Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 30th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this significant and important issue. I pay tribute to the Community Security Trust for its work in providing safety and security in this area. I will certainly engage further not just with my right hon. Friend but with local government to ensure that we continue to make progress.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

May I ask the Northern Powerhouse Minister when he expects to make a further announcement about the northern powerhouse commitment in relation to the growth deal in north Wales?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

There have been various discussions with the US and Canadian authorities, and with Bombardier itself, in relation to the continuing dispute. Obviously, we see this as unjustified and unwarranted. We await the latest determination, but we will continue to challenge this and to underline our key focus and endeavour on seeing that those important jobs in Belfast are protected.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State expect still to have access to the European arrest warrant to bring back criminals and terrorists who reside in the Irish Republic and commit acts in Northern Ireland?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman, with his experience, will know about the cross-border work. I commend the work of the PSNI and the Garda Siochana in delivering security on the island of Ireland. Their very close co-operation points to a number of EU-related structures, which is why, knowing the significance and importance of deepening that relationship into the future, we want to see a new treaty established that is able to respond and address that co-operation.

Northern Ireland Budget Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

2nd reading: House of Commons & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, that is not a step that I intend to take while there is an opportunity for an Executive to be formed. Discussions have been ongoing—as they were even last week—between his party and Sinn Féin to try to find a resolution to the outstanding issues between the parties that can form such an Executive. I think it is right that we continue to pursue that, but he is right to say that this situation is not sustainable into the long term. It is absolutely in the best interests of Northern Ireland and more generally that we continue to do all we can to restore an Executive and to ensure that the parties are able to resolve the outstanding issues and get devolved government back up and running at the earliest opportunity.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), I would like the Secretary of State to clarify something for me. If parliamentary questions were tabled in this House later this week about the details of this budget, if Adjournment debates on the subject were to take place later this week, or if early-day motions or other parliamentary accountability mechanisms were deployed on the subject, would he see it as his role to answer such questions? Or is there a mechanism whereby Members elected in Northern Ireland could also table and answer similar questions?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman has made this point on a previous occasion. I understand the question of accountability, and I feel this issue very keenly at this point. At this stage, these issues remain devolved. We are seeking to set a headline, outline budget of top-line numbers for each of the different Departments of the Northern Ireland civil service, but we are not seeking to provide a higher level of specificity or detail. Of course I will continue to raise issues with David Sterling, the head of the Northern Ireland civil service, but ultimately he remains accountable under the emergency provisions in the Northern Ireland legislation. He remains subject to the duties outlined in that mechanism. That is the unsatisfactory situation that we remain in. I say to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that this might be sustainable for a time, but it cannot continue for an extended period.

Northern Ireland Update

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point that he has made. As I indicated in my statement, should an agreement be reached that enables an Executive to be put in place quickly—however unlikely that is—I would obviously not want to introduce the budget Bill. There are important steps that we have to take, however. The civil service has underlined to us that the end of November is a crucial time, by which they need the budget to be in place. That is why I am taking the steps that I have outlined today. This is not about the UK Government setting the spending priorities; that remains firmly with the Northern Ireland civil service, which will continue to get on with that job, as it has done over recent months. That is why I have made the point that this is not about direct rule or UK Government Ministers setting the individual priorities. It is important to resolve the issue quickly for all the reasons we have heard today, and that is where our earnest focus must lie.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

As one of the last direct rule Ministers, may I tell the Secretary of State that however engaging it is for those involved, direct rule is not a good form of government? I wish him well in re-establishing the Assembly in Northern Ireland. Will he indicate how the extra money agreed between the DUP and the Government is involved, and whether it is part of the budget settlement? If I were to table parliamentary questions about the details of the budget after it has been agreed, would he answer those questions, or will he find another mechanism of accountability?

[James Brokenshire]

I acknowledge the presentation that the right hon. Gentleman, with the experience of his role in Northern Ireland, makes about the challenges and the fact that this is not the outcome we want. As we have made clear throughout the process, the budget Bill speaks to the main estimates that were put in place earlier this year. We are operating within that framework. It is open to the House to vote, through supplementary estimates, for further moneys to be made available to Northern Ireland during the course of the financial year; and votes in this House obviously matter. As a Government, we stand by our commitments, and as a party, we stand by the agreement reached with the Democratic Unionist party, and nothing I have said today changes that.

