he is talking about interception. The clause is about the connection, the metadata—about who communicated with whom—rather than the content of the communication. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke specifically about interception and the way in which certain protected categories of individual may be affected. My hon. Friend highlights a specific point, but I will come on to communications data, DRIPA and the codes of practice, and the status of certain individuals in respect of requests that may be made for that information.

Amendment 5, as the hon. Lady explained when she moved it, seeks to limit the scope of the provision to the retention of data that is necessary to allow the identification of a user from a public internet protocol address. I am pleased to say that there is no difference of principle between us on this issue. It is important that this provision goes no further than necessary to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time.

I can confirm that the provision is already limited in the way the Opposition propose. Subsection (3) defines the data to be retained as data that

“may be used to identify, or assist in indentifying, which internet protocol address, or other identifier, belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.

As such, any data that cannot be used to identify, or assist in identifying, the user of an IP address are already outside the scope of the provision. A requirement to retain the data may be imposed only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so.

On the hon. Lady’s specific point about web logs, I can assure the Committee that the Bill is already tightly drafted. In particular, clause 17(3)(c) excludes so-called web logs. It provides for the retention of data relating to IP resolution, and only such data. Anything else is already beyond the scope of what the clause permits. Accordingly, although I entirely agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Part 4 and schedule 2 deal with aviation, maritime and rail security. For the benefit of the Committee, I will go through each of the provisions, listen to right hon. and hon. Members’ contributions and then respond to their questions. I welcome the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to the Opposition Front Bench. He has taken a close interest in these issues.

Clause 18 provides a new legal basis for the operation of authority-to-carry schemes, which are commonly known as no-fly schemes. We have a scheme in place that relates to passengers being carried to the UK. The clause makes provision for a broader scheme that relates to individuals who are arriving or are expected to arrive in the UK, and individuals who are leaving or are expected to leave the UK.

Authority to carry is necessary to prevent the entry or return to the UK of foreign nationals who pose a terrorism-related threat and to mitigate the threat of an attack, primarily on aircraft. It is also necessary to disrupt the return to the UK, and prevent the departure from the UK, of British nationals who are subject to legal restrictions on their travel. Under the clause, any scheme must set out the carriers to which it applies and the classes of individuals a carrier may be refused authority to carry to or from the UK. Classes of individuals may be specified in a scheme only if it is necessary in the public interest. When travelling to the UK, that could include persons who are excluded or have been deported from the UK, individuals whose presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good, and those who would otherwise be inadmissible to the UK. It may also include individuals subject to a temporary exclusion order under clause 2.

When travelling from the UK, carriers might be directed not to carry individuals subject to a TPIM or a post-custodial licence preventing travel following a conviction for a terrorism-related offence. The scheme may also include individuals who have had their passport cancelled or not issued on public interest grounds, or seized under powers in schedule 1. Any scheme must set out the process for carriers to request authority to carry, and state how that authority is granted or refused. That may include requirements for carriers to provide passenger information by a certain time before departure, or for carriers to be able to receive information that grants or refuses authority to carry in a way compatible with the Government’s border system.

We will work with carriers to resolve any compliance issues, but if a carrier fails to comply, clause 19 provides regulations to impose a civil penalty on those who breach a scheme. The new regulations set out how a penalty will be calculated, imposed and enforced, and must provide a means for carriers to object to a proposed penalty. The regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, and the authority-to-carry scheme to which the regulations refer must be laid in Parliament at the same time.

Clause 20 makes provision for schedule 2 to the Bill. Part 1 of schedule 2 amends passenger, crew and service information relating to aircraft and ships, and may be extended to international trains through secondary legislation. Paragraphs 1(2) and 1(3) mean that a carrier may be required to be able to receive communications about information that it has provided to the border authorities in a way compatible with the Government’s border system. That might be a simple receipt, or an alert about errors in the format of the information.

Paragraphs 1(4) and 1(7) of schedule 2 allow the regulations to introduce requirements for advance information about persons on flights or voyages to and from the UK that do not operate to a published schedule—collectively referred to as “general aviation” and “general maritime.” The regulations will set out the classes of ships or aircraft to which they apply, the information required, the time by which it must be supplied, and how it is to be supplied. That will allow a much clearer picture of incoming and outgoing traffic and the identification of aircraft and ships that require close attention from the border authorities. Those paragraphs also provide for regulations to impose a civil penalty for a failure to comply with new requirements to provide information. The regulations may set out how a penalty will be calculated, administered and enforced, and make provision for an appeal.

