Cyberstalking
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) for bringing this important topic to the Chamber. The debate is valuable in showing that there is cross-party agreement on the issue, including on the part of the Minister. The debate not only raises awareness of cyberstalking, but ensures that there is a real Government focus on measures taken to help reduce the number of incidents, and to help support organisations that can deal with the issue in a much more co-ordinated way.
[Mrs Linda Riordan in the Chair]
I welcome you to the chair, Mrs Riordan. You have missed an interesting and complex presentation from the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. She made a compelling case for the impact of cybserstalking, not only on women, but across the board. As she said, cyberstalking occurs when someone becomes obsessively fixated on an individual and pursues them through electronic means, causing the victim distress or fear.
Stalking often happened before the advent of the internet and wide-ranging social media, and previous Governments recognised that by making stalking and harassment an offence. However, we are in an electronic age, and as the hon. Lady said, with the growth of a range of social media such as Twitter and Facebook, and of the internet, e-mail and texting, the ability to take stalking from physical to cyber is increasing all the time. We do not know what inventions will come downstream and widen the use of social media. There is clearly a problem that the Government and the authorities need to address.
In research by The Guardian in February 2014, 41% of women reported that a partner or ex-partner had used online activities to track or check up on them, and 37% of women have felt threatened by such behaviour. Facebook and e-mail were named as the most common means of abuse. In January 2014, The Daily Telegraph Magazine reported that prosecutions under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which particularly addresses menacing or offensive behaviour conducted via social media, e-mail, telephone or the internet, had dropped by 30% from 3,108 cases in 2012 to 2,221 cases in 2013. The hon. Lady mentioned that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been passed since the first figure came out, and she mentioned that there have been approximately 1,000 inquiries following the introduction of that legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an overall assessment of the number of potential cases being brought under either the new legislation or previous legislation, so that we get a sense of where we are on the problem.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has reported that 38% of children have been victims of cyber-bullying, which the hon. Lady has made clear is a different issue, but it shows that there is potential for not just women and men but children to be affected. In September 2013, Women’s Aid helpfully surveyed online more than 300 women who have survived domestic violence. The survey found—these are important figures in relation to the points raised by the hon. Lady—that: 45% of women who have survived domestic violence have experienced some form of abuse online during their relationship, including through social network sites or e-mail; 48% reported experiencing harassment or abuse online from their ex-partner once they had left the relationship; 38% reported online stalking once they had left the relationship completely; and 75% reported that the police did not know how best to respond to their concerns and allegations. That includes 12% who had reported abuse to the police and, rightly or wrongly, believed that they were not helped.
There is a real issue, and we need to address the points that the hon. Lady has helpfully raised. What are the agencies doing in response? We have a clear legislative framework that was put in place following pressure from outside the House and with cross-party support in the House, but we need particularly to look at the clear link between domestic violence and online abuse, harassment and stalking. We also need to consider how we can influence and change what are, as she clearly stated, online tools for people who wish to stalk, intimidate, control and coerce women in particular, but also men and children.
The impact on children can be great and long-lasting. A similar Women’s Aid survey showed that witnessing the impact of a parent being cyberstalked was particularly damaging to children’s development and growth, making them anxious or depressed, giving them problems at school and difficulties sleeping, and making them feel isolated and insecure. Cyberstalking is not simply a problem for the person being stalked; the problem extends to the wider family, particularly children.
Nadine Dorries
One of the reasons for that is that cyberstalking often introduces life-changing behaviour in the person being stalked. The children of parents who normally go about their business will observe that their parents, or the person being stalked, dramatically alter what they do in their day-to-day life. They might no longer go outdoors because they are too frightened, or they might change how they travel to work. They might even move house. All that has a very disturbing effect on children. As I stated, causing such behaviour constitutes a crime; a precedent has been set in court. What most victims of cyberstalking do not know is that if their life is being affected in that way, they are able to take legal action against the person who has perpetrated the crime of cyberstalking against them.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting again the impact of cyberstalking, not only on the individual being stalked, by whatever means, but on wider family relationships, particularly with children. As she has made clear, cyberstalking can have an impact across the board, including on a child’s ability to relate at school and with friends. It can also affect a child’s use and development of important social media skills, because e-mail, Twitter and Facebook are important social media that have a positive effect, as well as having the potential to be used in a negative way.
That is important, and it brings me to my first point for the Minister, which backs up what the hon. Lady has said. How are we assessing the scale of the challenge? Is it simply about the number of cases reported to the police? Is it simply about the number of telephone calls made to the national stalking helpline? Is it about referrals to organisations such as Paladin or the Suzy Lamplugh Trust? What is the Government’s estimate of the nature of the problem, and how are they assessing it? What is the Government’s estimate of, and how are they assessing, the response to the legislation that was in place on stalking and harassment generally, and to the legislation passed in 2012 on cyberstalking and the use of social media in particular? It would be helpful if the Minister, as a starting point, gave both his and the Government’s assessment of whether the problem is static or increasing, whether reporting of the problem is increasing or falling, or whether the problem is increasing while reporting is falling. I would like a general indication from the Minister of how he and the Government are assessing the nature of the problem.
I support what the hon. Lady said about the agencies dealing with cyberstalking. The police rightly take cybercrime and e-crime very seriously. They are looking at a range of issues, and we hear continually about how they are addressing cybercrime and e-crime. Given the wide-ranging potential for cybercrime and e-crime generally, internationally and nationally, I would like the Minister’s assessment of where cyberstalking falls within the police’s priorities, because the police central e-crime unit is looking at those issues. What priority does it give to extending good practice to police forces across the United Kingdom? What co-operation is it undertaking with police forces across Europe and the world? How is it relating to good practice and policy? What steps is it taking to ensure that the same recognition is given to online violence and stalking as is given to stalking and potential violence in the community?
Nadine Dorries
This might be a good point at which to drop a piece of information into the debate. The e-crime unit—many forces across the country are not aware of this—now has a direct interface with social media sites. In fact, I think there are two police officers—the number is due to increase—who interface with sites such as Twitter and Facebook. They were not there before, but they are now. The e-crime unit hopes to increase that interface, but the problem is that police forces across the country do not know how to access those officers; they do not have the contacts or know how to get in touch with them. The police officers are there; they have been provided for by the e-crime unit. I hope that the Minister will take that away and consider how to inform police forces. The work is being done; police forces just need to be able to access it.
Mr Hanson
Not quite always. We were born within a month of each other in the same city, so there is obviously some telepathy, and we agree with each other on this point.
Legislation has been passed, and the police force has an e-crime unit. A range of demands on that unit are of extreme significance in the growing drive against crime. I want to endorse and emphasise points made by the hon. Lady. What steps are the Government taking, through the national e-crime unit and through Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan to ensure that all local forces are aware of the unit? What priority is given to cyberstalking in that unit? What are the elements of good practice in the response to complaints made? How many cases are being brought forward? What is the relationship between the police force and individuals when cases are brought forward, and what is the level of understanding? Those are all important issues.
When I was the Minister responsible for policing, I found that it was good to have a national policy, but sometimes the national policy is reflected by the first person a crime is reported to locally, whether in North Wales, Bedfordshire, or our home city of Liverpool. That is where the impact of the national policy is translated at local level. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of those issues.
My second point relates to the criminal justice system generally. It is more than a year since the offences of stalking were introduced. Has the Minister assessed how the criminal justice system understands the new offences and how it responds to victims of online abuse, harassment and stalking? I am not being confrontational, but what is his assessment of how the criminal justice system understands the legislation? What changes has it made since the legislation was introduced? What assessment has it made of its mechanism for prosecuting? How many prosecutions have there been and how many have been successful? What training is offered to the staff in our constituencies who work as prosecutors, judges, and defence barristers? Those issues are important.
The third point concerns something that the hon. Lady touched on. We are talking about predominantly social media, which is not just a UK but a worldwide phenomenon. Facebook, Google and Twitter, all of which I use, and other social media that I do not, are all international. What discussions is the Minister having with our colleagues in Europe, the providers of the services and other nations to ensure we get the right balance between freedom of expression and the regulation of abuse? It is possible for an individual to cyberstalk him, me or the hon. Lady from a beach in California. The focus on the provider, on good practice on their part, and on them having a strong, effective co-ordinated complaints procedure is important, as is legislation in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Lady touched on how someone on social media can be anonymous or have several identities. Again, I do not wish to be confrontational, but there is an opportunity for the Minister to look at how we can get standardised good practice on these issues across a range of Administrations. I would welcome his assessment of whether providers such as Google, Twitter, Facebook and others understand the impact that their social media can have when they are used for cyberstalking or harassment.
