Water Cannon

David T C Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. and learned Lady was probably entirely correct in her initial surmise that this is possibly going to be an unusual occasion when she and I agree on matters related to home affairs. I am grateful to her for outlining the Scottish Government’s position. As it happens, I will meet the Scottish Justice Minister later this afternoon to discuss a number of issues. As for the next five years, I have taken the decision on the basis of the evidence that has been put before me. As I have indicated in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), it is open to the police at any time to apply for the use of a less than lethal weapon. At that time, the evidence available would be considered and a decision taken on that basis.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that, in the summer of 2011, police officers were worried about not only the imminent threat of physical violence to themselves, but the consequences had any violent rioters been injured while the police were trying to deal with them? With that in mind, does she accept that the advantage of water cannon is that they enable the police to deal with people at a distance and that the alternative is that police officers will have to deal with people at very close quarters, probably using batons, spray and shields? Will she give some reassurance that police officers in that situation will not themselves face serious disciplinary consequences if violent people who are trying to attack them receive injuries while doing so?

[Mrs May]

I have always made it absolutely clear to the police that if they act within the law I will stand by them. Our police officers do a magnificent job. I spoke to many of them immediately after the riots of 2011 and heard from them at first hand the danger they were under. The nature of the riots of 2011 was predominantly such that water cannon would not have been able to be used. Police had to deal with smaller groups of individuals who were very mobile, and it was not the stand-off situation that we see, for example, in the parades in Northern Ireland, which is a completely different circumstance from that which we saw in 2011.

Oral Answers to Questions

David T C Davies Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he was the Director of Public Prosecutions, gave particular focus to this area of the law to ensure that support was available for victims giving evidence, which has given people the confidence to come forward, as we have seen. The Government have made extra funding available: just before Christmas we announced an extra £10 million for domestic violence refuges. Of course, since the 2010 budgetary decisions were taken, we gave four-year funding—later five years—for combating violence against women and girls to ensure that there was some stability. We talk regularly to all those providing support to victims of domestic violence to ensure that we share best practice.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Thousands of British women continue to be victims of female genital mutilation. What further work is being done to ensure that people are prosecuted for that heinous offence?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Of course, we have already seen the first case brought forward for female genital mutilation. There is a widespread view across the House that we must do everything we can to deal with this appalling act. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), for the considerable work she has done to highlight the issue and ensure that the Government continue to focus on it. We want to see more prosecutions so that we can eradicate this terrible crime.

Devolution and Growth across Britain

David T C Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:

“but regret that the Government has offered piecemeal measures which threaten to leave some areas behind; recognise that devolution needs to be part of an ambitious UK-wide plan not simply a limited series of one-off deals done by the Chancellor; note that the Government has failed to offer an economic growth package including new powers in transport, housing and skills for all areas, including for county regions; further regret that the Government is not offering all combined authorities in England the ability to retain all business rate revenue growth; further note that the Government has failed to offer a comprehensive strategy to build the homes, including the badly needed affordable homes, that our country needs; note that the Government has pledged a funding floor for Wales, but is concerned that fair funding will be contingent on an income tax referendum; note that, whilst the timeline of the cross-party agreement reached through the Smith Commission has been met and the Scotland Bill will make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world, the Government has failed to confirm that the Barnett formula will be protected and welfare provisions do not go far enough; and resolve that devolution should be delivered without leaving Scotland worse off.”.

May I associate myself with the comments that you, Mr Speaker, made about Charlie Kennedy? Our thoughts go out to his family, his loved ones and his friends.

It is good to see you, Mr Speaker, back in your place not only re-elected to serve the people of Buckingham but re-elected as Speaker of this House. We meet this afternoon to discuss the Queen’s Speech and, in particular, its impact on devolution and growth across the UK.

Before I dive in, I would like to welcome the Business Secretary and his new ministerial team to their places. I congratulate him on his appointment. I am glad that, while the Business Secretary has changed, the right hon. Gentleman carries on the tradition that I and his predecessor appear to have set for those doing this brief in having little or no hair. I also welcome the new Communities Secretary and his ministerial team to their posts. Finally I would like to welcome all new Members to this House. I look forward, in particular, to hearing those who will deliver their maiden speech today. It is an honour and privilege to serve in this place, and all the more pleasurable when one gets to deliver a speech without intervention—my advice would be to savour the moment.

