Counter-Terrorism: Conflict Zones

Frank Dobson Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I will not comment on any individual case when ongoing investigations are taking place, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to do so. What I will say is that we are all appalled and shocked at the horrific barbarism that is being shown by ISIL, and we expect that to be reflected in any reporting.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary spends a great deal of time trying to persuade us that there needs to be more surveillance of everyone and that more data need to be collected. Does she not agree that recent cases suggest that the biggest problem is the incapacity of the security services—although it is not their fault—to deal adequately with the data and information that they already possess?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that I am saying that the agencies should have different capabilities. It is right that as people communicate less by telephone and more across the internet, we should update the legislation on access to communications data. This capability is not about looking at the content of any messages that people are exchanging. It is an important capability that has been there for some time and that has proved valuable not just in counter-terrorism cases, but in serious crime cases. I believe that it should be updated and a Conservative Government would certainly do that.

Terrorist Attacks (Paris)

Frank Dobson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for elucidating that fact for the House. It is very clear—everybody is very clear—that the attacks were not about Islam. The voices of Muslim communities and Muslim leaders in the United Kingdom, France and across the world have made it very clear that the attacks were not undertaken in their name. We should reiterate that very clear message.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Is the Home Secretary satisfied with the capacity of the London fire and rescue service to respond to any terrorist outrages that may occur, in view of the current fire station closure programme, which includes the fire station at Clerkenwell, which serves an area that includes major hospitals, major railway stations and major tourist attractions that may very well be the premier targets of terrorism?

[Mrs May]

A great deal of work has been undertaken in recent years to look at the operation of the emergency services in the event of a terrorist attack. Work has been done, as I indicated in my statement, to bring together specialist teams from fire services, ambulance services and the police across England and their equivalents in Scotland and Wales. We have also introduced the joint emergency services interoperability programme, or JESIP, which is about ensuring that it is easier for the three emergency services to work together in such circumstances. Obviously, we continue to update and revise, where necessary, the protocols and the way in which such operations are conducted to ensure that our emergency services are able to do the job we all want them to do, should an attack take place.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Frank Dobson Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to respond to that point. We as a country take the issue of human rights responsibilities very seriously in dealing with other countries and their treatment of individuals, but the individual would remain a British citizen and, notwithstanding that their passport had been cancelled and they had to apply for the permit to return, as a British citizen consular facilities would be available to them in those circumstances.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

How would the person concerned prove to the British consular service that they were the person they claimed to be?

[Mrs May]

In such circumstances, the passport will probably still be in the individual’s possession, although it will have been cancelled in the sense of its ability to be used to provide access to the United Kingdom, so I would expect them to have that document available to provide that proof.

On the points made about the individual being in another country, if an individual subject to an order attempts to travel to the UK, we will work closely with the host country and consider appropriate action. This may include detention pending deportation action, but only where appropriate under the laws of the other country, and, again, where appropriate, UK police officers will escort the individual back to the UK.

We are discussing this proposal with other Governments, in particular France and Turkey, in order to agree how it will work best in practice. The problem of foreign fighters travelling to Syria and Iraq and then seeking to return home is one we share with many of our international partners, and so far these discussions have been constructive.

Once in the UK, the police may interview the individual in order to explore their activities abroad. We may then subsequently require them to engage with a programme, potentially comprising reporting, notification of change of address and de-radicalisation activities.

I turn now to the amendments tabled by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and her colleagues. New clauses 9, 10 and 11 and new schedule 1 all require the Secretary of State to apply for permission from the courts before imposing a TEO. The mechanism provided for in these amendments is almost identical to that in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011—indeed, it appears to have been copied so directly that the right hon. Lady may want to reconsider the title of new clause 9, which refers to the imposition of terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which I suspect might be an error.

As the Minister with responsibility for national security, it is right that I, as Home Secretary, and not the courts, impose an order of this kind. As I have said, this is a discretionary power that will be used only in a limited number of cases where it will have the greatest impact. With oversight of all other national security and counter- terrorism matters, I am best placed to make an informed judgment about whether a TEO is appropriate in each case, taking into consideration the wider context of the terrorist threat we face. For the same reasons, to vest the power to impose one of these orders in the Secretary of State without first requiring an application to the courts is in line with the comparable use of the royal prerogative to cancel the passport of a British citizen.