Northern Ireland: Political Situation

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I know that this is an issue that my right hon. Friend and others have raised consistently in the House. I commend them for the focus they have provided. The Government remain committed to implementing the Stormont House institutions and that reform which is about fair, balanced and proportionate efforts in respect of the investigations of the past. That is what the agreement sets out clearly in applying the rule of law but, as I have said on a number of occasions in the House, I and others across Government will never tire of recognising the tireless contribution that so many in our security and armed forces made to ensure that we have peace today. Without their contribution, that simply would not have been possible.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is not easy to establish devolved government. We achieved that in 2006-07 because the Prime Minister of the day spent 80 hours in St Andrews hands-on, dealing with all parties with the Taoiseach of Ireland. That is just advice to the Secretary of State; it is not a disservice to him and his colleagues to have the Prime Minister engaged heavily.

Given the £1 billion that has been committed by the Government, could the Secretary of State assure the House that in the absence of devolved government no expenditure decisions will be taken by civil servants on priorities for the expenditure of that money?

[James Brokenshire]

There are clear needs in Northern Ireland, which is why I made the point that I did on the potential need for further clarification for the Northern Ireland civil service in respect of budgetary issues. I also underline that last week’s statement recognised the particular needs and circumstances of Northern Ireland and that there are some urgent and pressing priorities. That is why I think an Executive needs to be put into place, but clearly, in acting in Northern Ireland’s best interests, we will keep that very closely under review if it is not possible to form an Executive in the coming days.

Northern Ireland: Political Developments

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As I indicated in my statement, we are obviously focused on getting a positive outcome through a renewed talks process and legislating as necessary to enable an Executive to be put in place. As I have already said, I will keep all options under consideration, and therefore how we address some of the immediate short-term issues in relation to the budget and the regional rate is at the forefront of my mind.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

As one of the last direct rule Ministers for Northern Ireland, may I remind the Secretary of State that managing five Departments from Westminster is not a good form of government? History shows that when the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach engage with matters of crisis—when they clear their diaries and spend four or five days engaged with those issues—crises are solved. Will he reflect on that as he determines not to have direct rule?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have already indicated, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach are actively involved. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view of direct rule. We do not want to contemplate this, because I see it as a step backwards, not a step forward. That is why we must all redouble our efforts to get the positive outcome, get the agreement between the parties, and see an Executive formed.

Northern Ireland: Political Developments

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and for the way in which she makes it. I certainly am struck by the strength of feeling, which is why I underline the points I have made about how we need to see a change in the system. The attention of the state is focused in such a way that there are cases in which people have been murdered as a consequence of terrorist activity but are not being pursued. There are mechanisms that provide for that, and I am intent on taking that forward. Notwithstanding the current issues, that remains a priority.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that other Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive remain in post and can continue to govern the Northern Ireland Assembly, as now? Will he therefore exercise maximum discretion to ensure that the objectives of the Stormont House agreement—to secure devolved administration and stop people like me running Northern Ireland as direct rule Ministers—are met?

[James Brokenshire]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s viewpoint; he has direct experience from the time he served as a Minister in Northern Ireland. He is right that the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers remain in place in the Executive. Yes, we find ourselves in the current situation, but stability can be maintained through this period. The actions of Ministers in the Executive will clearly be limited, but none the less that stability remains, and we need to continue to work with the Executive at this time to find the solution.

EU Nationals: UK Residence

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated, I believe that we need to work to make sure that people who are here can stay in the UK. Securing that needs to be part of the negotiations. That is part of those discussions, as is the position of British nationals overseas.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Minister’s statement condemns large numbers of constituents of mine who are married to foreign nationals, expecting children with foreign nationals or employed in factories here and abroad with foreign nationals to great uncertainty. If he will not accept the will of the House today, will he give a clearer indication of the timescale than simply, “It is a matter for the next Prime Minister”?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that there are a number of issues that flow through from the decision that has been made for the UK to leave the European Union, and this is but one of them. I entirely recognise the points that he and others have made, but this is how we are able to get the best outcome for European citizens here and British nationals overseas, and therefore it is part of our detailed, considered work. As I have indicated, it is certainly a priority aspect of that work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The National Crime Agency does vital work, both here in the UK and overseas, to track down the source of plots and conspiracies, as well as to disrupt the activity of organised crime groups. It has been crucial in recent operations, for example in arresting those suspected of drug smuggling offences in Greece, intercepting shipments of cocaine passing through the English channel and cracking down on Europe-wide people smuggling operations. The NCA is increasingly showing the importance of that international work, and equally it is working through organisations such as Europol to show that we have the best intelligence and good co-ordination to combat organised criminality.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Given that at least 67,500 small planes or boats landed at British ports or airports unchecked by Border Force, does the Minister have any concerns that that might be a route for illegal drugs or firearms?