Finally, I want to focus on an issue that the hon. Lady mentioned: the assessment of victims’ needs. I do so for two reasons. First, there is the initial assessment when somebody feels they are being stalked through social media—e-mail, Twitter, Facebook or whatever. What help and support is available at the start of their concerns about cyberstalking? This boils down to broad understanding. This is a new issue; when I was first elected to this House 23 years ago, we would not have talked about this issue at all. We would not have talked about Twitter or Facebook; I did not have an e-mail address or a mobile phone, and I did not get texts. All that has happened in 20 years, during my time in this House. What help and support is available to aid our understanding of the issues? Often, the first port of call might be the local Victim Support services at Mold Crown court in my constituency, which might or might not have knowledge of the impact of cyberstalking on an individual. What is the Minister doing to ensure wider awareness of the issue, and to ensure that it is seen to be important for the reasons that the hon. Lady outlined?
The debate has been helpful. I do not have any answers, and I am not trying to be confrontational in terms of the Government’s performance on these issues, but I want to see what their forward strategy is, so that we can look at the assessment of the problem, the capability of the police to respond to complaints, the capability of the criminal justice system to respond and understand the issues, the support available to people who have faced the issue, and the action that providers of social media are taking to address and understand the issue. Those are five key areas, and I am willing to engage on them with the Minister, and hopefully with my colleagues in a future Government.
This issue is important. Cyberstalking can impact on and destroy people’s lives, and it can be done from the anonymity of a Twitter feed, a Facebook page, or an e-mail address established for the purpose, in the United Kingdom, Europe or anywhere in the world. We need to address this, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing the debate.
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing this important debate and on communicating her thoughts effectively and convincingly. I welcome the constructive approach of the shadow police Minister. We have three parties in this debate, and all three speakers are in the same position: we want to deal with this serious matter carefully, sensibly and effectively. We all share the abhorrence that my hon. Friend expressed for the consequences of cyberstalking. The Government has an open mind as to how we take the matter forward. We are committed to tackling cyberstalking. If there are good ideas, from wherever they come in the House, we want to look at those ideas. We have an open door as well as an open mind on these matters. I hope that the shadow police Minister will take that in the constructive spirit in which it is meant.
Stalking, whether it occurs online or offline, is a serious crime that can have devastating and debilitating effects on those targeted, as my hon. Friend eloquently set out. It is a crime that the coalition Government takes very seriously. According to the independent crime survey for England and Wales for 2012-13, after the age of 16, stalking affects 4% of women and 2% of men a year. It can affect many people in many different circumstances—incidents of stalking can take place within the context of a violent relationship or after a brief relationship, and it can involve a casual acquaintance or a complete stranger.
Victims of stalking may be affected in many different ways. They may lose their home, their family, their friends and their job in a bid to escape a persistent, fixated stalker. The most extreme outcome may be homicide or suicide. Everyone has the right to feel safe and secure and to live their life without feeling threatened or intimidated, and without being spied on. Victims of stalking have those fundamental freedoms taken away from them.
Both my colleagues referred to legislation and to enactment, and it is right to deal with both aspects. I will deal with legislation first. The Government is absolutely clear that what is illegal offline is illegal online. Cyberstalking is simply a term that describes a way to stalk a victim—using the internet—and it is therefore covered by the legislation. If people behave online in ways that would be unacceptable in any other context, there must be consequences. In 2012, we introduced two new stalking offences, which by definition include cyberstalking. We are determined that those who engage in such reprehensible behaviour are brought to justice.
My hon. Friend made a powerful case that stalking online is, in some ways, more debilitating for the victim and more damaging than it might be offline. She drew the helpful and pertinent comparison between poison pen letters, which could be called the offline method of stalking, and online stalking, with its potential impact and the ability of the internet to makes things available to far more people. Online stalking can therefore be more damaging than offline stalking—she made that point powerfully, which law enforcement agencies and the Government need to take on board.
Cyber-smearing, as my hon. Friend called the practice, is indeed more serious than poison pen letters. She was also right to say that anonymity is more possible online than it is offline. That can be more threatening and give perpetrators the appearance of having more power than they have offline, where they may be identified. People may therefore behave more outrageously and unacceptably online than they would do otherwise. The Government treats online and offline crime equally as crime, but I personally accept her point that online stalking can be more serious. We have to reflect that fact in how we approach the matter. I am grateful to her for making the case.
In answer to one of the questions asked by the shadow policing Minister, data from the Crown Prosecution Service’s report on violence against women and girls, published in July 2013, indicate that up to June of that year 91 prosecutions had been commenced under the new stalking offences. The legislation is still of course relatively new, and we will continue to monitor its use closely and carefully to ensure that it is effective and appropriate. He also asked about the number of potential cases yet to be brought forward. Police-recorded crime figures from April 2014 will give a clearer picture of stalking, because it is now separated from harassment.
Norman Baker
I mentioned that 91 prosecutions had been commenced, but I do not have the figure for whether the outcomes were successful. If I can rustle up that figure during the debate, I will give it to the Chamber. Otherwise, I am happy to write to the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend with that information.
Both the Members who have spoken in the debate rightly raised the issue of training. Legislation is not enough; it is only useful if it is effective and used, and if those who have the duty to act under it understand how it works and are sympathetic to it. The police, the criminal justice system, the front-line practitioners and industry all have a role to play in tackling the appalling crime of stalking, and we are working with them to increase awareness. For example, the Home Office has developed a one-day training course to improve understanding of stalking among those who come into contact with victims. The package was developed in partnership with Women’s Aid and the Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service.
In addition, the College of Policing has developed a training package on stalking and harassment, which last year won the silver award for “excellence in the production of learning content” at the national 2013 e-learning awards. The training package is available to all police officers and staff. Furthermore, all newly qualified police officers—uniformed officers, investigators and public protection officers—are expected to complete it. It has been completed 48,000 times by the police since October 2012.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I have already established twice in my answers what is going to be completed during this Parliament by the time of the next general election. My hon. Friend is a member of the Home Affairs Committee and has obviously heard Sir Charles Montgomery, the director general of Border Force, give evidence on a number of occasions. One of the points Sir Charles has made in his evidence is that we have been increasing the amount of advance passenger information available to us so that we now have 80% coverage in all transport and more than 90% coverage in aviation.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The official Opposition and I support exit checks. I wonder whether the Home Secretary has read what the Deputy Prime Minister has said:
“I have for some time been concerned with the urgency with which the Home Office is seeking to implement the coalition agreement commitment that I personally insisted on, that exit checks should be restored…Do I think, given what I know now, that new exit checks will be in all exit places by 2015? I think that is unlikely”.
For once, I agree with Nick—does the Home Secretary?
Mrs May
I share the Deputy Prime Minister’s concern to ensure that we are able to provide for the commitment that we made in the coalition agreement that we would introduce exit checks. By April 2015 we will have enabled exit checks to take place for those who are leaving the UK by scheduled international travel by air, sea and rail services.
Asylum Seekers (Support)
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Brokenshire
The UK has a proud history of granting asylum to those who need it, and the Government are committed to providing support to those who would otherwise be destitute while their claims are being considered. The payment levels to asylum seekers need to be considered as part of the overall support package. Accommodation—plus utilities such as gas and electricity —is provided free.
I do not accept my hon. Friend’s characterisation of the assessment process. A detailed assessment was concluded last June and, indeed, we will carry out a further assessment of levels this year to take into account relevant factors and to assess whether there should be any change. I can certainly assure her that we will consider these matters very carefully.
My hon. Friend makes various comments on the judgment itself. It is a very detailed judgment—it runs to about 90 pages and the Home Office is analysing the detail carefully and, indeed, whether we will be appealing it.
The Home Office takes its responsibilities in respect of asylum support extremely seriously in setting the rates and considering what is appropriate. We believe that it does provide support to enable those who seek asylum and who are destitute to see that their claims are decided, and that support is given to them during that process.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for raising the issue, which, as she mentioned, is about the basic level of support given to those fleeing torture, rape or oppression and who seek asylum in the United Kingdom.