We must also consider in this context the level of interference with an individual’s rights as a result of the power. A TEO does not take away the right of an individual to return to the UK, and the in-country elements that might be imposed on an individual as part of it are much less restrictive than those available under TPIMs, and for this reason do not require the same level of review. There is therefore no need for a requirement to apply to the courts before imposing an order, and it will of course remain open to an individual to apply for judicial review of the decision to impose an order.

[Mrs May]

But we are talking about an individual who, having had a TEO placed on them, attempts to travel to the UK, at which point they would have to apply for a permit to return and the arrangements for them to be accompanied by a police officer could be put in place. I recognise that there could be some circumstances in which a person might not have immediate access to the legal review, but they would be able to get it at the point at which they chose to return to the UK. This is about having the ability to ensure that certain people return to the UK on our terms, and that it is a managed return.

[Frank Dobson]

When would such an order become valid—when it was served on the person concerned? How would the British officials involved identify the person in order to serve the order on them? Would the process be triggered only if the person sought to come to this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who has put forward some alternative proposals, by way of probing amendments, on how this matter might be approached. Having listened to the comments from both sides of the Committee, it seems to me that there is actually a substantial measure of agreement that it is proper for the Government to take action to deal with the question of the managed return of individuals who have gone abroad from this country and whom the Home Secretary reasonably considered might be involved in terrorism.

It is slightly unfortunate that we have become mired in the title of temporary exclusion orders, because it seems to me, having read the Bill, that what we are really talking about is managed returns and how that process is properly to be done. In that context, the approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seems perfectly logical. As I pointed out in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Delyn, one of the problems with his proposals is that as the passport remains with the individual whom the Home Secretary reasonably considers to have committed an offence, that individual could use the passport to travel between third countries at will. If the United Kingdom wishes to act responsibly, particularly as we currently have a system whereby we remove passports from individuals trying to travel abroad in some circumstances, it seems rather odd that we should preserve that mechanism.

On the other hand, there is an issue that I think the Committee has to consider. A point was made earlier about how notification of the removal or revocation of a passport might take place. In some cases it might prove impossible in practice to communicate the revocation to the individual concerned and to indicate that a managed return must take place, because the temporary exclusion order is now in place, through the person contacting the consulate. That raises the prospect of an individual turning up at an airport, having purchased a ticket, only to be turned away at security. I might be wrong about that, in which case it would be useful to know how the Home Office envisages that working in practice. That in itself might not matter at all. If we are dealing with a country that is a trusted partner—my right hon. Friend indicated that there were discussions with France and Turkey—that might not be a problem. The individual’s return might simply be delayed until they have gone to see the British consulate and been interviewed.

However, the proportionality test that has to be applied to these cases means that my right hon. Friend will have to assess whether an individual—notwithstanding the fact that she might reasonably consider them to have been involved in terrorism—might be put at serious risk of having their human rights infringed, for example by being detained or tortured, if revocation of their passport would lead to their being exposed as a person who could be viewed as a terrorist in circumstances in which the Government would feel unable to share that information with the Government of that country because they were concerned about the risks that would be attendant on their arrest.

There is an issue of practice and practicality that needs to be thought through, and I hope that as a result of this debate my right hon. Friend and the Home Office may be in a position to provide reassurance as the Bill goes through the House that they have that subject very much in mind. Having listened to my right hon. Friend talk about proportionality, I am reassured that this is a matter of which she is well aware, as I know from the experience of working with her as a colleague; she knows it can sometimes be an issue. Subject to that, the process that she has adopted, which requires the individual to go to the consulate and get, in essence, a one-way ticket back to this country so that we know when the individual is returning, seems perfectly proper as long as the delay period is not too long, and as long as there is not some subtext intention of causing that individual problems in the country in which they happen to be located—a point that I made earlier.

That brings me to a further point raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn, which is about judicial process. I raised on Second Reading and again subsequently my question why it is so difficult to have a system in which there is not a judicial process to initiate it. I appreciate that there is a difference between a TPIM and the temporary exclusion order proposed—a difference in terms of the restrictions that may be placed on the individual when they return, which are capable of being challenged by judicial review anyway, and because the revocation of a passport is an exercise of the royal prerogative, which is different in nature and quality from a TPIM. It is nevertheless a draconian sanction.