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, through his experience of being a Home Office Minister, of the steps that are taken by all our various agencies in looking at each potential way in which people may smuggle into this country. We are improving the systems through which general aviation reports are captured in order to ensure that we are tackling non-compliance. We are also working through air traffic control to track flights that fail to report and, through improvements to legislation, take action against those who fail to comply with the requirements. We remain focused on these issues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I join the Home Secretary in remembering the victims of the attack 10 years ago. It was a heinous crime, which will live with people right up to today and beyond.

It is now over nine months since the migrant crisis started at Calais, and things are not getting any better for travellers, hauliers, the people of Calais or, indeed, for those individuals who have been trafficked there. Given the situation and recent concerns in the town of Calais, will the Home Secretary or her Minister confirm now what steps she has taken with the French Government to assess, identify and agree with the French authorities either asylum refugee claims or removal at the border? What steps is she taking to ensure that we improve security in France for UK citizens travelling through the Pas-de-Calais to the port?

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

The Government have taken a number of measures to enhance security. The Home Secretary had discussions with her opposite number, Bernard Cazeneuve, last week on this specific element. We have invested £12 million into Calais and are looking at providing enhanced fencing at Coquelles in order to see the speeding up of freight and other traffic through both those points. We saw the appalling situation last week of industrial action being taken in France, which compounded the issues, which is why we are working continuously with our French counterparts. They are deploying more police resourcing and Border Force has deployed to Calais and Coquelles as well to enhance screening and assure our security.

Clandestine Migrants (Harwich)

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has approached this issue. I know of the direct stance he has taken in visiting the port and ensuring that he represents his constituents effectively. He makes a powerful point about the pitiful sight of those discovered in these four lorries and about how those seeking to exploit migrants really have no care or consideration—even at times as to whether these people will live or die. That is the callous and harsh reality of the organised crime groups to which we are responding. That is also why it is right that we have enforcement activity both in this country, leveraging with the work of the National Crime Agency, and with other European partners.

My hon. Friend highlights his concerns about the immediate aftermath of the detection, and this has certainly been a very significant detection of illicit migrants, although we have worked hard across the whole of the juxtaposed and other port controls, with just over 39,000 detections being made last year. That shows the vigilance and hard work of Border Force—both in country and elsewhere.

My hon. Friend highlights the need to work internationally, which is certainly what we are doing with the Dutch and others, and asks why people are claiming asylum here rather than in other countries. I would point to the fact that, last year, there were 200,000 asylum claims in Germany—much more than the approximately 30,000 we saw in this country—and 81,000 in Sweden and 63,000 in France. A large majority of asylum claimants are thus going to other European countries rather than here. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend on the work that Border Force is undertaking and the work we will continue to do to secure our border, using technology and flexibly deploying our resources in respect of intelligence where we need it, and ensuring that we are doing all we can to secure our border.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

First, may I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for raising this important issue here today? It remains one of the most serious humanitarian issues facing not just this Government but Europe as a whole. We must ensure that we maintain, as the Minister wants to do, the integrity of our borders. The people found at Harwich this weekend are as much victims of criminal gangs as those found on boats in the Mediterranean, or indeed at the border in Calais. As the Minister has said, we need concerted UK and EU action to ensure we stop this trade in human beings at source.

We on this side of the House warned in October that the removal of Operation Triton would lead to further pressure on European borders, and the lack of effective action taken in Calais by the French authorities and their failure to identify and to remove correctly those at the French border is leading to attempts at other borders, including those in Holland. The measures taken earlier this year by the Government and European Governments are welcome, and I also pay tribute to the armed forces for their help in the Mediterranean, but some questions remain.

