Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (Business of the House)

Duncan Hames Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I recognise the urgency in starting consideration of this Bill, but was the Minister denied a deferment of the summer recess, which would have afforded us more time?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend needs to recognise—I am sure he does—the sensitivity and importance of communications data and how they are used for the prosecution of offences, and of interception and how we have reached a tipping point, which is why there is a need for urgent legal certainty and clarification in the light of the European Court judgment. We face two serious and urgent problems relating to both communications data and interception: first, the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice has called into question the legal basis on which we require communications service providers in the UK to retain communications data; and, secondly, the increasingly pressing need to clarify the application of our laws on interception, so that communications service providers that provide services to people in the UK are in no doubt that they are covered by the laws, irrespective of where they are based.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I recognise the seriousness of the issues covered by the Bill and I understand why the Home Secretary considers it intolerable for us to not address this matter before the House returns from the summer recess in September. However, in considering the timetable motion, we have to consider the other options available to the Government. I hope the Minister will be able to address why he has ruled those options out.

Perhaps the most straightforward way to do that is to consider what would have happened if the Cabinet had not reached agreement on this matter at its emergency meeting on Thursday last week. In that scenario, would the Home Secretary be fuming at not being able to pass the Bill until autumn, or would she have found other means to take the action she considers necessary? Would we be looking at the business of the House for next Monday?

Colleagues will be well aware that we have the traditional end of term debate next Tuesday. I am sure Members covet their speeches in that debate, but they might recognise that for matters of national security and proposed legislation that the Government consider to be an emergency, it might be appropriate to move Tuesday’s business so that we could have more time to debate the Bill. Indeed, colleagues might even consider the necessity of the House rising on Tuesday, when we need to consider the Bill.

If there had been no agreement in the Cabinet last Thursday, I am absolutely certain that the Home Secretary would not have waited until September to pursue the Bill. I am sure that other decisions would have been taken to enable us to consider it next week. If it were the will of the House to have the time to scrutinise the Bill properly, such changes could still be made. That is why the timetable motion is unnecessarily restrictive, not just in the amount of time that Members have to debate these matters, but in terms of the timetable of the various windows of opportunity for proposing alternatives to the Bill.

I hope that in responding to the debate the Minister will tell us why it is not acceptable to give Members next week to consider House of Lords amendments. Forcing them to be considered on Thursday, when they will have been made only on Wednesday, creates an even tighter window for this House. I am not advocating that we should wait until the autumn, but I believe that Ministers should think again about curtailing debate and forcing it to take place on today only, with consideration of Lords amendments on Thursday.

Child Abuse

Duncan Hames Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course the keeping of proper records is very important. Over the years that we are dealing with, there have been a number of approaches to record keeping within the Home Office and, indeed, within other Government Departments. In the 1980s, the system was changed to the so-called Grigg system. Subsequently, the National Archives has issued guidance to Government Departments on the approach that they should take to the keeping of records. Of course, that is exactly the sort of issue that I expect could be part of the inquiry’s work.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Whatever disagreements we may have, she has always been outspoken in confronting complacency and corruption wherever she finds it. When former public servants give evidence to the inquiry panel, will they be released from any obligations they may have under gagging clauses in severance agreements or, where necessary, the Official Secrets Act?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. It is my intention that people should have the ability to speak openly in giving evidence to the inquiry panel if they are called as witnesses, or in giving written evidence if they so wish. I will have to look at the legal issues around the Official Secrets Act, but it is intended that everybody should have the ability to speak openly. Only if people can speak openly will we get to the bottom of these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Duncan Hames Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am sure that the whole House will echo my hon. Friend’s sentiment about those officers. Damien McAlister and Karen Kenworthy showed the bravery that we get from officers all over the country in the most difficult of situations. Such bravery is essential, particularly in tragic situations such as the one he mentions, and it should never go without being noticed.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

7. What steps she has taken to co-ordinate lessons learnt across Government from investigations into organised sexual abuse of children.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

The national group on sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, which I chair, is already delivering a number of significant improvements to our response to child sex abuse, including addressing lessons learned from the investigations and inquiries into historical and organised child sexual abuse. The Home Secretary will make a statement on child abuse immediately after this session.

[Duncan Hames]

I appreciate the Minister’s efforts in this regard. When the Prime Minister said in answer to my question last month that he was happy to look at the case for an independent inquiry, I was optimistic. We may not have long to wait now. The Government set great store by the police investigations. Does the Minister share my dismay at reports that the Metropolitan police has assigned only seven officers to Operation Fernbridge?