As my right hon. Friend will confirm, removing passports from individuals in this fashion is not a process that has previously been carried out, certainly not in circumstances where the individual when they are abroad does not have the possibility of accessing a different nationality, for example. I continue to wonder whether a judicial process might be valuable. My right hon. Friend may have powerful arguments to make against that, but I have not yet had explained to me in quite the detail I would wish the Government’s reasoning on this point. The point has been made that a temporary exclusion order may have to be issued as an emergency or rather quickly. The current TPIM system allows for a TPIM to be issued without a judge’s sanction—an imprimatur—if necessary, so that could be included in this process.

However, it strikes me—perhaps I am wrong, and I am always prepared to be persuaded that I am wrong—that in this process there is likely to be a slightly more leisurely approach anyway, because the Government will know that an individual is abroad and likely to come back to the United Kingdom, and unless that return is likely to happen very quickly, I would have thought it might normally be possible to apply ex parte to a court for the order to be sanctioned and for some scrutiny to be carried out as to the reasons why it is to take place. If that were to happen, it would also allow for a measure of judicial scrutiny as to whether the issue of the temporary exclusion order might endanger a person’s fundamental rights because it would expose them to risk in their present location.

Those are my thoughts on this matter. I should make it clear that I put them forward in an entirely probing spirit because the principle of what my right hon. Friend is doing seems to me, as I indicated earlier, to be utterly unexceptionable, even though it is an unusual power. However, in the context of the risk and threat that the United Kingdom faces which, as I have said on several occasions, I believe to be a real threat, this is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to a legitimate goal that the Government are trying to achieve. I hope that as the Bill goes through the House we will have an opportunity to examine the proposal, which will enable us to get the right outcome on the provision. If we get the right outcome, history has shown that it will cause my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary far less trouble with court challenges thereafter.

[Frank Dobson]

As the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, whose constituency and constituents experienced the bombs on the tube at Russell square and on the bus at Tavistock square, I am second to no one in my desire to prevent terrorism from taking place in this country. It behoves all of us to do whatever we can to protect people in this country from terrorism and not to have terrorists on the loose, whether they are home-grown and have not been abroad, foreigners who come here, or British citizens returning to Britain. Those British citizens have rights and duties. One of their most important rights is the right of abode in this country as a citizen, but they also have a duty not to break our law or, as I understand it, international law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does my right hon. Friend think that this will lead to a whole cadre of virtually stateless people who will congregate together in one place, and that will be a problem for absolutely everybody rather than one state? Surely, as he rightly says, a state has a responsibility towards its own nationals.

[Frank Dobson]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. The whole proposition of exclusion orders seems to be predicated on the idea, first, that these people are totally rational; and secondly, that their greatest desire is to come back to Britain. Neither of those things will necessarily be the case, because some very odd people are going to be involved.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be in danger of attacking the idea that was originally presented rather than that contained in the Bill, which is much closer to being a process of determining that, if somebody who is thought to be dangerous comes back to this country, we can control, monitor and supervise them. Surely that is a more sensible objective, which the original, apparent objective of making people stateless would not have been.

[Frank Dobson]

I agree that the Government have modified their position since the first daft statements were made—things have been made more rational—but I do not think they have come up with the best proposition. The proposal for notification and managed return orders may not be perfect by any means, but it is a better proposition than that suggested by the Government.

The peculiarity of the functions of British consular services when a person is suspected is extraordinary. The consular services will serve people with an order and then, if somebody else nicks them and puts them in prison or starts torturing them, the same consular services will turn around and start looking after their interests. That seems to me to be at the odd end of the functions of a consular service.

[Mr Winnick]

If this measure does not succeed, what would my right hon. Friend say in response to the powerful argument made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) about the judicial process? Would there not be a very strong case that a court should decide on temporary exclusion orders?

[Frank Dobson]

That might be an improvement, but the practicalities of what happens in Turkey or Syria are not changed by a court decision or endorsement here.

What the process does not do—I would have thought that we all want to see this done—is bring people under our jurisdiction, prosecute them and, if they are found guilty, jail them. Surely that should be the main objective of Britain’s policy. The process is likely to get them picked up, but not by us: they will be picked up by somebody who may or may not be one of our allies. I believe, therefore, that the basic Government proposal undermines and interferes with their fundamental rights of abode in this country and it does not achieve what we want, which is to see terrorists brought to justice. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) would address both issues, so it would be an improvement.