First, will the Minister outline in detail what steps he is taking with our European partners and Europol to establish where the people traffickers are operating from, to follow the money raised by payment to these individuals back to source, and to establish further intelligence-led operations to close down this business? How many prosecutions of people traffickers have taken place in the past 12 months both in the UK and internationally? Will he now arrange an urgent meeting of the EU police forces and Ministers to look at this issue again, and to track, identify and prosecute those involved in this trade? Might we look particularly at the issues of north Africa and the middle east, and the Governments and regimes there, to help stop this trade at source?

Like the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, I briefly want to look at what we are doing in the UK. We need to intensify the checks on vehicles, particularly lorries at UK ports of entry. Can the Minister confirm what percentage of lorries and containers are routinely checked at UK ports of entry, and say whether the figure of 6% for Harwich is accurate? Can he confirm whether the statement of the former inspector of borders, John Vine, at the weekend that

“good intelligence and experienced staff were critical, but a lot of experienced staff were leaving and not being replaced”

is true?

Can the Minister confirm whether Border Force funding is ring-fenced from the £30 million Home Office cut announced by the Chancellor last week? A further reduction in funding, even in these hard times, will put pressure on Border Force staff. Will he indicate, if not now then in writing in the Library of the House, how many staff were in post in May 2010 and how many staff are in post now? Does he accept that the pressures on Calais and the work done is Calais are now displacing people to other ports, as we warned last year? Will he look at the issue of the Dublin convention to make sure arrangements are put in place so that those whose first port of entry is not in the UK are dealt with elsewhere?

Finally, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex has asked, will the Minister indicate what steps he is taking to work with the Government of Holland in particular, but also those in Belgium, Spain and Ireland who have direct sea routes to the UK, to put in place stronger mechanisms, as we have in France, to stop the traffickers in mainland Europe?

This is a criminal trade, and the people at Harwich are victims. We need to make sure that the UK Government work hand in hand with our European partners because we need, collectively with the support of the Opposition, to close down this vile trade.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman has asked a series of questions. I may not be able to answer all of them in the time available, but I welcome his constructive approach.

The right hon. Gentleman highlights the need to work jointly with other European countries, and I agree. That is why we have a dedicated UK taskforce in Dover which provides real-time intelligence and investigation response to all operations. For example with links to France and Belgium, 32 live investigations and 22 organised crime groups have already been disrupted since February 2014, and the total custodial sentences to date is 148 years. I hope that answers his question about the body of work.

The right hon. Gentleman highlights the work that we have rightly undertaken in Calais with the French authorities—the £12 million joint investment with the French Government to strengthen security at that port. That is on top of additional investment in screening and other detection equipment, which underlines our strong, practical response.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the number of Border Force officers—there are around 8,000. They are deployed flexibly, by which I mean that it is dependent on the intelligence that we see for a particular port at any one time. Therefore, it is not appropriate to give the breakdown or percentages that he seeks, but we rightly take a responsive stance to deal with such issues.

The right hon. Gentleman also highlighted the need to ensure adherence to the Dublin regulations that allow us to return people who may have been able to claim asylum in other countries. We take that responsibility seriously and we continue to press other European countries in that regard.

One of the key things is to ensure that those who arrive in the European Union are properly fingerprinted and that we identify those who come to our shores. More work needs to be done on that and we will continue to press other European countries to fulfil their responsibilities.

Counter-Terrorism (Statutory Instruments)

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the statutory instruments before the House.

The Minister and the House will know that in August 2014 the joint terrorism analysis centre raised the UK threat level from substantial to severe, and that there are real concerns about the level of threat to the UK. The Minister will also know about the increased level of threat as a result of developments in Syria and Iraq in particular, where terrorist groups are planning attacks on the west. It is clear, from the discussions currently taking place on the alleged murderer Mohammed Emwazi, and the three schoolgirls who travelled from London to Syria, that there are still great concerns about movement and involvement in terrorist activity. The attacks in early January on Charlie Hebdo in Paris and the incidents in Sydney bring home to us the fact that such incidents could occur in the United Kingdom.

The Opposition support fully all five statutory instruments. In a time of heightened terrorist threat to our country, it is right that the Government take action to protect our country. The measures are proportionate and reasonable. We support the draft Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Authority to Carry Scheme) Regulations 2015. As the Minister said, the scheme specifies the classes of carriers to which it applies, and the passengers and crew in respect of whom authority must be requested. It is proportionate and reasonable.