I turn to the Queen’s Speech and the relevant Bills. Of the 21 Bills, clearly, the cities and devolution, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Bills are all of direct relevance to this debate and, when exploring growth, the enterprise and housing Bills too. Arguably, the European Union Referendum Bill, the tax lock Bill, the energy Bill and high speed rail Bills are also of relevance to our debate today, but there have been opportunities and will be another tomorrow to discuss those issues. For the purposes of our debate this afternoon, we will focus on the six primary Bills that I have mentioned; in closing, the shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will go into more detail about housing in particular.

I start by setting out the rationale for the official Opposition’s position on devolution. Why devolve? We are one of the most centralised countries in the western world. Some 70% of spending is done by central Government, compared with the OECD average of 48%, and the GDP per capita of all but one of our largest eight main cities is below the national average, which serves to show how we are missing out on the full benefits that every region can bring.

It is fair to say that in the last Parliament a growing consensus evolved around the need to change and devolve more power down. Some see devolution as a useful vehicle for shrinking the state. They are happy to cut what the Government do at the centre, but they are not too keen on Government action at any level. Devolving power is not really their goal; they simply want to hack off chunks of what Government do to support people and provide them with a platform to get on. That is not our approach.

Some talk a good game on devolution, and a shrinking state is not the be all and end all for them. However, when it comes down to it, they are happy to devolve power, but less happy to provide the resources to make such power meaningful. In the last Parliament, we heard a lot of talk about localism, but that came with a 60% cut in the Communities and Local Government budget. The Communities Secretary’s predecessor sought to park blame for the lack of resources with our local authorities, when blame properly rested with the last Conservative-led coalition and will rest with this Government if they press on with the extreme cuts that, during the election campaign, they said they would pursue. Again, that is not our approach.

Finally, some see devolution as simply a stop on a journey towards breaking up the United Kingdom and pursuing independence. If that were not the case, why do we hear so much about devolving power to the Scottish Parliament, but so little about devolving power from that Parliament to the regions and localities of Scotland? Double devolution is what is required in Scotland; that is why in the last Parliament my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) brought a private Member’s Bill to devolve immediately the job creation powers mentioned in the Smith agreement and ensure double devolution to local authorities, which are best placed to grow local job markets.

None of the approaches from the Scottish National party or the Tories reflects our position.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point about the need for the SNP to devolve power to local authorities in Scotland. He forgot to mention the possibility of the Labour-run Welsh Assembly devolving powers to local authorities in Wales. Does he think that is also important?

[Mr Umunna]

In this House, we generally argue for subsidiarity within Europe. We should not stop at Europe; we should have subsidiarity in our own country, too—in all the different parts of the UK.

During our time in office, we pioneered much of the devolution that we now see across the United Kingdom. It was not perfect, but given the creation of the Greater London Authority, the Mayor of London, the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, we did much to devolve power down. We also established regional development agencies in England, which did important work. We are proud of that record.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies]

May I just add to the point that the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) made by suggesting to him that there are many people living in England who rely on getting their health service in Wales, and their MPs are unable to speak about it? Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree with me—a proud Welshman and a proud British subject—that there is a strong Unionist case for having English votes for English laws?

[Sajid Javid]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, and I think that he is referring to the same Welsh NHS that has seen its funding cut by 10% over the last five years and that has some of the worst performance statistics of any part of the NHS in the United Kingdom.

I know all too well that England does not begin and end at the M25. Up and down the country, businesses of all shapes and sizes make an incredible contribution to our nation’s economic growth. All too often, however, they are held back by the age-old regional divides between the north and the south, and between the capital and the rest. For too long, politicians have shrugged their shoulders and claimed that these so-called divides are inescapable realities—an inevitable part of life. We do not accept that; we believe that every corner of the country has the potential to deliver economic growth and personal prosperity. We will take the steps necessary to boost local growth in England, devolving powers to cities, towns and counties, and allowing local people to take control of the economic levers in their areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), who made a superb maiden speech. We have a connection —our interest in steel. Tata Steel is located just outside my constituency, and I started my career as an office boy at British Steel many years ago, back in the 1980s. Perhaps she and I will share a future interest in ensuring that the costs of producing steel in this country are brought down. That will require all parties to think about the policies they introduced that increased the costs of energy for large manufacturers, such as steel companies, because of misplaced concerns about climate change.