Given that the rate was frozen in 2011 and has now been frozen through to 2013-14, yesterday’s judgment was damning. The Home Secretary was ordered to review the amount of money given to support asylum seekers after the High Court ruled that she had used insufficient evidence in deciding to freeze those payments. In his judgment the judge said the decision was “flawed” and that the Home Secretary
“misunderstood or misapplied information which she treated as important in reaching her decision.”
He added:
“In my judgment the information used by the Secretary of State to set the rate of asylum support was simply insufficient to reach a rational decision to freeze rates.”
In the judge’s view, the rates involved
“a reduction in real terms from what was regarded in 2007 as the base minimum level necessary to avoid destitution.”
Remember, Mr Speaker, that these are individuals who cannot work. In the light of that, will the Minister—he has hinted at this—indicate whether he intends to appeal that decision? If he does intend to, will he tell the House how much has been spent to date on legal costs in defending the decision to freeze the rates and how much he expects to spend on any appeal? Will he estimate the number of individuals who are involved? The judge yesterday mentioned some 23,000, but I should welcome confirmation. I should welcome confirmation also on how many of those 23,000—if that is the figure—have children who now face destitution because of the freeze.
If the appeal is made and is not successful, will any new rates be applied from today, or from 2011? What estimate has the Minister made of the impact of any unsuccessful appeal on the level of rates?
Does the Minister agree with what the hon. Member for Brent Central asked for, which is what Refugee Action and, indeed, the Refugee Council, which I spoke to this morning, have asked for, namely a wider examination of the review of and support for asylum seekers—not failed asylum seekers, but asylum seekers fleeing torture, oppression, fear or intimidation, and who cannot, I remind the House, work?
What assessment has the Minister made of those currently in receipt of assistance who now face this freeze? Has he made any assessment, in particular, of the impact on children? Will he ensure that he urgently reviews recommendation 82 of the Home Affairs Committee’s unanimous report of 11 October last year, which asked for a review of section 4 support? How many asylum seekers does the Home Secretary’s Department believe cannot now buy enough food to feed themselves, as referred to in that report? How many asylum seekers does her Department believe missed a meal because they could not afford to eat? How many asylum seekers does her Department believe do not have money to buy clothes?
Mr Hanson
Before the hon. Lady says any more, I have a right to ask those questions of the Minister. The Home Secretary’s decision making has proved to be flawed. Will the Minister now address that issue, or will there be a return to what a Minister—a Minister in her Government—described as the Conservative party being the nasty party on these issues?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s encouragement. As I have said, in the past nearly four years, I have seen growing concern on free movement among European Union member states. The UK has raised and pursued the matter. We are now working with other member states, particularly on the abuse of free movement, but we need to look ahead to future accession treaties, and the terms in which free movement is included in them.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said that the Government would get net migration down to the tens of thousands by 2015, “no ifs, no buts”, and yet this month, the figure has risen to more than 212,000. The question is simple. Will the Government meet their net migration target—yes or no?
Immigration Bill
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter. I do not accept her description of what we are putting through in this Bill. We are not asking for a blank cheque. There are specific and limited circumstances in which the power would be used, which I will describe to the House. We are not suggesting that we put the United Kingdom into a situation that it has not been in before. We are suggesting that we put the United Kingdom into the situation that is required by the UN convention to which it has signed up. A decision was taken a few years ago to go beyond that UN convention. We think it is right to go back to the UN convention.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Home Secretary knows that we are dealing with complex and serious issues, so will she explain why she tabled the new clause 24 hours before Report without consulting any outside bodies? The situation is such that we have had to table manuscript amendments to deal with serious concerns about it. Will she explain why she is acting with such urgency today, rather than allowing for consultation before introducing a measure in another place that could then be examined by both Houses?
Mrs May
If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall set out why we thought it was necessary to table the new clause and how we have considered the matter. I accept that the Opposition have tabled manuscript amendments. While I wait to hear what he will say about them, if there are specific concerns, I will be willing to consider them and, if necessary, address them further in another place.
The new clause is a consequence of a specific case. The power to deprive on conducive grounds is such that even when I consider the first and arguably the most important part of the test to be met—that it would be conducive to the public good to deprive—I am still prevented from depriving a person of their citizenship if they would be left stateless as a result. That was the point explored in the Supreme Court case of al-Jedda.
Mrs May
I thought that I had provided some clarity in the answer that I gave the right hon. Gentleman earlier. The law will be limited to naturalised citizens and will not apply to anybody who has British citizenship by any other means. The action would be taken against the naturalised British citizen, not their child.
Mrs May
I recognise that there are consequences, and they have been considered. The circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman mentions are if the child was in the United Kingdom and their parent was elsewhere conducting activity that was seriously prejudicial to the United Kingdom. That would be considered on a case by case basis—there would not be a tick-box, mechanistic approach. All circumstances would be looked at in considering whether it was appropriate to apply the new power to an individual. There are safeguards within the proposal, such as the seriously prejudicial nature of the activity that an individual must have undertaken.
I had not quite finished my response to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) when I allowed the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to intervene. I repeat the response that I gave earlier to the former: the law will apply only to those who are naturalised, not those who are British by birth or those who acquired citizenship under other provisions of the 1981 Act, such as those that provide for children to acquire British citizenship. I hope that I have perhaps made that clearer to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras.
Mrs May
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee on any specific case, but the Bill will make it easier for us to deport foreign criminals. It clarifies the interpretation of article 8 in a way that will make it easier for us to deport foreign criminals. It ensures that foreign criminals can be deported first, unless there are particular circumstances in the country to which they are going, and appeal against their deportation afterwards. However, on people who have been convicted of a crime and who are in our prison estate, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is working hard with Home Office immigration enforcement people to ensure that we can remove more foreign criminals to their country of origin in a number of ways, such as through prison transfer agreements.
The House shares the concern that we should be able to deport more foreign criminals. The Bill strengthens our ability to do that. I would not wish to see it weakened in any way. As I have said, I have concerns with some aspects of new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, because it could weaken our ability to deport more foreign criminals. However, I recognise that he has sought to strengthen the language in the Bill. The public want an immigration Bill that strengthens our ability to deport foreign criminals to get through Parliament. That is a shared aim. I believe that that is what the Bill, as drafted, does.
Mr Hanson
The Home Secretary spoke for just over an hour and a half, but at the end of her contribution I am still not clear on key aspects of the Government’s proposals. I am not clear whether the Government as a whole have a united position on them. Do the Liberal Democrat members of the Government have a different view? The interesting proposals in new clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), are yet to be considered the Government in a full and frank way.
I want to mention measures on which I agree with the Government, as the Bill does contain measures that the official Opposition support. On new clause 11, the Home Secretary has our full support for her proposals to tackle sham marriages. Sham marriage is a serious problem. The Home Office estimates that 4,000 to 10,000 applications to stay in the UK each year are based on sham marriage or sham civil partnership—the Minister for Crime Prevention and I discussed this extensively in Committee. That is a significant number of cases and action is needed.
New clause 11 deals with the situation in Northern Ireland and Scotland, which the Opposition raised in Committee, and contains measures we support. We can support the measures on same-sex marriage, on which we sought clarification in Committee. New clause 11 is welcome, and the Opposition support it.
As I have mentioned, we have four and a half hours for the debate. The Home Secretary took one third of that time for her opening contribution. She explained the issues, and I look forward in due course to listening to hon. Members’ concerns. I will try to take less time than her, but I have some things to say.
I reach out a hand of friendship on new clause 12. The Opposition will not oppose it today. It is reasonable to try to recoup charges from individuals who use our services, but we might disagree with the Government, because we believe we need to improve those services. As the Home Secretary has recognised, we need to ensure that the charges do not deter the brightest and best, and those with skills, from coming to work here to create jobs and growth in our economy. We need to ensure that they do not deter students. I am afraid that Government policies currently deter students from coming to the UK. We need to ensure that we do not turn away people who will contribute strongly to our community. The tourism economy is particularly important. We need to ensure that the level of charges, which we will discuss shortly, does not damage investment in our economy through tourism.