We also support the draft Passenger, Crew and Service Information (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015. Again, we believe it is reasonable. My only comment relates to paragraph 3.1 of the explanatory memorandum, which states that the instrument was laid before Parliament less than 21 days before the proposed date that it is due to come into force. I accept and understand the urgency with which the Minister has brought the regulations forward, but I just want to put down a marker and say that it is good practice to ensure that we have confidence in statutory instruments by providing the appropriate time for discussion.

[James Brokenshire]

I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman’s important point about scrutiny. It is certainly not the normal approach of the Government to breach the 21-day rule. However, I hope he appreciates the need to act with pace in this case, given the national security issues at stake.

[Mr Hanson]

I fully accept that and make no criticism of the broad sense of it. It is important for any future Government, whether it is the hon. Gentleman or I holding this ministerial post, to give due regard to process; otherwise, it will give rise to suspicion. I welcome and support the proposal. I also support provisions relating to passport retention and travel with passports. The Opposition have no problems with those issues.

My final comments relate to the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2015. The order is helpful, as it clarifies information, gives proper powers and puts forward a proper code of practice. It provides an opportunity to clarify, in paragraph 7(1) of the Act, the type of power and when it is exercised. I am pleased that it is subject to review by David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, but given the sensitive nature of these issues, will the Minister assure me that David Anderson will be able to publish statistics on the use of the power and information on the designation areas? It is important that these statistics be presented to the House, if not the detail behind them, as the Minister has undertaken today.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

As he has shown in his reports on, for example, the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, David Anderson clearly provides details about when the powers have been used, and I expect him to take a similar approach to the review of these powers.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister. We have a consensus on these issues. There is support across the House for the measures, and I hope that the House will support them.

Question put and agreed to.



Immigration

Resolved,

That the draft Passenger, Crew and Service Information (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 2 March, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Resolved,

That the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Code of Practice for Officers exercising functions under Schedule 1) Regulations 2015 (S.I., 2015, No 217), dated 12 February 2015, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 February, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)

Resolved,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 27 February, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)

Civil Aviation

Resolved,

That the draft Aviation Security Act 1982 (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 2 March, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I hear the point my hon. and learned Friend makes, and the issue came up when we considered this in Committee, but I think it is right to describe it as a temporary exclusion order because although it clearly facilitates return—it manages return; it manages the control of an individual once they have returned to the UK and consent has been granted—it is exclusionary in its nature during the period prior to return. It seeks to prevent someone from returning without that permission being granted, because there is that other aspect: if someone does seek to return to the UK when they are subject to one of these temporary exclusion orders, it is potentially a criminal offence unless they can show due justification as set out in the Bill. I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend would like to describe this in a particular fashion, but the focus is on the substance of it, and I hope he will understand the approach we are seeking to take, and how this is intended to operate in practice.

The Bill as currently framed would allow judicial review to be brought. That has been used by people to challenge decisions of the Secretary of State in other contexts from abroad. We frequently receive challenges of this nature from individuals abroad in relation to the use of other powers. It is important to recognise that.

Amendments 18 to 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), go even further than the amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench, and would give the courts the power to impose a TEO following an application from the Secretary of State. The Government do not consider these amendments to be appropriate for the reasons I have outlined. I highlight to the House that requiring the Secretary of State to apply to the courts before a TEO can be made could create undue delay and decrease the operational value of the power. It is sometimes important that we are able to act quickly to obtain the maximum benefit from the operation of the powers, to meet the goal of keeping the British public safe from terrorism.

The Government are committed to the appropriate and proportionate use of the temporary exclusion power, but I note the views of David Anderson, the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation. I have a great deal of respect for him and the contributions he has made on a range of matters, including the issue of judicial oversight of the process of granting a temporary exclusion order. Although this issue arises at a late stage in the Bill’s passage through this House, it is important, as has been reflected in many of the contributions. The House has not had the chance properly to consider the Opposition amendments. I hope they will be minded to withdraw them at this stage, and I can assure the House that the Government will look very carefully at the constructive suggestions from David Anderson and return to this issue in the other place.