[Norman Baker]

That is an operational matter for the police, rather than a matter for Ministers. However, we take these matters extremely seriously and all Ministers have made it plain that we expect the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and others to take all the necessary steps to bring those who are responsible for heinous crimes to justice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Duncan Hames Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

We are aware of no evidence to suggest that someone’s having a tie to an employer with whom they have an existing relationship is a problem. This Government are determined to deal with the lack of enforcement on the part of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and others, in order to ensure that people on a domestic worker visa are treated appropriately within the law.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

T8. The Government are rightly proud of having ended the shameful practice of child detention for immigration purposes. If those children are ultimately to be detained, is it not incumbent on the Home Office to ensure that their cases have been fully resolved before they turn 18, or, failing that, to be consistent in its approach until those cases have been completed?

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important steps that the Government have taken in banning the detention of children. Indeed he will also recognise the work of the family returns panel, which analyses those cases to assess whether it is appropriate for a child to be returned and in what circumstances.

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Centre (Detainee Death)

Duncan Hames Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I agree that we should always seek to minimise the time that someone spends in detention, but appeals can often delay matters. The Immigration Bill will reduce appeals from 17 to four. We want to ensure that we have a firm but fair system, and that is what we will deliver.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I wholeheartedly support the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). How can a Government who are rightly proud to have ended child detention for immigration purposes keep an 18-year-old, who is a star pupil at her school, out of the classroom and in detention at Yarl’s Wood? What lessons should her fellow pupils learn from this episode?

[James Brokenshire]

I understand the concern my hon. Friend has expressed. I should just mention that the individual is 19, not 18. This case has been considered carefully by the Home Office and the courts, and it has been ruled that humanitarian assistance is not appropriate. The Home Secretary has indicated that it is not appropriate for us to intervene in such circumstances.

Bill Presented

Recall of Members of Parliament

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Zac Goldsmith, supported by Mr Douglas Carswell, Mr Graham Stuart, Mr Dominic Raab, Nick de Bois, Mark Reckless, Mr Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Mr Michael Meacher and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to permit voters to recall their Member of Parliament in specified circumstances: and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June, and to be printed (Bill 193).

Oral Answers to Questions

Duncan Hames Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We are continuing to deal with net migration. [Interruption.] I fully accept that the most recent figures, which show an increase in migration from the EU, have made the task more difficult, but it ill behoves Labour Members to talk in those terms when they had an immigration policy that meant there was uncontrolled immigration throughout their period in office.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

A successful Wiltshire businesswoman who has created jobs for dozens of local people and paid her fair share of taxes faces her family being wrenched apart on account of her mother being denied leave to remain. How can we ensure that wealth creators—people who create jobs for our constituents —are not made to feel unwelcome here by changes to the family migration route?

[Mrs May]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to raise individual cases with my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration. In overall terms, we have changed all routes of entry into the United Kingdom, which has had an impact on non-EU migration, which is at its lowest since 1998. The hon. Gentleman talks about wealth creators, and it is important that we differentiate in the system. We are cutting out abuse and ensuring that the brightest and the best can come to the UK.

UK Citizenship

Duncan Hames Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to air this issue in the House this afternoon. Although the power to deprive British nationals of citizenship, amplified in clause 60 of the Immigration Bill, might seem to some a mere legal technicality, important issues lie behind it. Clause 60 is wrong-headed, and I hope that airing the issues this afternoon will lead people in another place to throw the clause out of the Bill.

The clause provides for the Secretary of State to render a person stateless by depriving him or her of their nationality where citizenship has been gained through naturalisation and where

“the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”.

First, I would remind the House that we are talking about terror suspects. Nowadays in Parliament, saying that someone is suspected of terrorist activity is enough for the political class to assume that that person does not deserve due process. It is worth reminding the House that those people have not actually been convicted of any crime. Sadly, I have to say, the currency of political debate about terrorism has been so debased, first under Tony Blair and now under the coalition, that alleged terrorists are now routinely deemed to be the only category of alleged criminal who are not allowed due process—even alleged paedophiles have to have due process, but not alleged terrorists.

My view is that if someone is suspected of terrorism, the obvious step is to put them on trial. I am supported in that view by no less a person than the late Lord Kingsland, the former Conservative shadow Lord Chancellor, who said in 2002:

“If we identify someone as a person proposing to commit a serious terrorist offence…surely the obligation is on us to deal with that person. If we simply deport him, we shall be handing on…this terrorist problem to another state which may not have the same capability of dealing with it…It cannot be a proper response to the terrorist threat to refuse to deal with it ourselves”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 277-278.]

That was the view of the Conservative party in 2002, but clearly things have changed in the intervening time.