The Opposition have three concerns. The Home Secretary devoted around 45 minutes to new clause 18. I accept and understand that it deals with a serious problem. We are dealing with people who are undertaking activities—terrorism—that are of great concern to the state. Having been a Home Office Minister in the previous Government dealing with terrorism and counter-terrorism activity, I understand the need to examine those matters. I should tell the Home Secretary clearly that it is not acceptable, at least as far as the Opposition are concerned, to bring a major new clause to deal with that to the House 24 hours before the debate on Report and Third Reading. We have only four and a half hours to debate important issues, including European accession—the Opposition and the Government have different views on that, but it is valid to discuss them—new clause 15 and the concerns of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton. I tell the Home Secretary that that is not the way to discuss sensitive issues such as taking steps to deprive individuals of their citizenship.
I have listened to what the Home Secretary has said on a number of measures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) has concerns. Others, including the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) and, dare I say it, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) have raised pertinent issues of concern. However, we have less than three hours to reach conclusions on these major measures.
Mr Brazier
The right hon. Gentleman makes a legitimate point about time. Putting the detail aside, in the kinds of cases raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee, where people abroad are believed to be—in some cases they are found to be—in arms in opposition to British interest, should we or should we not make it easier to have their citizenship removed and their ability to return to the UK ended?
Mr Hanson
As a Minister in the previous Government who dealt with terrorist activity and looked at terrorist plots and the information to which the Home Secretary is now privileged, I know there are circumstances where the Government need to address serious issues. The question I put to the hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary is this: new clause 18 was tabled 24 hours ago and there has been no consultation—[Interruption.] The Minister for Immigration says that it was tabled on Tuesday, but it was published yesterday morning; the first sight of it was then. A range of outside groups would like to examine the consequences of the proposed legislation, yet today the House of Commons is expected to approve it. The Opposition want to reserve judgment on some of the details that have been mentioned. We want to look at the measures, take advanced legal advice and consult outside bodies, which the Government should be doing, so we can consider the implications.
Jeremy Corbyn
Is what my right hon. Friend saying on new clause 18 not indicative of the whole approach to the Bill? It has not been adequately debated anywhere. Most of it will be not be debated today and it will pass through this House unexamined. The Bill will have appalling consequences for an awful lot of things in society, not just the new clause he is discussing now.
Mr Hanson
I have to say to my hon. Friend, with the greatest of reverence for his long service in Parliament, that the Minister for Immigration and I spent far too long in Committee on this matter through most of October and November, and we are doing so again today. There has been discussion and division on some of the measures in the Bill.
New clause 18 was published yesterday morning. The Immigration Law Practitioners Association sent a brief at 4 am today. That was the first opportunity it had to put down its views on this matter:
“The amendment on the order paper on 29 January 2014 and on that date we first had sight of the Government’s European Convention on Human Rights Memorandum pertaining to the clause. We do not attempt to address herein the complex questions of the present day effects of the UK’s declaration”,
and in the light of that it will have to look at the matter when it comes to another place. The ILPA may or may not have valid points, but we are 24 hours from passing a serious piece of legislation. We had a long period in Committee. The issues relating to the al-Jedda judgment of summer to autumn 2013, which the Home Secretary mentioned, have led to her introducing these measures. We will have to look at them in detail. This is not a good way to place such an important issue, which has the potential to impact on people’s liberty and citizenship.
Dr Huppert
The right hon. Gentleman is right that we discussed some of this at great length in Committee. I share his view that there should be more pre-legislative scrutiny. This Government have done more than previous Governments, but there is much more to do. I also share his concern about amendments and new clauses being tabled only two days ahead of time. Does that mean that he and his party will ensure that Opposition day motions are never tabled just a day before debates? That would make it easier for all of us to read them.
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman politicises a point I am trying to make about process. He knows how Opposition motions are drawn up and he knows that they do not have the same impact as legislation. The proposed legislation will have the effect of depriving citizenship. If an Opposition motion is voted on and defeated one thing will happen: there will be political noise about an issue. This is about the deprivation of someone’s citizenship. We may, ultimately, make the judgment to support the Government, but this is an important point about process that I think we need to make.
Mr Bone
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. I agree entirely with his comments and it is unusual for the Home Secretary to be filibustering her own Bill. Where does he think the Government could have learned these tricks? Could it have been from the Blair Government?
Mr Hanson
I was honoured to serve for 12 years in the Blair Government and I do not think we filibustered that much.
The Home Secretary addressed some issues relating to new clause 18, but they still need to be examined in detail. For example, what definition does she have of “seriously prejudicial”? Who applies that definition? What type of person does she expect to lose citizenship? How many individuals does she expect to be impacted by this?
So late in the day was the new clause tabled that we have had to table two manuscript amendments this morning, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and me, that include the potential for discussion on judicial oversight. The Home Secretary touched on her role and responsibilities relating to judicial oversight, and we need further clarity on that. In the winding-up speech, whether delivered by the Home Secretary or the Minister of State, I would welcome a view on our amendments. Judicial oversight would give us some comfort on whether this is an appropriate measure to take, given the seriousness of removing someone’s citizenship.
Rehman Chishti
The shadow Minister raises concerns about the short notice given on the content of today’s debate. He also makes clear his expertise, having served in this area in the previous Government. Under the previous Government, five British nationals were stripped of their nationality. Will he clarify what happened to them? Were they sent back to their country of origin or not? Does he accept that there was a defect in the existing legislation and that we need to move forward with the new proposed legislation?
Rehman Chishti
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, the shadow Minister is absolutely right that in 2005 I was a member of the Labour party. Soon after that I left the Labour party because, like everyone else, I was fed up with it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
That is so clearly not a point of order. In three years in Parliament the hon. Gentleman clearly has not got the hang of it yet, but he has got his point on the record. May we please now return to the very important issues in the Bill?
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I note the custom in the House to give notice before making personal remarks involving another Member. Does that include this case?
Madam Deputy Speaker
With respect, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) has, having heard the remark, replied to it. I think we have a score draw there, so shall we continue? And that’s not a point of order, either.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
In passing, may I say that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) has exactly got the hang of it?
The Opposition spokesman mentioned the need to have proper judicial oversight, and his manuscript amendment attempts to provide for it. I have some sympathy with the amendment, although probably not enough to vote for it. Given what he is saying now, however, why did the Labour Government, of which he was a member, bend over backwards when passing asylum and immigration legislation and do their absolute damnedest to avoid judicial oversight?
Mr Hanson
Lots of things are learned by experience, but this is an extremely serious issue. If the hon. Gentleman sees merit in our manuscript amendments (a) and (b), he should, between now and 4 o’clock, discuss that with those on his Front Bench, because I do not want to divide the House on such serious issues concerning the rights of individuals and the protection of people in the UK. I just think there is an issue here: this matter was brought to our attention late, and we want to ensure judicial oversight. I hope we can deal properly with the issue in another place, with full support and after full consultation. Let us discuss this matter genuinely.
Mark Pritchard
The shadow Minister is entitled to ask legitimate questions about the Bill, but does he agree with the principle of new clause 18, without necessarily knowing all the details at this stage?
Mr Hanson
The principle is the deprivation of the citizenship of individuals who are naturalised, and that might be a positive thing, but we would need to consider it in detail. We have only had 24 hours. I want to consider the legal implications, as well as the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. We need to look at judicial oversight and when and how notice should be given. We also need to look at what rights individuals have to appeal and what happens if someone is in another state when the decision is taken. What should be the responsibility and response of that other state? What should happen to the family? These are important issues which we need to cogitate and reflect on, and to return to in another place.
John Hemming
I have looked at cases of people who have had their citizenship withdrawn while they have been out of the country, and there is a big issue about people becoming aware of a decision to remove their citizenship and having an opportunity to challenge it. Does the shadow Minister accept that although his objective is an improved procedural protection, his proposal runs the risk, in certain circumstances, of reducing it, because by the time someone finds out about a decision, the matter will have already gone to court, on an ex parte basis, and a decision will already have been taken? Perhaps it would be better left to judicial review, with the person having an opportunity to challenge a decision when they become aware of it.
Mr Hanson
My objective is the same, I think, as the Home Secretary’s, which is to protect the British people from potential terrorist activity at home and abroad. That is a key joint objective.
New clause 18 raises complex issues on which a range of individuals will have a view, but on which there has been no consultation outside the House. Let us look at the manuscript amendments and consider whether we could tighten up the process so that we are all content, and we will reserve judgment until we reach another place, at which point I hope we can reach a conclusion that meets our objectives.