The human right of a British citizen to abode in this country is not some fancy right dreamt up in Brussels or Strasbourg, and it has not been created by the Human Rights Act 1998. It is a right of citizens to which Gladstone and Disraeli would have subscribed, not to mention Palmerston, who, after all, sent a gunboat to Greece to protect the interests of an exceedingly dodgy Maltese who probably had committed a crime. There is nothing new about this right and we need to be very careful abut doing anything that would undermine it.

I believe that notification and managed return orders do not deny the fundamental rights at all; do not expose people to being picked up by the Turkish authorities and still less by the Syrian authorities; involve the identification of the suspects but do not tip them off that they will be arrested if they come back to this country; which the temporary exclusion orders do; bring the suspects within British jurisdiction; and will result, if those people are guilty, in their being prosecuted and punished, which is what we want. We do not want them roaming around. If they come back here and are guilty of what they are suspected of, they will be picked up when they arrive at the port, the airport or St Pancras station. That is what we want to happen and it will not happen under the exclusion orders.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I had not intended to speak today, but I have been sitting here getting rather more uncomfortable about some aspects of the proposal. I do not propose to go into the complex practical issues, which were well laid out by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who gave thoughtful input, as ever, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). They outlined the issues and complexities very well and I suspect that those complexities will best be addressed by negotiation between those on the two Front Benches, which is not something I often recommend.

What concerns me today is the issue of the Home Secretary herself exercising the power. I am concerned that it comes about without prior judicial approval or, indeed, without being a power of the court, which would be my preference. Over time, I have become progressively concerned about the accretion of fairly absolute power to the state in counter-terrorism policy. Absolute power is pretty important. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) suggested that these measures did not impinge on people’s liberties in the same way as TPIMs might, but I am afraid that the impingement is pretty sizeable. I do not necessarily disapprove of it at all, but it should be exercised with a degree of judicial care.

These accretions of power have come about since the late 1980s and the 1990s when we avowed the various security services that had up until then not been recognised in public policy, or that were at least not in the public domain. At the time, it seemed quite reasonable for the Crown prerogative to be used as a method of giving warrants and of enacting the state’s will to protect the public. I took the 1994 Bill on the Secret Intelligence Service through the House. We did not foresee the level of use—the number of warrants used and the level of power being exercised—that is now necessary to deal with the Islamist terrorist threat.

What is more, we did not give much thought to how such power might be abused—not that it is at the moment, but it might be in the future—or how many errors might occur, which does happen. We had at the back of our mind a model of accountability that, frankly, does not work. The Minister for Security and Immigration will be familiar with the number of times on which he and I have had exchanges that amount to my asking him a question and his writing back something like, “I never comment on security matters.” That is not a particularly good form of accountability for any mechanism.

My concern is that along with progressive secrecy, secret courts and all the other things we now have, the weak accountability—

--- Later in debate ---

The second category has been well documented by researchers in touch with people in Syria and Iraq: it is those who have gone out for idealistic reasons. They may have understandably opposed the Assad regime, felt there was a humanitarian cause and gone out there to do their bit for democracy and the liberation of the people in that part of the world. There is no doubt that some of them will become disillusioned. They may be quite easy to reintegrate back into society. They have seen the alternative and perhaps will have come to recognise the merits of our democratic system, the rule of law, human rights and so on.

[Frank Dobson]

I wonder whether, when the Home Secretary replies, she could make it clear who, in relation to Syria, would be regarded as a terrorist suspect. Would someone who is not a jihadist but has gone out to fight against the Assad regime, sympathising with and supporting the British Government, be regarded as a terrorist? There may even be a few who have gone out to fight for the Assad Government. Would they be regarded as terrorists? It is not at all clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I understand the point the right hon. Gentleman was making, and the intention is indeed that that will be done on a case-by-case basis—both the question whether there should be a TEO, and how that individual would be managed on their return to the United Kingdom. For some, it would be appropriate to look at further action when they return to the UK—for example, it could be right to put someone on a TPIM—or it might be appropriate for them to be put in the direction of some form of programme that helps to de-radicalise them. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras raised the issue of potential prosecution, too, and it may be that there is evidence and it is appropriate to prosecute somebody when they return. So we are talking about this being done on a case-by-case basis. I know that is a well-used phrase, but that is genuinely intended to operate in this instance.

I hope that answers the point the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made in referring to her two constituents who had died in Syria. Of course we think of the father she quoted, who has seen his sons die in those circumstances. Again, I assure her that we would decide whether to impose a TEO on a case-by-case basis. As I have said, people will go out to Syria for a whole variety of reasons, some of them believing they are going for humanitarian purposes.