I wish the company that the hon. Lady mentioned all the very best in building further extensions to airports across the United Kingdom. We desperately need more airports in the United Kingdom. Air travel is vital for Britain’s future as a global economy. I do not know whether the extension will be to Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick or somewhere else, but I very much hope that it will happen somewhere and that the decision comes soon.

During this debate, I have felt some connection with members of the Scottish National party, because I, too, have been on the losing side of a referendum on the future of our nation on no fewer than two occasions. In my case, I was opposing the Welsh Assembly and then opposing further powers for the Welsh Assembly. I suspect that, at some point in the near future, I may well be opposing further attacks on Wales, which is quite a catchy phrase for a campaign that I would be happy to front up if there is a referendum on tax-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly.

Each time I have lost, I have decided that the best thing to do is simply to accept the will of the public and get on with the job at hand. That is why in 1999 I was proud to be one of the first Members of the Welsh Assembly—the only Conservative at the time elected to a constituency. Since then, I have been proud of the way in which the Conservatives, while not embracing the Assembly, have decided that we have a duty to work with it and to do the best for our constituents. We have quite rightly highlighted the problems over the health service in Wales, where we have longer waiting lists, longer ambulance response times, less access to cancer drugs and less funding than constituents in England have.

We have quite rightly taken up the issue of education. It is a disgrace that Wales has the lowest PISA—programme for international student assessment—results in the whole of the United Kingdom and that there is no sign of improvement. I welcome the fact that Labour Education Ministers have recognised that fact. If anyone wants to google “education apology”, they will read that, a year or so ago, Labour’s own Minister for Education and Skills, Huw Lewis, issued an apology on the front pages of the Western Mail for his own colleagues’ lamentable failure to drive up education standards in Wales.

We have worked constructively over the need to improve transport links with Wales, and we will want to work constructively with the Economic Development Minister in the Welsh Assembly to support a new M4 relief road, which is vital for people in my constituency. We also want to have discussions with Ministers in the Welsh Assembly and in this Government about the future of the Severn bridge. I was absolutely delighted to hear the announcement that the bridge will be nationalised—yes, as a pragmatist, I support nationalisation on occasion.

Nationalising the Severn bridge will mean that VAT is no longer payable, owing to some obscure EU regulation that I do not have the time to go into at the moment. The Government could be even more generous. The costs of maintaining the bridge could be covered by tolls of only about one third of what they currently are. The Government may want to look at some sort of decrease in those tolls as that would drive forward economic growth in Wales, leading to even more people paying more taxes.

May I assure the hon. Member for Redcar that we want to see everyone across the country having access to good, well-paid jobs? That is why we delivered 1.9 million extra jobs over the past five years, and our commitment in that regard will continue as before.

A number of Members have expressed concern about the issue of English votes for English laws. As someone who is proud to be a Welsh-speaking Welshman and who has served Welsh politics for 16 years, I say that I absolutely support the principle of English votes for English laws and believe that there is a strong Unionist case for doing so. Members of the Opposition talked about people working in one country and living in another, and using the health service on different sides of the border. I raised those issues 16 years ago. There are many constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) who have to use the health service in Wales, but are unable to raise their concerns about it with their local Member of Parliament. There is a strong argument for saying that MPs across both sides of the border should be able to raise issues with the Health Minister in the Welsh Assembly. If someone would care to come up with a plan to do so, that would be good, but the problem is that we have a Parliament for Scotland, an Assembly for Wales and nothing at all for England.

The arguments for an Assembly for Wales and a Parliament in Scotland were intended to the keep the genie of nationalism in the box. I would therefore take that argument and say that, if we want to keep the genie of English nationalism in the box, we have to recognise that English voters have exactly the same right to have exactly the same say over issues that affect them as people in Wales and Scotland do. That is why, as a Welshman, a Unionist and a Conservative, I fully support my Front-Bench colleagues’ drive for English votes for English laws and look forward to seeing the details shortly.