Mrs May
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the time to consider the new clause, and I am happy for the Government to have discussions with him to set out in more detail how it would operate. On that basis, I hope he will consider not moving his manuscript amendments, although obviously, following those discussions, the Opposition could come back to them in another place, if they felt it necessary.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her accommodation, and obviously we will reflect on her comments. This is an important issue, which is why we tabled the manuscript amendment. It is unusual for such amendments to be taken, so—I should have done this before—I would like to thank Mr Speaker for accepting it at this late stage. We tabled it so late simply because the new clause was also tabled late.
Sarah Teather
Has the shadow Minister noticed an anomaly that concerns me and on which I hope the Home Secretary can give some clarification? It appears that if someone applies for variation in leave, that leave is protected if their administrative review is pending, but not if they appeal.
Mr Hanson
That is another issue. Our amendment 1 would remove clause 11 from the Bill and allow the Government to reflect on the concerns raised by the hon. Lady—she speaks from the Government Benches, but I appreciate that she has an independent frame of mind—and on those expressed outside, in evidence to the Committee, and by my right hon. and hon. Friends about the impact of abolishing tribunals on the sort of people currently having their appeals upheld. Individuals are having their appeals upheld at tribunal, but under clause 11 such appeals will not be possible. Our proposal is either, in amendment 1, to remove clause 11 or, if the Home Secretary cannot accept amendment 1, in new clause 13, to provide for an assessment beforehand so that we can consider this matter in detail.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I am coming to my final point, although I have only spoken for half an hour—considerably less time than the Home Secretary took. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton has a range of support for his new clause 15, and in due course I will want to hear again what he has to say about it. Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I want to see foreign criminals deported. That is right and proper. I was pleased, as well as doing counter-terrorism, to serve under my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in the Ministry of Justice. He went to Vietnam to negotiate a deal to deport terrorists and prisoners there, and I went to Nigeria to do the same. We also negotiated a deal with the EU for it to accept foreign criminals, which the Government are now implementing and from which they are reaping the benefits. We have an interest in ensuring that foreign nationals living in this country who commit crimes and go to prison serve a sentence and then are ultimately returned to their home state.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a fundamental difference between deporting foreign criminals and deporting suspects?
Mr Hanson
There is, and we can explore that in due course, but I want to focus on the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, as the principle of removal is a reasonable one. Let us look at some of the tests that the Home Secretary talked about. I am not one to do this very often, but let me give credit to the Home Secretary: she is trying to make progress on a couple of issues in relation to existing legislation to try to improve the process of deportation. We have given our support to do that, but that process has not yet been developed, examined or evaluated. There is scope for us to look at whether what the Home Secretary has proposed is right and proper and is put into effect.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton has a long history inside and outside this House of dealing with these matters, but there are still some concerns on the Opposition Benches about the measures that he is proposing, not because we do not want to deport foreign criminals, but because we want to do it in a way that maintains our integrity in relation to the convention on human rights and our integrity with our European and world colleagues. I say that because in relation to a similar amendment that he tabled to the Crime and Courts Act 2013, I have seen a note that perhaps I should not have seen—
Mr Hanson
I am going to. It is from the Home Secretary to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), who happens to be the Prime Minister. In the note, on the hon. Member for Esher and Walton’s amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill, the Home Secretary said that the amendment
“would be incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the ECHR… Nevertheless if this amendment passes both Houses of Parliament and becomes law the Secretary of State will be required to act in accordance with it and make deportation orders notwithstanding other ECHR obligations. This would significantly undermine our ability to deport foreign criminals.”
There are real issues that need to be explored. The Bill restricts appeals against deportation that use the right to a family life in article 8. We have supported the Government’s efforts to do that. There are foreign criminals who have committed serious crimes whom we cannot deport and who have used article 8 inappropriately, but the new proposals have not yet been tested in the courts. We support the Government’s view that the proposals in the Bill should be implemented and that gives us grounds to have severe scepticism about supporting the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. What I am not clear on is whether the Home Secretary shares that scepticism, whether she intends to allow the new clause to go forward, or whether she intends to block, support or abstain on it. I would welcome clarification by the time the hon. Gentleman has made his points.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman, whose judgment on these issues I value acutely, referred to leaked Government correspondence. What is his position on whether my hon. Friend’s proposals would contravene our responsibilities under the ECHR?
Mr Hanson
I have served with the hon. Gentleman on a number of Committees. We have had useful and positive cross-party discussions. I say to him honestly that we have taken legal advice and we believe that the proposal would put us in contravention of ECHR responsibilities. The Home Secretary, I think, has had the same advice and the Home Secretary, I think, shares our view. The question for the Home Secretary is whether she wishes to exercise her judgement today or at a later date.
Mr Brazier
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. We have had a valedictory speech from Lord Judge, the previous Lord Chief Justice, in which he stated very clearly that it is time for it to be made clear which is the supreme court of this country: our Supreme Court or the court in Strasbourg. Does he have a view on that?
Mr Hanson
I am dealing with the practicalities of the issue before us today. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer, I will say that the ECHR is a valuable tool and we should uphold our obligations within it.
Provisions in new clause 15, according to our legal advice—I think it is shared by the legal advice that the Home Secretary has received—could cause more difficulties and breach our ECHR responsibilities. Those issues are to be tested, but we are left saying that if this is pushed to a vote we would potentially be looking at not supporting the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, depending on what he says. We will see in due course.
Mr Hanson
I will do so, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have served on Committees and whom I greatly respect, that I have had just over half an hour. The Home Secretary, for a range of reasons, talked for one and a half hours. I am trying responsibly to set out the view of the official Opposition so that Members can form a judgment.
Dr Huppert
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Before he finishes, will he comment on my amendment 74 about writing into law the end of child detention? Does he share my pleasure that this will now happen and that it will stop any future Government doing what the last Government did and detaining over 7,000 children within five years, including for 190 days? Is he pleased about that change?
Mr Hanson
I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s judgment on most issues, but that could be looked at. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) attended discussions yesterday on this matter and we will look at those matters in detail.
We are not the Government today; we are the official Opposition, on behalf of whom I say that we have severe concerns about new clause 15 and about the process and potential implications of new clause 18, but we will reserve judgment on that. The issue of the removal of tribunals is one that we need to address and to delete from the Bill. We need to look at some of the other issues before we give the Home Secretary unqualified support.
After many weeks of discussion, we have an Immigration Bill on which the Government appear to me, as a simple Front Bencher, to be in chaos on some of the key issues on which they will be judged. We must judge the Home Secretary on what she says, but there are real issues that need to be resolved. I would welcome hearing from the hon. Member for Esher and Walton why he believes that his proposal will not breach the ECHR on these matters. With that, I conclude to ensure that hon. Members have an opportunity to contribute.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I wish to speak to new clause 15 and amendment No 62 in my name and that of 105 other hon. Members from across three parties in this House. Subject to the will of the Chair, of course, I intend to press them to a vote to test the opinion of the House.
I welcome the engagement and consultation with officials and Ministers over what has been a two-year period, and with Opposition Members. I think what the shadow Minister said was code that they are going to abstain and I welcome that as well.
Mr Hanson
My gut instinct at the moment is not to support the hon. Gentleman by actually voting against him. I want to hear what he has to say and I also want to hear from the Home Secretary on whether there are further measures that we could jointly take to tackle the curse of foreign criminals not being deported in an appropriate way that meets our ECHR obligations.
Mr Raab
I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention, which was a very elegant way of sitting on the fence again.
The problem with which the new clause and amendments would deal results from the judicial expansion of the right to family life under article 8 of the European convention, which allows serious foreign criminals to evade deportation. It is, I think, common ground that the Strasbourg Court has steadily eroded United Kingdom deportation powers over the past few decades, but the tightest fetters have come from the UK courts as a result— rightly or wrongly—of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Mr Straw
On 24 November 2003, a young girl aged 9, Amy Houston, was killed on the west side of my constituency of Blackburn by a man driving a motor car, Aso Mohammed Ibrahim. He was an unfounded asylum seeker with no basis for remaining in the United Kingdom, and at the time of the motor accident had a number of convictions for driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. He received a relatively short prison sentence for causing death by careless driving. Thereafter, he developed a relationship with a woman in my constituency who already had two children by other men. He then went on to commit further offences.