The Government have given a clear message to everyone: if you are thinking of going out to Syria for humanitarian purposes, don’t go. There are better ways of helping the people of Syria than going out there and potentially getting caught up in the fighting and losing your life.

I welcome the constructive approach adopted by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who led for the official Opposition, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I want to respond to some of the points that they and others have raised. A number of Members spoke as though the Opposition’s notification and managed return proposals were an alternative to the Government’s proposals, but I think the right hon. Member for Delyn made it clear that they were in addition to our proposals. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked what would constitute a reasonable excuse. In fact, that would ultimately be for the courts to decide. A reasonable excuse could involve circumstances in which an individual had inadvertently breached the terms of their permit to return to the UK for practical reasons—for example, when their plane had been diverted.

[Frank Dobson]

If a person who had been made the subject of an order that had been deemed to have been served came to this country without knowing that it had been served, would they have committed an offence?

[Mrs May]

I was about to come on to the issue of serving the order. It is set out in the Bill that the fact that someone does not know that an order has been served is not necessarily a sufficient excuse, but that is a matter that would be tested in the courts. They would be looking at the action that was to be taken in relation to a breach, and it would be for them to determine what a reasonable excuse would be. An order would be served in person whenever possible, but when that was not possible, we would seek to ensure that an individual was made aware of the order through other mechanisms. We might, for example, seek to serve it at the individual’s last known address or serve the order to file. As I said earlier, similar systems work effectively in other contexts, such as informing foreign nationals about decisions on their immigration status.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

This reminds me of one of my constituents. He went to Somalia and then went to Djibouti, where he was arrested and handed over to the Americans. When he said he was a British citizen, he was told, “No, you’re not. The Home Secretary has taken your citizenship away.” He was unaware of that fact, but I gather that the order was deemed to have been served on him in Somalia because it had been sent to his mother’s address in Islington.

[Mrs May]

As I have said, when it is impossible to serve an order on an individual in person, it is standard practice to make every attempt to serve it in a way that ensures the information gets to them. Using their last known address is one way in which such decisions are served.

Immigration Bill

Frank Dobson Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about his position and also about the desire that we have in the House to ensure that we can take appropriate action against people who are acting in a manner that is not conducive to the public good and who are acting in a manner that is seriously prejudicial to this country’s interests.

New clause 18 recreates—

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

When I first became a Member of this House, anyone born in Britain automatically became a British citizen. That right was taken away by the Thatcher Government. Will this law apply to the children of people who have acquired British citizenship?

[Mrs May]

It applies to somebody who is a naturalised person. That is who it applies to. It seeks to recreate the very specific sub-set of cases that are currently provided for under the “conducive” power. It would allow me to deprive a person of their citizenship, regardless of whether it left them stateless, but as I say, it applies only to those who are naturalised, not those who are British by birth or those who register to acquire citizenship under other provisions of the 1981 Act—

[Frank Dobson]

rose—

[Mrs May]

If the right hon. Gentleman would wait—such as those which provide for children to acquire British citizenship. And it would apply only to very serious cases of people whose conduct is

“seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom”.

Those safeguards and limitations are important. The amendment will allow the key consideration to be whether the person’s actions are consistent with the values we all attach to British citizenship. We may all have a slightly different interpretation of what they might be, but I am confident that Members of this House would agree that this is encapsulated by the oath that naturalised citizens take when they attend their citizenship ceremonies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. In some cases we are able to return people, and we do a lot of work with other countries, through our agreements on deportation with assurances, to ensure that we can deport people elsewhere. Of course, there was a particular case in which we could not take such action against an individual because it would have rendered them stateless, notwithstanding the fact that they were in a position to apply for citizenship of another state.

[Frank Dobson]

It may be a fault in me that I did not understand the Home Secretary’s reply to my question earlier. Will she confirm that the child of someone who had acquired British citizenship would be subject to the law that she envisages?

[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.

[Frank Dobson]

If that is the case, what powers did the Home Secretary use to take citizenship away from my constituent Mahdi Hashi, who was then kidnapped by the Americans in Somalia and is now in court in New York?