[Bob Stewart]

The Minister has not mentioned this so far, although I assume he will come to it, but is it correct to say that if a carrier brings someone to this country whom we do not want to come, not only will it receive a civil penalty, it has a responsibility to take that person back to whence they came immediately?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will realise, provisions in the Bill overlap with other issues and provisions. He will be aware of sanctions that are already available and establish penalties for those who have no lawful authority to be in the UK, and of the checks that are obliged on people to ensure that appropriate visa or other requirements are in place. These measures build on that and there are established processes for the return of individuals who should not be here.

The new transport security provisions in part 2 of schedule 2 build on existing powers and enhance our ability to respond effectively to transport-related terrorism threats. They amend transport security legislation to strengthen existing powers and require certain security measures to be implemented before an operator may operate into the UK or, in the case of ships, a UK port. The schedule makes similar provisions for services in the aviation, maritime and rail transport industries.

The schedule inserts provisions into the respective aviation, rail and maritime statutes enabling faster collection of security related information from operators. It provides enabling powers to make regulations, imposing a wider range of methods for electronic service of security directions or requests for information, to ensure that security directions become effective in the shortest possible time. In addition, it inserts a power into the Aviation Security Act 1982 for the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce civil sanctions for non-compliance by the aviation industry, with information requests or security directions subject to the affirmative procedure.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

With the leave of the House, I hope to respond briefly to a number of points that have been raised in the debate this afternoon. I welcome the broad support that the order before the House has received on all sides, reflecting the cross-party focus on the security of this country and the desire to see that our citizens are protected appropriately. I recognise that and I recognise a number of the comments that have been made.

I wish to underline my commitment to observe the courtesies of the House in respect of the release of information to the Speaker and the Opposition, and to assure the House that it is my clear focus and intent that information is supplied appropriately to Members, and that details are provided to the Opposition at the same time as orders are laid. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) recognised that I responded promptly when I was made aware of her point of order on the Floor of the House earlier this week. I give that assurance to Mr Speaker and to right hon. and hon. Members because I take the processes and proceedings of the House extremely seriously, and it is important that we adhere to them. I assure the hon. Lady that no prior authorisation was given by Ministers or special advisers in relation to any of the matters to which she referred. We are still examining the facts and circumstances of the case that she drew to the attention of the House.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he did not mean to say that a special adviser would give authority to anyone?

[James Brokenshire]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard the point that the hon. Lady made earlier. I was responding specifically to her point, which I have sought to address in correspondence as well.

On the substance of the orders, I welcome the support and the recognition that they fit into the broader approach and our strategy in confronting and combating those who seek to become involved in terrorism by virtue of their travel to Syria, the ongoing conflict in that arena, and the risk posed by foreign fighters. I have already spoken about the numbers that we believe have been involved, and there are foreign fighters across the EU as well who have travelled. A number of foreign fighters are involved in Syria and, as the crisis in Iraq extends further, they may transfer there.

On the point that the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) highlighted in respect of the situation in Iraq, he will have heard the comments of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary over the past few days on this extremely serious situation. The UK supports the Iraqi Government in their fight against terrorism. We are taking action in three areas—promoting political unity among those who support a democratic Iraqi state and stability in the region, offering assistance where appropriate and possible, and alleviating humanitarian suffering. The Prime Minister made clear yesterday the additional funding that was being made available in respect of that last point.

We have made it clear that this action does not involve planning a military intervention by the UK. We are urging the Iraqi Government to take effective measures to organise their security forces and push ISIL back from the areas that it has occupied, while protecting civilian life, infrastructure and vital services. Any action by the Iraqi Government must include an inclusive approach to bring Iraqi leaders together.