Child Sex Abuse (Rotherham)

David T C Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2014 Commons Chamber

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Although nobody wants to say so, the reality is that the vast majority of men who have been involved in this have all come from one ethnic background—they are of Pakistani origin. Nobody is suggesting that anything more than a minority within that community have, frankly, a barbaric view towards women, but some clearly have. Does the Home Secretary accept that it is more than a coincidence that so many have come from this background, that we must be able to say so without fear of being branded a racist and that something needs to be done to change cultural attitudes among certain people in the community?

[Mrs May]

Obviously, that was the case as regards the people identified in the Rotherham case, but I will say to my hon. Friend and all Members that sexual exploitation of children takes place across all communities. We need to recognise that and not simply think that it is a problem for one particular community. When certain communities are involved, we should not allow cultural concerns to get in the way of protecting children and bringing perpetrators to justice.

Extremism

David T C Davies Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

First, the right hon. Gentleman does well to remind us of the terrible incident that has taken place in Pakistan. Our thoughts should go out to all those who have been victims of that terrible attack. Pakistan has suffered more loss of life through terrorist acts than anywhere else. That is a fact I have recognised on a number of my visits to Pakistan and it is a fact we should recognise in this House. As to other matters, the question of those who go and preach, and attend and speak at universities is important, and is one that I discuss with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. We ensure that Prevent co-ordinators are there to be able to support universities in the necessary work they are doing to help to support those on their campuses.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this issue is far too important to be treated as some sort of political football and that Members of all parties would do better to unite behind the Government in trying to tackle this problem?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right in that this issue is one where we would hope that people would work across the House to ensure that we provide the support that communities need to carry out the necessary work referred to by a number of Members today. This is an important issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will make that clear in the statement he is about to give. This Government take seriously the issues about what has been happening in Birmingham schools, just as they take seriously issues relating to extremism in any form wherever it appears.

Stop-and-Search

David T C Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We intend to introduce policies at a local level that will enable members of the public to apply to go on patrol with the police, and to talk to the police about what they are doing and their experience. Crucially, training not just of new police officers coming through, but of existing officers is of course key to this, which is why what I am asking the College of Policing to do is so important. As I have said, it should be clear that if police officers do not know how to use the power properly, they should not use it.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

With the utmost respect to the Home Secretary, may I put on the record my concerns about some of the proposals? I suggest that one thing that is lacking is a change to PACE that would allow officers who stop somebody with serial offences of carrying weapons or drugs to use that previous criminal record as grounds for a search. Those grounds are specifically banned under PACE at the moment. If the power is about targeting real criminals, we need to make sure that it helps police officers to go after the real criminals, as well as perhaps making it harder for them to go after those who are not committing crimes.

[Mrs May]

I recognise that my hon. Friend, as a special constable, has particular experience in these matters. I will reflect carefully on his comment. I want to reiterate that I accept that stop-and-search is a very important power. What is crucial is to make sure that it is used properly, because if it is not used properly but is misused, then it falls into disrepute.

Oral Answers to Questions

David T C Davies Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

Fans are going to enjoy the tournament and fans are going to enjoy this sport. As I have set out, we believe it is right for organisers, promoters and ticket agents to deal with access to events and tickets. Successive Governments have concluded that regulation should be the last resort.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

14. Does the Minister agree that the Government are absolutely right to be focusing on encouraging as many young people as possible to take up this wonderful sport, and that the best advice we could give to anyone who feels that they are about to be ripped off by ticket touts is simply to shun them?

[Mrs Grant]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a good and important point. We must not spoil this opportunity. It will be a fantastic occasion and we want people to be inspired by sport, inspired by rugby and to have a wonderful time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

It is a bit unfair to say that I did not mention such matters, because I referred to the re-launch of the “This is Abuse” campaign, which has already been very successful, with 85,000 visits to the website since it was launched last week and 19,000 plays of the “Hollyoaks” TV advert. We are getting through to young people through that campaign. I agree with the hon. Lady that child sexual exploitation is a very serious issue indeed, and I congratulate the deputy Children’s Commissioner on the work she has undertaken, which we are taking forward in conjunction with her.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Female genital mutilation is a particularly pernicious form of violence against women. Why has nobody in this country yet been convicted of being a party to this appalling practice?