[Mrs May]

I will not discuss an individual case, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about it, I will respond to him. I have set out the powers that I already have to deprive citizenship, which are twofold. The first circumstance is when somebody has acquired citizenship through deception or fraud, and the second is when somebody has acted in a manner that is seriously prejudicial to our national interest and they would not be rendered stateless as a result of the deprivation of their British citizenship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brazier]

That was indeed our tradition. It has of course been suspended many times, including for six years during the second world war when German citizens were locked up. There was a divided ruling in the House of Lords, as my hon. Friend will be well aware, on one such German citizen who brought a habeas corpus case.

My point is this: only by putting a measure through can we see whether or not it is possible to sort out this kind of scandalous situation while still allowing Strasbourg to be the supreme court. Can we test it? That is the only way. Personally I think we should do what Lord Judge recommends; we should pass an Act making it clear that the European Court of Human rights should not be our supreme court and that it is only there for persuasive purposes and that, ultimately, the Supreme Court in Britain is our supreme court and that Parliament is sovereign.

I want to touch for a couple of minutes on a subject that has not been discussed at all and is extremely relevant to my hon. Friend’s amendment, which is judicial activism. The legislation that followed the Human Rights Act gave huge powers of discretion to judges; in fact one of the most interesting comments coming out of the Court of Appeal ruling on 8 October 2013 was its comment in passing that the reference to exceptional circumstances in the rules—to which I objected when it went through—was consistent with the proportionality balancing exercise required by Strasbourg jurisprudence. In other words, basically it did not affect judicial discretion at all.

The fact is that individual judges—who have accepted so little guidance from Parliament or resolutions of the House of Commons in this matter—have, basically off their own backs, acted in extreme cases involving people guilty of the most revolting crimes and allowed an article 8 ruling to overrule that. That has happened even when the family connection here was pretty tenuous; in one case, the family connection was desperate to disassociate itself from the individual. That is a measure of the extent to which we are suffering from judicial activism among at least one portion of the judiciary. I want to see the constitutional side of this fixed and I want my hon. Friend’s amendment to be passed. I shall vote for it. I also believe that we will need to pass a measure to make it clear that the supreme court in this country is the British Supreme Court. But I suspect that we will still have a residual problem with the issue of judicial activism.

Let me end my speech by reminding the House of perhaps the most famous case of judicial activism within a common-law jurisdiction in modern history, the Dred Scott case of 1865. I remind those who talk about the rule of law that had President Lincoln not stood up to the Supreme Court in America—had he not said “I was elected as President on this mandate: to prevent the spread of slavery into new states”, and brushed away the court’s finding—there would have been no civil war between 1861 and 1865, and there would have been no end to slavery in America at that stage. I think that most people believe that what happened was right.

[Frank Dobson]

I shall try to be very brief.

The Home Secretary’s proposal to extend her powers in respect of the removal of British citizenship from a limited and specific group of people must be assessed against the judgment that it is in the national interest or for the public good. I have to say that I have never heard anyone give a single example of Britain’s having benefited from some individual’s loss of British citizenship, and I think that it behoves the Home Office, and possibly the Foreign Office, to find out whether there actually have been any such benefits, because there are certainly disbenefits. Harm is done, or can be done, when someone loses British citizenship, and I do not mean that harm is done to the person who loses his citizenship. I mean that harm is done to other people—to the rest of us.

In my constituency, a young Somali—I do not know whether he is a terrorist or not a terrorist—went to Somalia, got married and had children. He was going to come back to this country, for what purpose I know not, but when he went to Djibouti he was arrested. After his arrest, when he was being handed over to some Americans, he said “You cannot do that: I am a British citizen.” He was then told “You are not any more, because the Home Secretary has taken your citizenship away.” He ended up being kidnapped by the Americans, and is now facing a court in New York. If he has done something that merits his going before a court in New York and he has never previously been to America, he could presumably have been prosecuted here for the same offence.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

Under the current proposals, the person whose passport was removed would not necessarily appear in a court anywhere. The proposed measure gives the Secretary of State a very broad power when she considers it conducive to the public good to deprive someone of a passport because his or her conduct is

“seriously prejudicial to the vital interests”

of the United Kingdom. No actual crime is specified anywhere. Everyone has been talking about terrorists or other criminals, but the problem is that the proposed power is so broad.

[Frank Dobson]

I entirely agree. That is why I am doubtful about the capacity to take away people’s British citizenship.