On a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), the Government have listened to the arguments made both in Committee and—with, I think, sincerity—in today’s debate, and also to the comments of David Anderson. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will reflect on them and that the next stage when we would be able to respond to them is in the other place. No discourtesy is intended. Rather, we want to get this right and to reflect on the views that have been put forward. That is why I judge that this is the most appropriate way of addressing the issues highlighted today.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister must recognise that our amendments are exactly the same as those we tabled in Committee three weeks ago. He has had three weeks to consider these matters, yet today he still asks this House to accept that he is not able to endorse the proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise the strength of feeling that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have on the need to ensure that we are acting appropriately to address the threat of terrorism and the dangers and harm that may be caused by jihadists who have travelled abroad and who may wish to return to this country. This measure is about precisely that, which is why it is framed in this manner and why we have legislated for prosecutions to be brought where people return to the UK after committing acts abroad that would justify prosecution in this country. I recognise my hon. Friend’s points, but our judgment is that the Bill properly reflects that and gives the appropriate power.

With those comments, I hope right hon. and hon. Members will be minded not to press their amendments.

[Mr Hanson]

This has been a useful debate, which is reflected in the fact that it has been longer than I expected. Significant concern has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Back Benches, by Liberal Democrat Members and by Opposition Members, including members of the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) did not table any amendments to the Bill, so to criticise the Labour party for doing so is slightly unnerving.

Deep down, the Minister knows that he has lost the argument on this issue. The Government will return in another place with an amendment that will be broadly similar to what we have proposed today and that will have the approval of the Liberal Democrats and his own Back Benchers. That amendment will come back to this House and we will have another debate in a few weeks’ time in which we will once again agree that this is the right thing to do.

I wish to withdraw new clause 1, but the essence of this debate is new clause 3, on the appeal mechanism, so I wish to support new clause 3, give the House an opportunity to vote for what it will ultimately agree when another place has determined it and let this House today determine this policy. Therefore, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in support of new clause 3, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Prior permission of the court

‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State—

(a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual, and

(b) makes an application to the court for permission to impose measures on the individual.

(2) The application must set out a draft of the proposed TEO notice.

(3) The function of the court on the application is—

(a) to determine whether the relevant decisions of the Secretary of State are obviously flawed, and

(b) to determine whether to give permission to impose measures on the individual and (where applicable) whether to exercise the power of direction under subsection (9).

(4) The court may consider the application—

(a) in the absence of the individual;

(b) without the individual having been notified of the application; and

(c) without the individual having been given an opportunity (if the individual was aware of the application) of making any representations to the court.

(5) But that does not limit the matters about which rules of court may be made.

(6) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.

(7) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State that condition A, condition B, or condition C is met is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section.

(8) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section.

(9) If the court determines that the Secretary of State‘s decision that condition D is met is obviously flawed, the court may (in addition to giving permission under subsection (8) give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual.

(10) 1n this section “relevant decisions” means the decisions that the following conditions are met—

(a) condition A;

(b) condition B;

(c) condition C; and

(d) condition D.”—(Mr Hanson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division, and Madam Deputy Speaker having directed that the doors be locked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Logicality is a matter of judgment. We have chosen on this occasion to table an amendment introducing a sunset clause, as we did in Committee. We voted on it in Committee and we have chosen to revisit the issue because we think it is worth revisiting, particularly because, as we shall discuss in a later group of amendments, there is no appeal mechanism in place—[Interruption.] The Minister says there is. Our view is that there is not, but we will discuss that on the next group of amendments.

We believe that there should be a sunset provision in place. The Minister has the opportunity again to discuss that, having previously rejected the principle. Were the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on the Opposition Benches and were I on the Government Benches, I suspect that he would be arguing for such a proposal, though perhaps not just on clause 1. We will be happy to consider extending it in due course, if that is what the Minister wants. For today, we believe that a sunset clause should be in place. It is a fairly straightforward issue and should not detain the House for long. I commend the amendment to the House.

[James Brokenshire]

We discussed this matter in Committee, and I do not intend to detain the House for a great deal of time given the succinct way in which the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) highlighted his case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister issued a consultation document on 18 December, which was either the last day or the second-to-last day the House was sitting, and expected Members to know that at the time. He did not have the courtesy to inform me, although we had a debate on these matters. He needs to reflect on that fact. A consultation over Christmas? Perhaps he could do it in a better way.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman was very clear to us about the need for consultation documents to be produced prior to Report stage, and that is precisely what we have done on this and on other matters. Equally, he should reflect on the fact that the Government have not, as has happened previously, waited until Royal Assent before publishing a number of these codes. We have absolutely adhered to the requests that were made in Committee by publishing consultation documents and drafts to enable a proper consideration of the relevant provisions. If that is preying on his mind in seeking to advance his request for a sunset clause, then I draw his attention to the fact that the code of practice has been published and the detail he may think is lacking is in fact available.