[Norman Baker]

That is a question I have asked the Director of Public Prosecutions, because the legislation has been on the statute book for 28 years and throughout that time there has been no successful prosecution. I think that that partly relates to the reluctance of children to give evidence against parents. I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering the matter. The DPP is looking at existing cases and reviewing whether we can reopen some of them, and I am hopeful that there will be prosecutions in the near future.

Immigration Bill

David T C Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

rose—

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

Hopefully the hon. Gentleman will apologise on behalf of the Home Secretary for pushing those divisive ad vans.

[David T. C. Davies]

May I say—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that there is an identity crisis that needs to be resolved. I think that the right hon. Lady was pointing in the direction of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson).

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It should disturb us all that an appalling two thirds of children who are rescued from slavery and trafficking go missing again and often become victims of the same traffickers or other groups. We need far stronger action on that; we owe it to those children who have been rescued, often from appalling conditions. We should not let them simply disappear again.

[David T. C. Davies]

Does the right hon. Lady recognise that one reason for that is that care workers in children’s homes are not allowed physically to restrain and prevent children from walking out? That is a result of the Human Rights Act, which was passed by her colleagues, along with the failure to deal with immigration that has led the Government to bring forward these urgent proposals today.

[Yvette Cooper]

If I had known the hon. Gentleman was going to raise such nonsense, I would not have let him intervene in the first place.

Let me move on to some of the remaining elements of the Bill. People who come to Britain and then abuse British law should not expect to stay here, and Labour has previously supported action to ensure that article 8 of the European convention on human rights is properly interpreted in cases involving foreign criminals. We also believe that appeals should be speeded up—serious cases that go to Strasbourg certainly take far too long.

The measures in the Bill do not deal with those issues, however, and instead it appears that the Government want to abolish appeals for whole categories of immigration cases because they cannot cope with the fact that they get so many decisions wrong in the first place. There are genuine and serious concerns about that approach because it turned out that the Government got it wrong in 50% of entry clearance cases that went to appeal. In managed migration cases that went to appeal, they got it wrong in 49% of decisions. In the majority of those cases the problem was Home Office error, so why not just put a bit of effort into getting the decision right in the first place? If those appeal rights are removed, many cases will cite human rights grounds to get an appeal and more cases will go to judicial review. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that that could cost £100 million, halving any savings the Home Secretary might hope to make.

The real gap in the Bill is that is says nothing about the exploitation of immigration in the workplace. There is nothing to deal with employers who take on illegal migrant workers or to tackle the exploitation of legal migration by the undercutting of wages and conditions in the local labour market. There is nothing to deal with the lack of enforcement of the minimum wage, or employers who use loopholes in the minimum wage to overcharge workers for overcrowded accommodation and offset that against their pay. There is nothing to deal with agencies that recruit only from overseas and exclude local workers from their books, or employers who recruit for some shifts only from certain nationalities.

All those practices are bad for everyone—they are bad for migrant workers who are exploited, bad for local workers who are undercut, bad for other businesses that are undermined and bad for our economy, which continues to depend on low-skilled migration being exploited in that way. The Government are doing nothing. The Labour party will set out amendments to give councils powers of enforcement on the minimum wage, close loopholes and tackle irresponsible agencies, and I hope the Government will support those measures.

The Bill does not do what the Government claim it does. Some of the measures are sensible, some are confused, and some are of serious concern. They claim it tackles illegal immigration, but it does nothing of the sort. It fails to do enough to tackle the serious problems. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill as we believe it should go to Committee so we can amend and reform it, use the opportunity to introduce better and fairer controls to deal with the Government’s failures, and make immigration work for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

Last month, one of my constituents—I will call him Philippe—attended an asylum-screening appointment at Lunar house. He had a history of serious ill treatment in Cameroon and had in his hand a referral to Freedom from Torture from his very worried advocates, so one would have expected him to be treated with care and attention when he arrived for his screening appointment. It is worth reading the whole of his statement—it took me some time to do so—to understand what happened to him over three days in September. It gives a picture of what happens to people when they try to navigate Home Office bureaucracy. I want to tell hon. Members a little about what happened to him, because there is a danger that this debate will be about headlines and statistics, but will forget the very people we are being tough on—the very people who are the subjects of the Bill.