There is a substantial Somali community in my constituency. Needless to say, it includes quite a few testosterone-exuding young men who are very upset about what is happening in Somalia, and who are dubious about what the British Government are or are not doing. However, a much bigger group of young men, and young women, have been working tremendously hard in trying to combat the extremist elements, such as people preaching hatred. Indeed, they have been very successful in doing so, and the Prime Minister himself has commended their effort and commitment. For instance, they have massively improved the performance of Somali young people in schools. One of the things that they were able to say when countering the arguments of the extremists who were trying to lead local young people astray was, “Always remember that you are a British citizen now: you are British, not Somali.”

London Metropolitan University

Frank Dobson Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. She is quite right. As the House knows, about two thirds of all visas issued to people coming to this country are student visas, and there has been very widespread abuse of this route in recent years. That is why the enforcement action to ensure that, whether in the private or public sector, we get rid of that abuse is good not only for our immigration system but, in the long run, for our education system, because around the world people will know that British education is being properly monitored and run.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

How can the Minister believe that punishing students who are entitled to be at London Metropolitan university fits in with any British feeling of fairness?

Foreign National Offenders

Frank Dobson Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those helpful and practical suggestions, some of which the UKBA already attempts to operate. He will be aware that most countries co-operate with the process entirely and are extremely helpful but, sadly, some countries are much less helpful. One measure that we are taking to ensure that the situation improves in the years ahead, as it needs to, is persuading Governments who are less keen than others on helping us with returns to be more helpful and co-operative about accepting their nationals back.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

When a prisoner is sentenced to imprisonment and deportation, why do we not just deport them straight away and save the expense of sending them to jail?

[Damian Green]

Successive Home Secretaries and Immigration Ministers have grappled with that suggestion. One problem is that we would need to know that offenders would be sentenced to some kind of equivalent term in their own country. Otherwise, we would have the terrible situation that somebody could commit a serious crime in this country in the full knowledge that the worst thing that would happen to them if they were caught and convicted would be that they were returned home free to their own country. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman wants that to happen. That is why successive Governments have not taken that path.

Public Disorder

Frank Dobson Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs May]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, then make a little progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I could provide a map of where officers went around the country, but it was not a matter of simple exchanges between one force and another. Officers from one force will have gone to support another, with subsequent backfilling by officers from a further force. The whole point of the ACPO PNICC—police national information co-ordination centre—arrangement is that such movements around the country can be worked so that when a force asks for numbers to be increased, officers are available. The key element is that the officers in question are mainly in police support units—officers who are specially trained in public order—thereby ensuring that the officers on the streets have the right level of training.

[Frank Dobson]

In response to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the Home Secretary said that no one had been charged with riot because the particular circumstances of riot had not arisen, or the charge was inappropriate. Will she confirm that that fact will not be used by the Metropolitan police to weasel out of providing the compensation that should be provided under the Riot (Damages) Act?

[Mrs May]

I think I can provide that guarantee to the right hon. Gentleman.

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Frank Dobson Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend sneaked in with his intervention as I was nearing the conclusion of my speech. Perhaps I use the term “retrospective” a little loosely. This is not retrospective legislation in that it merely corrects the decision that has recently been made and puts the situation back to what it had been understood to be. That is supported by Liberty, which has said:

“We do not believe that the proposals are retrospective in their nature as they do not seek retrospectively to create a criminal offence, sanction or other burden. They would, in our view, not fall foul of Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights or the common law rule against retrospective penalties.”

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Does the Home Office, any other part of Government or the Association of Chief Police Officers have any figures to show how many people have been on police bail for, let us say, more than six months and then are not charged?

[Mrs May]

I am not aware of such figures, but the right hon. Gentleman’s question gives me an opportunity to comment on remarks that some lawyers and others have made as to whether the original judgment is in some way a response to a problem that had been getting worse. I am not aware of such a problem. The rules that we are restoring are those that the police have been operating under for the past 25 years. I say to those who have suddenly raised this issue that if they did feel there was a problem they should have raised it sooner. I also say that this Bill is merely restoring the situation to what has been understood to be for the last 25 years, and that I do not think it is an appropriate vehicle for doing any more than that. We have a task to perform today. The Bill achieves that task, and it is right that it is restricted to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

It is the anniversary of the bomb outrages of 7 July, and the bulk of the people who were killed and maimed in those outrages were in my constituency. That is one reason why I would not want anything to happen that made life and work more difficult for our police service. Like the ambulance service and the fire service, the police are different from the rest of us. When something disastrous occurs, the rest of us prudently run away. The police, like the firefighters and ambulance crews, rush in the opposite direction to offer aid and assistance. Nothing that I say should be interpreted as being against the police.