Both the hon. Lady and the Chair of the Select Committee referred to Prevent, and to steps that we can take to prevent people from travelling and becoming involved in potential terrorist activity. I will make a number of brief points about that. The Government are giving key messages on not travelling to Syria. People who want to travel for humanitarian reasons risk coming into contact with terrorist organisations, given the parts of Syria that are controlled by extremist organisations. Although today’s debate has focused on the listed organisations, with much of the focus, understandably, on the operations of ISIL, it is important to underline that there are groups such as the al-Nusra Front and other extremist organisations that share the al-Qaeda narrative and the desire to create a global caliphate. People may come into contact with such groups, which have aspirations to attack the west. It is important to understand and recognise the diverse and dynamic threat from Syria, and to acknowledge the humanitarian support provided by this Government—£600 million—in the aid effort. It is important to reiterate, for those who wish to help for genuine humanitarian reasons, that the best way to do that is through the UK’s humanitarian aid agencies that are supporting that effort, recognising the importance that the UK Government place on providing significant financial aid to those in severe need as a consequence of displacement and the ongoing conflict in Syria.

It is important to stress, too, that we are providing targeted messages through Prevent officers and the Prevent programme, highlighting the reasons why travel to Syria is not appropriate and the risks that it poses. Right hon. and hon. Members will no doubt have noted the comments from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball of the Metropolitan police about the role of mothers and family members in extolling the right messages. There are a number of different strands to ensuring that we prevent travel, in addition to measures such as the use of port stops under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, the use of the royal prerogative to take passports away when the intent to become involved in terrorist activities is clear, and indeed the use of deprivation of citizenship—a topic recently debated in the House.

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Centre (Detainee Death)

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

It is right and proper that the ongoing police inquiry is pursued, and that the police should follow the evidence where it takes them. That is the right process. Clearly, we will support them in their ongoing investigations to ensure that they reach appropriate conclusions and, once they have finished their criminal investigations, that subsequent investigations are also concluded. I am certainly very clear that that needs to be pursued robustly and clearly to get to the facts of what has happened.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

All Members of the House are greatly saddened to hear about the death of a woman in Yarl’s Wood. Many of the people in Yarl’s Wood are likely to be victims of the criminal gangs who got them into this country illegally. What measures is my hon. Friend taking to try to identify and deal with those criminal gangs?

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The Bill returns to the House after its consideration in the other place. It was subject to lengthy and detailed scrutiny here in the summer, with 10 sittings in Committee, a Report and a Third Reading, all of which were characterised by a high standard of debate.

Their lordships have now given the Bill the full benefit of their expertise, and I am pleased to say that its main provisions are largely as they left this House, reflecting an acceptance that, however unfortunate this might be, there are a small number of individuals involved in terrorism whom we cannot successfully prosecute or deport, and the measures in the Bill are needed to deal with such individuals.

The Bill returns from the other place subject to 11 Government amendments, which are largely minor and technical changes to clarify drafting and better to reflect the policy intention. I will briefly explain why we have made those amendments, dealing first with Lords amendments 1 to 10 before moving on to Lords amendment 11 and Opposition amendment (a).

Lords amendments 1 and 2 make a small but necessary change to clause 8. The clause provides that the court must, when granting permission to impose a terrorism prevention and investigation measure notice—a TPIM notice—at the outset of the process give directions for a directions hearing in relation to the automatic full review of the case. As the Bill was originally drafted, that directions hearing would have had to have taken place within seven days of the TPIM notice being served, unless the individual agreed to postpone it.

The programming of such hearings is, of course, a matter for the courts. It became clear that the original provision had unintentionally introduced a restriction on the discretion available to the courts to manage similar directions hearings in the control order context. We were therefore asked by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service to make a change to the Bill in order to provide the courts with a degree of flexibility in that respect and to facilitate effective management of court time.

We have therefore amended clause 8 so that the court may programme the directions hearing later than seven days after service of the TPIM notice, if it so directs. Of course, the intention is that directions hearings will be listed within those seven days where possible, but when the court is unable to do so, for example over a holiday period, the amendment will give the court the discretion to list the hearing slightly later.

Clause 8 still ensures, at subsection (5), that directions given at the hearing must provide for the substantive review hearing to be held as soon as reasonably practicable.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

How much later might it be possible to review the decision? The period is one week to start off with, but could it amount to 28 days, three months, or will it be flexible, with the court having the jurisdiction to decide that issue as well?

[James Brokenshire]

It is the purpose of the amendment to give the court discretion, although a practice has been established through the jurisprudence on control orders which informs that process. It is therefore intended to provide the court with the flexibility, as I explained in my introductory remarks.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made some powerful and important points in his succinct contribution.