Reading all that my constituent said, one gets a sense of his fear and nervousness when he first arrived at Lunar house with all his documents in his hand, and then the abject rudeness with which he was treated, the dismissals, the disbelief and the downright incompetence; and the petty squabbles between contractors unwilling to go beyond the letter of their own instruction and offer basic, normal human compassion and basic, normal information to my constituent. Hon. Members need to read it all to understand his fear, confusion and bewilderment, to follow him from the first moment, when he arrived, with nervous trust, for his asylum-screening appointment, to the moment when, in vain and with frustration, he tried to make the official at Lunar house appreciate that he was there for an agreed appointment and to get her to read his referral to Freedom from Torture. In vain, he tried to make his point through the interpreter about where his belongings were, but instead he was arrested, handcuffed and taken to Harmondsworth. Reading his statement, one gets a sense of just how frightening that is for somebody previously detained in their own country and of its impact on that individual.

Finally, when Philippe arrived at Harmondsworth, rather late at night, somebody realised he should not have been there; somebody eventually checked his documentation and realised that he had originally turned up for a routine asylum-screening appointment, and he was taken back. Eventually, after petty squabbles, which he witnessed, he was dumped in a hostel without any documentation, without being told where he was and without being given an address. There followed a distressing 48 hours, during which he had a paranoid episode and ended up lost on the streets of south London. He had one contact, one human being, who went out of their way to help him. Someone from a church in Brent who had been working with him drove around the streets of south London to find him and then took him into her own home and reconnected him with his lawyer—the best and worst of humanity across three days.

[David T. C. Davies]

The hon. Lady paints a moving picture, and I am sure we all sympathise with her constituent, but does she agree that these mistakes happen because a large number of people are coming over, abusing the system and preventing us from helping those most in need, which is exactly what the Bill is designed to prevent?

[Sarah Teather]

No, I do not accept that. This happens because of the culture of disbelief in the Home Office, and it is that culture that needs to change, yet I see nothing in the Bill that will have any impact on the quality of decision making or on how individual officials treat constituents such as mine when they go with their asylum or visa applications. In my 10 years as an MP, I have seen countless examples of this behaviour, as all Members will have done. Those of us with the highest levels of immigration casework will have seen more, but it is a source of huge frustration for many MPs that our advice surgeries are spent mostly dealing with stuff that the Home Office should be dealing with.

Oral Answers to Questions

David T C Davies Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

No, not at all—the speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made earlier today was informed by work that has been going on for a number of months in the cross-ministerial committee that I chair. It is a well thought-through policy area as we further tighten the immigration system. The hon. Gentleman will know that, since the Government came to power, we have reduced net migration to the UK by a third and will continue to reduce it.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the vast majority of people in this country will support his work and the emphasis in the Prime Minister’s speech? Nevertheless, there is still a net increase in immigration of 160,000 every year. Will the Minister assure us that he will continue to do all he can to reduce that number further?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend is right. We committed to reducing net migration from the unsustainable hundreds of thousands that it was under Labour to tens of thousands, which is much more sustainable. That is supported by the vast majority of British people, whomever they vote for. I am glad my hon. Friend also supports that policy.

Ibrahim Magag

David T C Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

When the Government took office they decided to review counter-terrorism legislation. There was a public consultation, and a number of changes were made as a result. It is possible for people to abscond from wherever they are; indeed, three of the control order subjects who absconded did so from outside London.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Is not one of the root causes of the current problem the fact that members of the Labour Government allowed so many of these people to have visas and passports, letting them stay in the United Kingdom? Is it not time that we rounded up as many of them as possible, and established grounds on which to strip them of their visas and passports and deport them to whichever hellhole they came from and wish to emulate?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes his point in his normal forthright manner. I can tell him that the Government view national security as an absolute priority and take every possible step to keep the public safe, through deportations when they are possible, through the application of TPIMs, or through other measures.