When the Home Office made efforts to deport Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, he resisted them on article 8 grounds. The matter went before a tribunal, which found in his favour. I was Justice Secretary by that time, and I spoke to the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who ensured that a vigorous appeal was mounted in respect of that tribunal judgment. A new appeal was established, but that too was lost. Principally, it was lost on the ground not of Strasbourg law but of the way in which the British courts had widened the basis of article 8 beyond that of Strasbourg in order to protect individuals in this situation.
Knowing far more about the background of the case than ever went before the tribunals, my opinion was—and remains—that that man had abused his position in this country and set out to develop a relationship with a woman and have children with her solely in order to evade deportation and immigration controls. It is a matter of regret to me and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle that the courts appeared to endorse his wilful decision to evade those controls.
It is for those reasons that I, and those on my Front Bench, strongly support the amendments to the law that appear in clause 14 of the Bill. I have great regard for the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), and I have talked to him at considerable length about the merits of his new clause. I am also listening carefully, as I said I would, to the debate today. I have no difficulty with seeking to direct the British courts towards a different conclusion from that towards which they are currently directed by the higher domestic courts in this country. That is also the purpose of clause 14.
I do have a problem, however, with the House knowingly deciding to legislate in a way that the best advice suggests would be incompatible with convention rights. That is because I am a strong supporter of the European convention on human rights. If the House wishes to decide to leave the convention, or to abrogate individual parts of it, it should seek to do so explicitly, rather than through an amendment of this kind. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has thought carefully about this matter, but it is with regret that I shall be unable to support his proposal today.
I also want to say a few words to those who think that this is all about the Human Rights Act. I was the Minister responsible for the Act, and I am proud of it. I hope that I will not cause the Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), too many blushes if I say that I remember his courageous maiden speech in the House, in which he spoke out in favour of the Human Rights Bill, as it then was. Those on his Front Bench voted against the Bill on Second Reading, but by the time we reached Third Reading they had come round and wished the Bill well.
Mr Hanson
Given that the Attorney-General is in his seat, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate for him to help us by telling the House what advice the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and the Home Secretary have had on this measure? In that way, he could provide clarity to enable us to discuss the matter formally.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
The Leader of the House has announced the business and the time available for the Immigration Bill on Thursday. I recognise that there are a significant number of Government amendments. They are mainly small and technical but, like my hon. Friend, I would prefer that we did not have to bring so many technical amendments to the House at this stage.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Today, on behalf of the official Opposition, I have signed new clauses 7 to 10 to the Immigration Bill, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and several other Conservative Back Benchers, which would strengthen future European Union accession arrangements. Given that new cross-party consensus, will the Home Secretary join us in supporting those new clauses on Thursday?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman must wait and see what happens on Thursday, but I have looked with interest at the amendments tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). I am pleased there is agreement across the House that we must take action in future on accession countries, and the number of people who may be coming to the UK from those countries.
Immigration (Bulgaria and Romania)
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nigel Mills
I think I am grateful for that intervention. It is not for me to answer for the Backbench Business Committee; my hon. Friend has more experience of that Committee, so perhaps he can explain later.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment to the Immigration Bill, which was last debated on 19 November. Although the Bill has completed Committee stage, there is no date, even in today’s business statement, for when the Bill will be brought back to the House of Commons. Does he regret that his party’s business managers did not give him that opportunity?
Nigel Mills
That is the point that I was alluding to. It would have been better to have had this debate during consideration of the amendment to the Immigration Bill on Report, so that we could have dealt with the issue on the Floor of the House before the restrictions were lifted, which, sadly, is likely to happen in less than two weeks’ time. However, I am afraid that House business management is even further above my pay grade than the machinations of the Backbench Business Committee, so it is probably not wise for me to be drawn on that subject.
The right hon. Gentleman takes me to my first theme. The Minister and I—alone, sadly—have debated this topic before, at Committee stage. A month has passed, and a few things have changed. I was the lone signatory to the amendment at that point, but more than 74 MPs have now signed it for Report. A few of the facts have probably changed since then as well; obviously, there was already a petition with more than 150,000 signatories, but since that point, we have learned that despite the Government’s many welcome measures over the course of this Parliament, net migration rose in the last year, which causes concern to those of us who are committed to our manifesto promise to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands. Can that be achieved, especially if large numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians take advantage of the lack of restrictions? The Government have made a series of welcome announcements of policies to tackle immigration. Welfare measures were introduced to Parliament yesterday.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Benton, and your co-Chair, Ms Dorries, for sharing today’s proceedings. The debate has been interesting and has generated some important issues that we need to reflect on, and I welcome the opportunity to do so. In particular, I welcome the fact that today I have learned about, if nothing else, the new year’s eve and new year’s day arrangements of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). In itself, that has been illuminating—that was said before you were in the Chair, Mr Benton, but they are spending new year’s day morning at Luton airport to check on the immigration status of arriving individuals and their destinations accordingly.
I also welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) brought the debate to the House. We had a similar debate on his new clause in the Immigration Bill in Committee on 19 November. We completed consideration in Committee on that day, but the Bill has still not returned to the House—according to today’s business statement, its return is not planned even for the first week of January. The hon. Gentleman has, however, tabled another amendment to the Immigration Bill for consideration on Report.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the new clause tabled by the hon. Gentleman. The debate on it will be an interesting one to have—in essence, it will be the same as today’s. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others who have referred to the new clause, however, that that is still primary legislation. For the measure to take effect, the Bill would have to complete its passage through the Commons and another place and, even then, as the Minister said in Committee on 19 November:
“The only way of doing so would be to negotiate a change to those treaties. Given that this would require the unanimous agreement of all member states, including Bulgaria and Romania, the Government’s judgment—which I think is the right one—is that there is no prospect of achieving it.”
Mr Hanson
That is perfectly correct. The new clause is trying to unpick treaties that are the responsibility of Government to negotiate. Primary legislation would not impact on that. Even the hon. Member for Amber Valley said in Committee a little later that
“trying to get this country to breach various treaties it has signed is probably not a very sensible way of pursuing our diplomatic mission, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2013; c. 401-02.]
I say that simply because the issue is important, and we need to address it, but I am not clear that the new clause or having the debate before or after Christmas would change the fundamental position.
Nigel Mills
For clarification, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that I was saying that trying to do that in a Committee of a dozen or so MPs was not the right way forward. It was better for the whole House to consider it.
Mr Hanson
My contention still stands. Having said that, we have had a calm and rational debate, which is the best way in which to approach the issue—in a calm and measured way. I agree with the approach taken by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), at least in the first half of his speech, on some of the benefits that wider immigration can bring to the United Kingdom.
In response to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone)—I say this on the record for the House—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) have said clearly that mistakes were made in 2004 when transitional requests and controls were not put in place. It is a reasonable presumption to say that now. It is something that I am aware of, although at the time I was dealing with other matters in Government, and we have to accept that difficult, challenging and mistaken decisions were made at that time.
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman should accept that, as the Front-Bench spokesman for my party in this Chamber today, what I am saying on behalf of my party is in support of what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, that we made some mistakes in 2004. Those mistakes had consequences; we should have interrogated the numbers further and we should have looked at the possible impact both culturally and economically over that time. I know that the combination of immigration and inadequate labour standards in many cases meant that there was a pressure on wages and employment; some of the jobs that came into the country through economic growth were taken by people from outside the United Kingdom. I know from my own constituency in north Wales that there are pressures even now on the labour market and on cultural issues, because of that immigration.
Mr Ellwood
As the right hon. Gentleman is in confessional mode, perhaps I can encourage him to recognise as well that, even once the gates were open, the reason why so many chose to come to the UK was simply the benefits system—people could come here straight away, not even bother to work and gain benefits immediately. Does he agree that that was also a mistake back in 2004?
Mr Hanson
That was, which is why in March of this year my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), on behalf of the official Opposition, suggested the measures that the Prime Minister introduced only yesterday—some 14 days before 31 December, when transitional controls for Romania and Bulgaria expire.
Lest we think that the problem is now solely an Opposition one, let me quote what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) said in 2005, on 24 November, in the debate on the accession for Bulgaria and Romania:
“There is broad cross-party agreement on the objective of bringing Bulgaria and Romania into the European Union…The Conservative party has always been an enthusiastic supporter of enlargement, whether that has involved the 10 states that joined last year, or Bulgaria and Romania, or Turkey and Croatia.”
There are no Liberal Democrats present in the Chamber today, but in the same debate the Deputy Prime Minister said:
“I should also like to join in this festival of cross-party consensus, which I trust will be a rare, if valuable occasion.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2005; Vol. 1641, c. 1716-18.]