As I think the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) accepted in her opening comments, we are revisiting a subject that we debated in detail in the Public Bill Committee, when amendments with the same effect were tabled by Opposition Members and the same arguments were made in support of them. As was made clear following the carefully considered counter-terrorism review, despite the aspersions that the right hon. Lady seeks to cast, the Government concluded that it should not routinely be possible under the TPIM system to require an individual to relocate, without consent, to another part of the UK.

The debate in Committee frequently turned to the question of balance—specifically, the balance between protection of individual liberty and security for the wider population. This is an area where there is a very careful balance to be struck, and where views on where the right balance is may differ. The previous Government took the view that compulsory relocation was necessary as one of a wide range of potential obligations under the control order provisions. Our conclusion, as we made clear in January, is that a more focused use of the restrictions available under the Bill, together with the significantly increased funding we are providing for covert investigation, will allow us to protect the public effectively without the need for this potentially very intrusive power to be routinely available. That is where our approach departs from the Opposition’s, and why we are seeking to strike a different balance from that marked out by them.

[Bob Stewart]

The Minister used the word “routinely”. Does he mean that this is something that does not normally happen, but could?

[James Brokenshire]

To be clear, when I say “routinely” I am talking about powers routinely available under the TPIM Bill, accepting that there is a draft Bill that we tabled last week, and the exceptional circumstances when those powers may be available, which we discussed earlier today. Of course, we will be able to use the robust powers in this Bill to disrupt an individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity by, for example, requiring them to reside and stay overnight at a particular address in their locality, so that they can be easily monitored; requiring them to abide by other restrictions on their movements overnight; banning them from areas or places where they might meet extremist associates or conduct terrorism-related activities; prohibiting their association with individuals of concern and requiring prior notice of association with other individuals; requiring them to report regularly to a police station and to co-operate with electronic tagging; restricting and monitoring their financial activities; and limiting their communications to a small number of approved devices.

That is why I say clearly that the TPIM Bill provides robust measures to address the risks posed by such individuals, allied to the additional resources being provided to the police and the Security Service, and that that is the right package of measures to have in place. Indeed, as the House is aware, the director general of the Security Service has told the Home Secretary that he is content that the TPIM Bill provides an acceptable balance between the needs of national security and civil liberties, and that the overall package mitigates risk.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and James Brokenshire

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

This useful debate has given the House the opportunity to discuss an important issue. We made it clear when we introduced our proposals that it was right and proper that the House should have a proper say on the Bill’s provisions relating to Parliament square, and I believe that the House has had that say this afternoon.

There are clearly issues of agreement on both sides of the House. The right to protest is a cherished and important right that the Government seek to uphold, and it is a positive step forward if the Opposition Front-Bench team accept that fact and accept that the draconian approach that in many ways had become their hallmark was a wrong turn. I certainly welcome therefore the comments from the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about scrapping SOCPA, which had a very chilling effect on the right to protest. That is why one of the fundamental effects of the Bill will be to scrap those provisions and to return to treating Parliament square the same, in many ways, as the rest of the country.

The question before us relates to the extent of the right to protest. I think that it has been accepted that it is not an exhaustive right or something that we can do to the nth degree, and that there are limits to the right to protest. In her evidence to the Bill Committee, Shami Chakrabati made that point very clearly. We are discussing the limits to and the extent of that right. We have to take a step back and say, “We have that right to protest, but what is the issue at hand?” The issue at hand is that the right to protest does not mean the right to permanent encampment. That is at the heart of what we are seeking to address and why the provisions in the Bill are structured in the way they are.

I hear those who say that it does not make any difference, that it is not a problem and that we should not be seeking to introduce changes in respect of Parliament square and the surrounding area that contrast with the rest of the country. However, I would make the point that the square has been fenced off for six months to allow remedial and repair work, and has therefore been unavailable, which has clearly affected not just people’s access to it, but the right to protest there. That is why it is important that we examine the issue, and why the proposals in the Bill reflect that approach.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is it not true that the vast majority of the public would think that any encampment outside Parliament should go? I have heard a lot of speeches this afternoon about why it should stay, but the vast majority of our public would say, “Get rid of it. It shouldn’t be there.”