The power is subject to scrutiny through an initial review by a senior police officer and a further review by a senior police officer of at least chief superintendent level within 72 hours, with notification to the chief constable, and then, as we will debate in the next group of amendments, the ability, if the police wish to retain travel documents beyond 14 days, for a court review. Clear safeguards have been placed in the Bill. This will give the police, or Border Force officers directed by the police, an important power to seize travel documents, including passports and travel tickets, at a port to disrupt immediate travel based on “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is travelling for terrorism-related activity. The passport is not cancelled. The document can be held for up to 14 days, or up to 30 days if the retention period is extended by a court. As I said, we will discuss the detail of that in the next group of amendments. It would be a criminal offence for a person to refuse to hand over their travel documents when the power had been exercised. Crucially, the power gives the authorities time to investigate the individual involved and provides an opportunity to take alternative, more permanent disruptive action if appropriate. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman indicated, as he did previously in Committee, the broad support of Opposition Front Benchers for this measure, recognising the utility of the power set out in the Bill. The safeguards we have established should ensure that the power will be used in a fair, reasonable and lawful manner.

Introducing a sunset clause may send an inadvertent message to would-be jihadist travellers of our lack of intent to deal with the threat they pose. I know that that is not the right hon. Gentleman’s intention, but it could have that impact if they believe that the powers would end in two years’ time. Indeed, the proposal would inject an element of uncertainty into a measure that has been clearly framed and drafted, that is limited in scope and time, and that has clear oversight of police scrutiny measures and the court-related process set out in the Bill. The House has scrutinised the measures over several days of debate, both in Committee and, indeed, in the House this afternoon, and it is our judgment that those are not the usual circumstances in which a sunset provision would be contemplated.

[Mr Hanson]

Does the Minister think that a sunset clause in prevention of terrorism legislation gave succour and comfort to those people for whom it was intended, such as terrorists in Northern Ireland? I do not think it did and I resent the suggestion that we are trying to give succour to terrorism.

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman was listening, he would know that I was clear that I do not believe that to be his intention. I said that it may be an inadvertent consequence. Often, it has become customary for sunset clauses to be inserted when legislation is passed by both Houses over a small number of days. That is not the context of this afternoon’s debate. We have had many hours of debate and discussion on the provisions, so it is our judgment that those circumstances do not apply.

Terrorism-related travel is a serious and ongoing issue and I think we will see an enduring threat of terrorism from Syria and Iraq for the foreseeable future. That is the reality of the challenge we face. The proposal is to inject a two-year sunset clause, but I think we will face continuing challenges during that time and law enforcement agencies need to have a range of tools at their disposal to deal with the threat in a necessary and proportionate way.

We cannot be confident that conflicts that attract these individuals will have been resolved in two years’ time. It would not be right to plan on that basis. That is why the Bill Committee overwhelmingly rejected a similar amendment when it was pressed to a vote. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. I appreciate that he is seeking to probe to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are scrutinised and challenged appropriately. I entirely respect that. Clearly, it would be open for a new Government to repeal the provisions if they saw fit and judged that appropriate changes were required if there was a subsequent review of counter-terrorism legislation. That would be the right time to do it, so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Hanson]

I have heard what the Minister has said, but the Opposition still wish to examine the issue in detail and it would be useful for the other place to know that we believe that consideration should be given to a sunset clause. Perhaps it could also take on board the concerns of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). I therefore wish to push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Clearly, the police officer must hold the reasonable belief at that time, as I think my right hon. and learned Friend has accepted. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states that the paragraph applies where

“a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person—

(a) is there with the intention of leaving”

the UK

“for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity…or

(b) has arrived…with the intention of leaving”

again, for such purposes. Therefore, there is a requirement for that to be assessed. As I say, those issues can be considered as part of the consultation on the code of practice. I note the specific points that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made in that regard.