Keith Vaz
My right hon. Friend is taking absolutely the right approach. Another feature of the previous Government, however, was that Ministers constantly went to visit their EU counterparts and engaged in a dialogue about what was happening concerning enlargement. Does he agree that what we should have seen in the run-up to the restrictions being lifted is British Ministers going to see their Romanian and Bulgarian counterparts to look at the push and pull factors and to work out what could be done to assist?
Mr Hanson
That would be valuable. We have to have some positive dialogue. Statements have been made in the Chamber today that paint a picture of people from Bulgaria and Romania in one particular category—not all individuals are in the categories referred to today by some hon. Members. We need to look at what measures we can put in place before 31 December, including those the Opposition have suggested in response to the issue.
Members have mentioned a number of issues. There is potentially downward pressure on wages, because of people being undercut. There are recruitment agencies recruiting solely from eastern Europe, which was mentioned again by the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood and for Christchurch (Mr Chope). There are pressures on certain economic markets run by gangmasters with minimum wage, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley); people are coming to this country because they believe that a £4 or £5 an hour wage packet is better than a £2 an hour equivalent wage packet in their home country. Whatever happens on 31 December and whatever numbers of individuals come to the United Kingdom, I therefore want to see a real focus by the Government on enforcement of the minimum wage as a starting point. We need to put some effort in, not only through Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, but by looking at the possibility of giving local authorities the power to enforce the minimum wage, so that we can have greater enforcement, potentially stopping the undercutting of wages that the hon. Gentleman and others have referred to.
We need to look at enforcement of the Equality Act 2010. The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned recruitment from eastern Europe. It is illegal to recruit individuals based on their race or nationality under that Act, but it is not widely enforced. I have discussed that with the Minister and he has agreed to look at it and refer it to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Mr Hanson
I am glad the Minister has done that, because I recently gave chapter and verse in the Immigration Bill Committee on a number of recruitment agencies that are recruiting to fill positions in the United Kingdom solely with people from abroad.
We need to take greater action on the enforcement of housing regulations. Only yesterday, I was pleased to see the Prime Minister—again, I give credit when it is due—visiting a raid on a beds-in-sheds encampment in Southall. One aspect of immigration that greatly upsets my constituents in north Wales is when individuals share properties in squalid conditions and so are able to undercut wages locally, because the low standard of their accommodation means they do not have the outgoings that other people have. We also wish to look at extending legislation on gangmasters. It is perfectly reasonable to put controls in and extend gangmaster legislation to sectors to which it does not apply at the moment, such as catering and tourism.
There is action that we can take, but—and this is not intended to provoke a political fight—I genuinely do not think that the approach that some hon. Members are taking, of arguing that the transitional controls should be extended beyond 31 December, is the right one: we know, as do they, that that is a matter for treaty negotiation. Nor do I think, speaking with genuine humility, that the approach of withdrawal from the European Union is one that I can support. The European Union provides significant investments to constituencies such as mine. It also provides significant employment and a proper standard of working conditions across the board.
Furthermore, although this might not be a common thought at the moment, just under 100 years ago my grandfather was fighting Germans, Romanians and Bulgarians in the trenches and Turks in the middle east. But now, we have not had a world war for a generation and there is a stability that would surprise my grandfather if he were alive today. People from Germany, Romania, Bulgaria and Britain now sit in the same chamber to discuss issues of common economic and social interest whereas in his generation Europe was at war. That view of the European Union and the potential of a strong future Europe might not be a common one, but it is one that I hold passionately.
Mark Reckless
I am sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman’s grandfather was fighting the Romanians during the first world war, because I understand that Romania was on the allied side in that conflict.
Mr Hanson
My grandfather was fighting Germans and Bulgarians, but let us put that aside. He was in the trenches at Neuve Chappelle in 1915 and at the Somme in 1916, and in Sinai in 1917. He was fighting people who now sit in the same Parliament here and elsewhere in Europe. That is good for the stability of Europe. Perhaps I made a slip, but the point I am making is that the stability we have gained, through a wider economic union and through shared social conditions, is a good thing. Hon. Members have stated we should withdraw, but in my view that would be a bad thing.
We need to look at how we can put labour market conditions in place after 1 January to strengthen our position. I would also, if I may, stretch out a hand of friendship to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, who made a strong case for looking at other areas of immigration, including student immigration, tourism and business investment. There may not actually be that many people coming from Bulgaria and Romania in January at all—whether to claim benefits or to work—but the danger is that today’s debate could send a signal that Britain is closed for business, when there is a positive case to be made for some aspects of immigration and for managed migration. However, we need to have controlled migration, to remove people who are here illegally and to ensure that we have strong borders. We also need to ensure that we deport foreign criminals, as the hon. Member for Kettering said; I have to tell him that since my time as Prisons Minister, the rate of removal of foreign national offenders has fallen by 13.5%.
There are things that we can and should do, but we should approach the matter in a calm and measured way on 1 January. I also look forward to a calm and measured debate on the remaining stages of the Immigration Bill.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller
I recently took my family to St Symphorien and had the privilege of seeing John Parr’s grave—it was a moving moment for us all. We are working with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to trace families of other men buried at St Symphorien, and we very much hope that a number of the families will be able to attend the event. We would welcome any help in tracing the families involved.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
My grandfather Harry Hanson’s first taste of combat in the first world war was in March 1915 at Neuve Chapelle, where he fought alongside thousands of Indian troops who to this day remain buried in France. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that we will celebrate the role of Commonwealth troops, particularly Indian troops, during this first world war celebration?
Maria Miller
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the significant Commonwealth dimension to our commemoration of the first world war. It is most fitting that the first event, which will follow shortly after the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh next August, will involve Commonwealth leaders.
Immigration
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Turner
If the hon. Gentleman listens a moment or two longer, he will find that I come to those points.
No one ever thought to ask the British people whether they wanted what happened. Plans and policies were concealed, and mass immigration happened by stealth. One can only speculate whether Tony Blair would have been swept to power had he gone into the 1997 general election saying, “I will oversee an unprecedented increase in immigration.” Perhaps not—but now we must deal with the consequences of his policy.
Other hon. Members and I sit in our surgeries listening to tales of people living in overcrowded social housing or being on the waiting list for years with no hope of ever getting a home. It is no coincidence that with high net migration, from 2002, there was an increase of more than 60% in social housing waiting lists. Foreign nationals now occupy 8.4% of the housing stock, and among those aged 16 to 40 the figure is 12.6%. On the Isle of Wight we have a relatively small immigrant population, and overwhelmingly those residents work hard and make an important contribution to the community—indeed, they are an important and integral part of it. However, that is not the case everywhere.
I have lost count of the number of people who have told me that they moved to the Isle of Wight because they no longer recognised the places where they grew up; that now, in streets where their grandparents lived, no one appears to speak English; and that they moved to get away from ghettos where they felt they no longer belonged. The effects of mass immigration, mostly into our cities, are felt even in rural areas such as the Isle of Wight. We must recognise that.
I am thankful that the Government have begun to make a difference. They have made progress in cutting immigration from outside the EU. They cracked down on the abuse of student visas, unjustified family visas and—I am glad to say—bogus marriages. However, they have been unable to close our borders to a huge influx of EU nationals who can come whether or not there are jobs and homes for them, schools for their children or doctors and hospitals to care for them. Many British people believe that that must come to an end.
I have recently, in the words of one of my staff, joined the 21st century: I have signed up to Twitter and exchanged views with the intriguingly named Wight Car Tipper. I tweeted that we should extend transitional arrangements for Bulgarian and Romanian nationals and that our Government should have control of our borders. Wight Car Tipper asked me whether I thought his daughter, who has a French passport, should be able to live in the UK and retain the rights she currently has. I replied that it depends on the circumstances. Presumably, with the fine name of Mr Wight Car Tipper, her father is British, and in that case I think that she should be able to come and live here. However, I do not believe that foreign nationals from the EU or elsewhere should have the same rights as a British citizen, and I strongly believe that our Government must have the right to decide who can live and work here.
There is a fine British principle of fair play—of not getting something for nothing, and of making a contribution to society before being entitled to benefit from it. That principle must be applied to those who come to the UK. Someone who has only just arrived cannot have contributed to society. Some people claim that we need more immigrants to pay the pensions of an ageing population. That, of course, glosses over what happens when the immigrants get old—it is simply an argument for an endless influx of new migrants.