[James Brokenshire]

The act of protest does not by default give individuals the right to erect permanent encampments in Parliament square or on the pavements outside it. That is the essence of what we are proposing. We want to protect the right to protest, but that does not mean that we endorse the permanent encampment that has arisen and that, in essence, has deprived others of access to that space.

I heard the points that the hon. Member for Gedling made about practicability and workability—in some ways he summarised the reasonable discussions and detailed debate that we had in Committee. However, we have had discussions with the Metropolitan police—he will be aware of the exchange of correspondence—and I have spoken to Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens in recent days, in advance of this afternoon’s debate. One of the challenges has been about differences of ownership, between the Greater London authority and Westminster city council, and ensuring that the proper protocols are agreed. However, with those protocols in place, our strong belief is that our proposals are workable; otherwise we would not be bringing them before the House.

I hear the debate about the language and the drafting. The Government recognise that any new law will be robustly tested by determined individuals—indeed, that would be the case for any proposals. We have therefore sought to capture attempts to circumvent the legislation that have been raised with us by the police. However, that necessarily carries the potential of capturing others, which is why we have allowed some discretion, as it is important that the provisions should be used proportionately.

Let me turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I suppose that the debate comes down to the context and this issue of a permanent encampment, which we think is so significant. As we have heard, Parliament square is a world heritage site, surrounded by important historic buildings such as Westminster abbey. Given its location opposite the Houses of Parliament and the limited space, we are seeking to balance the competing and legitimate needs of members of the public who come to the area as visitors or protesters, with those of Members of Parliament and others who need to be able to carry out their daily work and enjoy the space.

The Government are clear that no one particular person or group of persons should take over the area to the detriment of others. Encampments remaining on Parliament square in defiance of the byelaws have caused significant damage to the garden and the space, which has underlined the unworkability of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act thus far. The encampments have required considerable remedial work by the Greater London authority, during which time nobody has been able to enjoy the unique space. In relation to the democracy village occupation, the courts found that Parliament square gardens were not a suitable area for any sort of encampment. More recently, the High Court has said:

“Parliament Square Gardens is not a suitable location for prolonged camping; such camping is incompatible with the function, lawful use and character”

of Parliament square gardens, and

“it is also inconsistent with the proper management of the area as a whole”.

The Government and, I think, most Members of this House and the other place would agree with the court’s findings.

Encampments prevent the public’s enjoyment of this unique location and deter people from visiting the area. They even deter and prevent others from protesting, although I have heard the points that have been made in that regard. Let me stress again that we are not seeking to prevent people from protesting on or around Parliament square. We are not seeking to put time limits on protests or to regulate them in that way.

The package of measures in part 3 is aimed at preventing encampments, at dealing with disruptive activity by anyone on Parliament square and at giving the police and authorised officers of the Greater London authority and Westminster city council powers to ensure that Parliament square can be enjoyed by all. So, for example, anyone who pitches a tent in the controlled area defined in the Bill may be directed to take it down. If they fail to comply with the direction, the tent may be seized and they may be charged with an offence.

I welcome the constructive debate that we had in Committee, during which Opposition Members recognised the problem with the current SOCPA provisions and acknowledged the need for new measures. We have heard this afternoon, however, that some of them do not agree with our proposals and continue to have issues. We have introduced a co-ordinated package of provisions that will link into byelaws to ensure that the issues of displacement that have been identified are addressed.

We have listened and reflected on what has been said, which is why the Government have tabled amendments 57 and 58, which deal with authorised officers using powers of force. We continue to believe that the right of authorised officers properly to manage and support the activities in Parliament square, and people’s enjoyment of the square, requires them to have the ability to give directions and to seize items, but not to use reasonable force, because that is the role of the police. That is why we have tabled amendments 57 and 58. They reflect the point that has been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others inside and outside the House. We believe that the package in the Bill strikes a proportionate balance.

We will continue our discussions with the police, with Westminster city council and with the Greater London authority on the management of Parliament square, and on any moves that might result in more co-ordinated ownership and management of the site. Fundamentally, we believe in the right to protest, but that right does not mean permanent encampments. The measures before the House are proportionate and appropriate, because they will enable those who want to protest to have their say outside the House while ensuring that that does not result in the permanent despoiling of Parliament square.