I welcome the Bill and accept the need to clarify the law so that it is what everyone thought it was when it was passed by the House 25 years ago. If there was any ambiguity in it, I think I am the only guilty party present in the House today. I was a Member at that time, and I do not think anyone else here was.

Clearly, being on bail is better than being in jail, but being on bail is being not quite free. A considerable number of people are released on police bail and eventually turn out not to be guilty of anything. We need to remember that bail is applied to our fellow citizens, and we need to try to protect them from what is unreasonable. I have had cases drawn to my attention in the past few years of people on greatly protracted periods of bail. I do not believe that that is acceptable.

It seems to me that there has been a gradual build-up of protracted periods of bail. My understanding is that neither the Home Office nor the police have the faintest idea whether that is true, because they do not have any figures. I urge the Minister to accept that it would be a sound idea for the Home Office to start collecting such figures, so that we have a measure of the problem. Clearly, given the need to clarify the law urgently, we do not have the opportunity now to consider properly what constraints might be put in place to protect people against unjustifiably protracted periods of bail, but we need to consider introducing such constraints.

There might be objections to making the extension of bail subject to a judicial process, because in at least some cases the police might not wish to disclose publicly at that point what evidence was available to them. However, we do need some constraints, and I wonder whether the Minister will accept that if he takes advice from ACPO, he might also give it some advice so that the chief police officers take more seriously the problem of protracted bail. We could say, for instance, that if bail goes beyond a year, it has to be renewed with the specific personal consent of the chief constable of the area concerned. That might turn out to be a useful management tool, because it would draw to the attention of the chief constable how many cases were particularly protracted.

I hope that we can at least agree in principle that in future, we need some measurement and logging of protracted periods of bail, and some constraint on them. We owe that to our fellow citizens. It is always worth remembering that all the people who are on bail are innocent until charged and found guilty. They are our fellow citizens, and we need to remember that.

I strongly support the Bill, but I hope that we will consider the problem much more seriously and at greater length, and perhaps with a little more sympathy for people who are out on bail, in the near future. It is not something that we can knock forward for another 25 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

rose—

[Nick Herbert]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman very briefly.

[Frank Dobson]

Does the Minister not accept that if we are to have a rational, evidence-based debate about the possible increase in protracted bail periods, it will be necessary for the Home Office actually to collect some data? Otherwise we shall all be just talking.

[Nick Herbert]

I am all in favour of evidence-based policy, but I think that rather than its merely being asserted that there is a problem, such a problem, if it exists, must be properly presented and, of course, backed up with data.

Secondly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) suggested that the Bill should include a sunset clause. The Government disagree. A sunset clause would create further uncertainty, which is exactly what the police do not want. We do not want it either. This is a straightforward piece of legislation that restores the previous position. We also believe that the retrospective action that is being taken is necessary, because if it were not taken, hundreds of thousands of people would potentially have a claim for false imprisonment at any time over the past six years, which is the limitation period. Liberty has said:

“We do not believe that the proposals are retrospective in their nature as they do not seek retrospectively to create a criminal offence, sanction or other burden.”

This is a sensible piece of legislation which was designed to correct an unusual judgment and restore 25 years of legal practice, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Phone Tapping

Frank Dobson Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I say to my hon. Friend that the matter has been investigated by the Metropolitan police, who did so in very close co-operation with the Crown Prosecution Service and with leading counsel. The matter has also been looked at by the Select Committee of the House. The findings of that Select Committee are clear. The findings of the Metropolitan police at the time that they investigated the matter and then looked again at it last July are also clear. Two individuals were prosecuted as a result of that investigation. The Metropolitan police have made it clear that if fresh evidence is there, they will look at that fresh evidence.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that, in circumstances in which Members of this House may not have their telephone communications intercepted by the police or the security service, it would be totally unacceptable for their communications to be intercepted unlawfully by newspapers? Does she accept, on the evidence of what has been said in the House this afternoon, that there has been a distinct lack of zeal on the part of the Metropolitan police in looking into these accusations?

[Mrs May]

Far from that, the Metropolitan police investigated these matters when they were first raised. The matter was considered again in July 2009, when the then Policing Minister, on behalf of the then Home Secretary, who was absent from the House that day, came to the House in response to an urgent question and, as a result of that, indicated that the Labour Government were taking no further action in relation to the matter.