Being realistic, we know that the security services have always resisted trial for many suspected terrorists because—this is my understanding—they do not want to make public their wire-tapping and other surveillance methods. I have always found that argument dubious, and it is even less credible post the Snowden revelations, which have revealed to us all more about state surveillance than we ever wanted to know. Instead of due process, the security services and their political adherents in both parties prefer secret courts, detention without trial and now this attempt to strip away citizenship.

That leads me to one of the big problems with clause 60 of the Immigration Bill: it creates two different classes of British citizenship. There are those, such as myself, who are British citizens because we were born here, and there are those, including some of the people who work for me, who are British citizens by naturalisation. We will have two classes of British citizens. That is a dangerous road to go down. In support of that view I quote no less a person than the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who, as I think most people know, is a Conservative MP and not someone who could be described as a bleeding-heart liberal. On Report, when clause 60 was added to the Immigration Bill, he said:

“I am perhaps rather romantic in my view of what it means to be a British subject. I always thought that Palmerston got it right on the Don Pacifico affair—the ‘civis Romanus sum’ principle. Once any one of us has a passport that says we are British, we are as British as anybody else, whether they were born here or got their passport five minutes ago. It is incredibly important that there is equality before the law for all Her Majesty’s subjects who are living in this country and have right of residence here. I worry that if we give the Government the ability to take passports away from a certain category of British subject but not from others, it will create a potential unfairness and a second category of citizen.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 1086.]

That goes to the heart of one of the problems with the legislation.

We should not have, as it were, class A and class B British citizens. In communities such as mine, the fear will be that although this has started with suspected terrorists, where will it end, once the state decides that British citizenship is not indivisible? The Home Secretary has said, rather unfortunately, that citizenship is a privilege, not a right, but citizenship is not a privilege or a right; it is a fact. Deciding that it is not a fact and that the state can chop and change when it comes to the light in which it regards someone’s citizenship, is, I believe—as does the hon. Member for North East Somerset—a dangerous road to go down.

Another problem with the proposal is that in stripping a terrorism suspect of their nationality, there is a danger that we could render them stateless. That problem was raised on Report. The Secretary of State argued that

“we are talking about a situation in which they”—

that is, the person deprived of citizenship—

“would be able to acquire statehood from somewhere else.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 1040.]

However, even the most cursory glance at clause 60 reveals that the provision is not limited in that way, but allows individuals to be rendered stateless without reference to the possibility of securing citizenship elsewhere. The Home Secretary said:

“The whole point of the measure is to be able to remove certain people”.—[Official Report, 30 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 1043.]

That assertion raises a number of important questions. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the Government will remove people who have no nationality and no travel documents.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an important point. If another state were to remove citizenship from a naturalised citizen who was originally from the UK, does she envisage that it would be at all likely that our country would be enthusiastic about offering citizenship to that person? If we would not, why should we imagine that other countries would offer citizenship to someone who has had their citizenship revoked by this Government?

[Ms Abbott]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Government want to be able to move on people whom they consider a threat to the state, but why should other countries accept someone who has been stripped of citizenship here in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

May I directly address the suggestion that any action on deprivation of citizenship is linked, in any way, to the sort of activity that the hon. Lady highlighted? I strenuously deny that. They are two clearly separate issues and there is nothing to indicate, in any respect, that they are linked.

It is true that people have been deprived while outside the UK, but I do not accept that it is a particular tactic. It is simply an operational reality that in some cases the information comes to light when the person is outside the UK or that it is the final piece of the picture, confirming what has been suspected. In other cases, we may determine that the most appropriate response to the actions of an individual is to deprive that person while they are outside the UK. Equally, there are cases where it can be determined that it is appropriate to take action to deprive individuals while they are inside the UK.

It is not true that all those deprived under the clause will be stateless. Some may be able to acquire or reacquire another nationality. In those cases, where the individual has been deprived while in the UK, we would seek to remove that individual from the UK once they had acquired another nationality. However, the clause is not limited to those cases and can be applicable to those who cannot acquire another nationality. In that event, it is open to them to make an application to stay in the UK as a stateless person.

The UK would continue to comply with the provisions of the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, regarding the rights of stateless persons. Where appropriate, we could regularise a person’s position in the UK by granting limited leave—possibly with conditions relating to access to public funds and their right to work and study.