I am grateful to see the Minister here to respond to the debate, and extremely pleased that the Home Secretary has recognised at least part of the problem. She has suggested that free movement for future accession countries could be controlled, and that future member states should reach a certain economic threshold before full free movement is allowed. However, that would not deal with the current treaties that we have signed, or the issues that we will face in only a few weeks.
The Government are seeking to deal with some of the problems—the things that attract those who want to come to the UK to take advantage of our generous welfare system—but that approach does not deal with the basic right of so many foreign nationals to live and work here. They have those rights regardless of how overcrowded our island becomes, or how many of our own people are unemployed.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
How many British citizens live and work in Europe at the moment, and how many of them would be affected by the proposals that the hon. Gentleman contemplates?
Mr Turner
That is entirely up to the Governments of those countries. I feel that they should have the right to determine that issue for themselves, just as we should for our country.
The Government must try to deal with the concerns of many British people and, indeed, many settled and integrated migrant communities—those who recognise that we simply cannot retain an open-door policy for all current EU citizens. We need a more nuanced policy that is controlled by our elected Government and that works in the interests of the British nation.
In 1973, we signed up to the treaty of Rome, which established the free movement of people across the then common market. Let me be frank: it was a rich man’s club, and the number of people coming to the UK was small. In 1975, net migration was 3,000. Since then, the club has expanded to places such as Croatia, where the average wage is a 10th of that in the UK. It is hardly surprising that people there want to move to the more prosperous parts of the EU.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on allowing us one and a half hours of parliamentary time to debate a very important issue. You will have seen, Mr Howarth, that it is clearly a complex and multilayered issue. We have had discussions about the importance of integration and of the impact of European migration, but we have also heard very strong contributions about the need for business, for students and for tourism. We need to reflect on all those in any positive response to the debate that we are having today.
I start by echoing what the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) said in what I thought was—I hope I will not upset him by saying this—an excellent contribution: that immigration has benefited the United Kingdom over many centuries. People have come here to build our biggest companies, to create our national health service and to win our sports prizes. I am struck by the fact that we are meeting just off Westminster Hall, which was built by William Rufus, the son of an immigrant, in 1098. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have a proud history of contribution from immigration, but I also say that we need to examine the fact that real concerns and tensions are caused by some of the issues that have been raised and accepted here today.
I hope that I can help to assuage the fears raised by the hon. Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), for Braintree and for Isle of Wight by saying that, yes, mistakes were made by the previous Labour Government. If I may say so, however, I do not think that it was as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said. There was no mass plan for increasing multi- culturalism, but I think that there was a willingness and a wish to ensure that we had a positive approach to eastern Europe.
Under the communist yoke, that part of Europe was not free, not engaged in free-market economies, not trading with us and not developing some of the economies in which we are going to invest resources for the future. That was the case for many years, so I think that there was a willingness. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and others have said that there was a lack of transitional controls that should have been, potentially, put in place, and that that has created some community tension. But let us not say that it was in total a bad thing, because I think that we do have some very positive benefits from migration generally.
I can look at my own constituency. The biggest employer there makes aeroplane wings with contributions from French, Spanish, German and British workers. Only last week, there was a £30 billion order for aeroplanes for my constituency. The neighbouring constituency has the site of the Toyota factory—a Japanese factory managed in my area by Japanese staff, creating employment for people in my constituency. Kimberly-Clark in my constituency is also a major employer in my area. That is an American-based company with American staff helping to invest in that company. Immigration brings wealth, prosperity and businesses, but it also brings challenges, as has been expressed.
Particularly in view of the potential for Romanian and Bulgarian immigration from 1 January—like the Minister, I do not know what that figure will be—we must look at labour market issues associated with the exploitation of those who come to this country to work. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) touched on those issues as being important.
I want the minimum wage to be strengthened to stop exploitation. I want local authorities to step up enforcement, and I want fines for non-compliance to be increased. The Prime Minister and the Minister have alluded to the potential for a move in that direction. It is not acceptable for wages to be forced down in this country by immigration from eastern Europe. I want gangmaster legislation to be strengthened and extended to areas such as catering and tourism, which it does not cover at the moment.
Mr Andrew Turner
The right hon. Gentleman is making some fair points. The question that he has not yet answered—he has another five minutes in which to do so—is whether those decisions should be made here in the UK or there in Europe.
Mr Hanson
I am a believer in a wider Europe, and I do not think we should retrench into the position that the hon. Gentleman has set out. We might look at what changes are needed, but our position in the European Community is a strong one for our markets. We may disagree on the matter, but that is my view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central mentioned recruitment agencies. As we discussed in the Immigration Bill Committee, there are websites on which people try, in contravention of the Equality Act 2010, to recruit staff solely from eastern Europe or, increasingly, from southern Italy. I do not think that that is fair or right, and we should look at measures to outlaw such recruitment. In my constituency, local people cannot access vacancies in certain factories because staff are recruited solely from eastern Europe. That has to be wrong, and we should deal with that labour market issue.
We must strengthen and enforce housing legislation. I believe that the Minister agrees, because he has mentioned beds in sheds. We need to end the practice of shifts of people in the same accommodation sleeping for eight hours, working for eight hours and spending eight hours on the street, as happens in my constituency and in many others. We must take action to tackle that, because it undercuts the UK labour market and exploits those who come here legitimately for work.
We must also focus on the positive aspects of immigration. I have had representations from businesses—I even met some this morning—through London First and others. They tell me that, as the hon. Member for Cambridge and my hon. Friend have said, we need to attract people from the student community abroad, to ensure that they not only bring fees and spending power to the country but carry the good will of this country with them into their future work. The Prime Minister of Malaysia, or the future chairmen or chief executives of businesses abroad, will look back on their time in the UK with fond memories. That is an unseen export that we should contribute towards.
In addition to attracting students, we must also focus on tourism. I discovered last week that Chinese tourism is worth £103 billion to the rest of the world, but in this country we benefit from only £300 million of that amount. We need to increase our share of that market. To give credit where it is due—I try to be fair—the Prime Minister has tried to do just that. We must not ignore the fact that immigration is not only about eastern Europe; it is about opening our borders to allow people to get in for tourism purposes and to spend their money. I agree that we also need to look at business issues, which are important. If someone wants to come here to invest £1 million or £2 million in creating a business, we must allow them to.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes that integration is extremely important. In many of our towns and cities, including my constituency, the sudden influx of people speaking different languages in supermarkets and on the streets has created tensions, which I hope will ease with time. We must look at how we can maximise the benefits of Europe while having fair and appropriate immigration controls.
That leads me to say that we must ensure that we have strong borders. The report “The Border Force: securing the border”, published yesterday by the Public Accounts Committee, raised some criticism. No one says that the problem is easy to deal with; it was not easy when we were in charge and it is not easy now. We need to look at strong border controls. We need to ensure that those who have been through the system and have failed the residency test are removed from the United Kingdom in a fair way. We need to ensure that people who come here integrate and speak English and that we have a proper and effective immigration system.
I do not think, however, with due respect to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and some others who have spoken today, that closing our borders in the way they have described by repatriating powers would be a good thing. I do not think that putting up a “Britain is shut” sign will help the economy or the residents of the country, however long they have been here, in the long term.
We have had a useful debate, and discussion of the matter will continue. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to the points I have raised. There are real steps that the Government could take, but are not taking, to deal with labour market issues, which would assuage some of the concerns that have been raised today.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is why our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week that we very much want to look at free movement and how we negotiate future accession arrangements for large countries. He set out a range of things we might want to consider, other than just time limits—for example, relative income levels in countries—which I think has great merit.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Minister did not really answer the question from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), so let me give him another go. Given that figures published last week show that net migration rose to 182,000, from 167,000, over the previous year, before the impact of any Romanian and Bulgarian immigration in January, does he think that the target, as set out in the Prime Minister’s solemn manifesto pledge, of having a net migration in the “tens of thousands,” to quote the hon. Member for Amber Valley, by May 2015 will be met—yes or no?
Mr Harper
When the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power, net migration reached 2.1 million. I should also point out, to help the shadow Home Secretary, who was challenged on this yesterday by Andrew Neil, that most of that immigration was from countries outside the European Union. There was a large bar chart showing that on the television screen, but she denied what is reality.