I come back to the hon. Lady’s point about the concept, as she described it, of two-tier citizenship. We do not accept that there is, or will be, a two-tier citizenship system. The proposal merely reflects the fact that there are differing routes to citizenship, and therefore, different actions permissible depending on the actions of the person concerned. The power to deprive a person of citizenship, as I have explained, already exists and certain aspects can only be applied depending on a person’s route to citizenship. Naturalised or registered citizens can be deprived if they obtained it by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact. Any citizen can be deprived if the Secretary of State considers it conducive to the public good and the person would not be left stateless as a result, so I do not accept the hon. Lady’s suggestion.

I understand that Members are concerned about instances where deprivation action takes places when a person is outside the UK, and I hear the hon. Lady’s point. I restate that the Home Secretary takes deprivation action only when she considers it is appropriate and that may mean doing so when an individual is abroad, which prevents their return and reduces the risk to the UK. That individual would still have a full right of appeal and the ability to resolve their nationality issues accordingly. It is often the travel abroad to terrorist training camps or to countries with internal fighting that is the tipping point—the crucial piece of the jigsaw—that instigates the need to act.

[Duncan Hames]

The Minister refers to the right of appeal, and he outlined earlier the courts available for that process. Will he confirm that it would therefore, in some cases, be an appeal that is conducted under closed material proceedings?

[James Brokenshire]

As I indicated, a route is open to SIAC to consider that, and closed material proceedings could be applicable in certain circumstances—not automatically; it would depend on the nature of the individual case. It is appropriate, however, that there is that right of appeal and right of challenge, and SIAC effectively provides that ability to do so.

I reassure Members that the new power would apply only to those who are naturalised citizens—crucially, not children, who are not able to naturalise as British citizens, nor anyone who is British by birth or registration. That is because our original declaration reasonably limits action only to those who have sought the privilege of British citizenship but then betray the values and laws that they swore to maintain.

Ultimately, the new power will be used sparingly. It will be relevant only in a small subset of the most serious deprivation cases, where we are currently precluded from taking action because those people would be left stateless. Our proposed clause is a targeted and proportionate measure that protects the security of the UK without jeopardising our international obligations. It provides for effective rights of appeal and for upholding the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington for bringing the matter to the Chamber this afternoon and for enabling me to set out more details on the proposals. As she has rightly identified, this matter is before the other place, and I am sure that it will give the issues careful scrutiny and consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions

Duncan Hames Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I reject the accusation of a lack of urgency. I have worked closely with a number of stakeholders over many months. We are publishing our action plan in the new year because we want to take account of the excellent reports by the all-party group and the Select Committee.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I am glad that the Minister wants the Information Commissioner’s Office to be able to take more enforcement action to tackle this menace. Will he therefore lower the legal threshold above which the Information Commissioner is able to take enforcement action?

[Mr Vaizey]

We would like to do that and we will consult on it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Duncan Hames Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I think it is fair to say the judgment of senior management on some of these matters has been questionable. I am pleased to see that future deals in excess of £75,000 will need to be approved by the BBC senior management committee, and we should not see severance payments exceeding £150,000. I think that is absolutely right.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

12. What recent estimate she has made of the number of households in (a) Wiltshire and (b) the UK that will have superfast internet access on the 4G spectrum but not through fixed-line broadband by January 2015.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

The four mobile network operators are aiming to roll out 4G mobile broadband services to 98% of the population. EE is aiming to reach that by the end of 2014, and the others by the end of 2015.

[Duncan Hames]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but he has not been able to share with me the number of households that will not have access to fixed-line solutions by that time: in communities in a large part of my constituency, from Hilperton and Semington to Whitley, fixed-line fibre installations will not even have begun. Will he issue guidance to local authorities on how they can use mobile spectrum-based solutions in their broadband programme?

[Mr Vaizey]

We are taking a technology-neutral approach to our roll-out of superfast broadband, but we have set aside another £250 million to increase coverage, which will, of course, include Wiltshire.

Oral Answers to Questions

Duncan Hames Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that—we need to look at the matter very seriously. I am happy to say that the Minister for Crime Prevention is doing so. In addition, the Home Office has sat round the table with national policing leads and the Crown Prosecution Service to consider why we are seeing that most recent trend, and to develop a plan for ensuring that cases are referred to the CPS when it is right to do so.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

The 12% fall in crime excluding fraud will be welcomed in Wiltshire by my constituents, but businesses repeatedly find themselves victims of seemingly invisible but none the less criminal behaviour online. What support is being given to businesses to tackle those online thefts?

[Mrs May]

First, the Office for National Statistics now includes figures on fraud reported to Action Fraud in the police recorded crime count. That is an important step forward—we now get a more accurate picture. Crucially, following the launch of the new National Crime Agency, we have established within it an economic crime command, which will enhance our ability in this country to deal with a variety of economic and financial crimes, including the fraud my hon. Friend describes.