I turn back to the specific amendments. Given that the appeal is against why the police officer formed a reasonable suspicion about the individual’s travel intentions and exercised the power under the provision, the hearing would not take into account what the investigation had subsequently found about the individual’s intentions and whether that information strengthened the original decision or damaged it. That could result in a finding that the original decision was flawed and, regardless of the fact that the investigation has subsequently found evidence to strengthen the decision, the appeal is upheld and presumably the travel documents are returned. That is a risk that the Government are not prepared to take. Again, the right hon. Member for Delyn may wish to reflect further on that issue, taking into account some of the more detailed drafting issues that he has been alerted to in the debate.

Given the points that I have raised, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman’s initial indications, I hope that he will feel able, in the context of the safeguards in the Bill and the code of practice, to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister has tried to reassure the House that the clause and schedule provide sufficient safeguards. I still worry about the safeguards that are in place for those people who are aggrieved and feel they have a case that they wish to draw to the attention of the authorities.

Under amendments 10 and 11, an individual may have their appeal heard in court within seven days of an application. In most cases where the passport is seized, that right would not be exercised by the individual because I suspect that the Government would have taken sufficient steps to ensure that there were good grounds to seize the passport in the first place. However, I still think it is right and proper that individuals have the right to make representations effectively. Even if there are amendments that we can look at in due course, it is worth while the House sending a signal to the other place that this is an issue of principle for us and that we wish the issue to be revisited by the Government or by the other place in due course.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As the Home Secretary has already said, we have got a grip on the issue. We are taking further steps through the operation of the Immigration Act 2014 to ensure that if there are appeals, they are heard outside this country’s jurisdiction, and that article 8—the right to family life—does not trump the ability to remove someone from the UK. It is that work and work across Government that are making sure that we are able to remove foreign national offenders from the UK.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I join the Minister in paying tribute to John Vine for his work as chief inspector of borders and immigration.

The chief inspector’s latest report on British citizenship applications shows that, on the Minister’s watch, scant regard was given by the Department to checks on criminal behaviour, fraud or immigration status. Since that report’s publication, what steps has the Minister taken to check histories and remove citizenship, if appropriate? Will he instigate proper investigation and record keeping? If he will not, a future Labour Government will.

[James Brokenshire]

Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman just stated, the chief inspector was clear that criminal record checks had been carried out in all cases that were examined. We have reminded caseworkers of the need to ensure that the appropriate guidance is adhered to, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the issues identified by the chief inspector arose in large measure from decisions of the last Labour Government to grant leave to people without going through the full requirements. We are still clearing up the mess that they put us in and we are focused on turning the ship around.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Clauses 34 and 35 address two discrete but important aspects. Clause 34 amends the Terrorism Act 2000, so that an offence is committed if an insurer or reinsurer reimburses a payment that they know, or have reasonable cause to suspect, has been made in response to a terrorist demand. Like other terrorist-financing offences, the measure will have extraterritorial effect. As a result of the measure, we will ensure and put beyond any doubt that UK insurance companies do not form part of a terrorism ransom chain, and that those who make payments to terrorist entities cannot be reimbursed for the payment.

Clause 35 introduces schedule 5, which contains amendments to the power to examine goods at ports contained in schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, as well as amendments to other enactments relating to that power. Those changes follow on from a number of recommendations that David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, highlighted in terms of the need for certain clarifications in respect of the specific schedule 7 power. The purpose of these changes is to clarify the legal position in relation to where goods may be examined and the examination of goods that comprise items of post, and to put beyond doubt the basis in law for this vital investigative capability.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his helpful explanation. It is right that we do not pay ransoms and that insurance companies are not allowed to do so. The Bill proposes to make it illegal to make payments on ransom insurance policies, and that is an argument I support and do not wish to argue against this evening. However, I do want to ask him a couple of questions.

Will the Minister tell the Committee how he has consulted insurance companies on the impact and implementation of these measures? The Government’s own impact assessment makes it clear that there is a risk that:

“UK insurers/reinsurers may lose business. Overseas insurers may be able to offer the same product as UK insurers but without this restriction. Based on consultation, we estimate…UK insurers/reinsurers’ annual gross premium income from kidnap and ransom insurance policies to be between £60 and £160 million.”

a year. There are two issues I want to raise. What response has he had from insurers on their potential loss of £160 million? I am particularly concerned about whether the measure will simply transfer that insurance risk to companies that operate abroad.

I want clarity on clause 34, which makes it a criminal offence for people in the UK to take out ransom insurance. If a UK citizen insured themselves through a foreign company, would the provisions still apply? The Minister has mentioned extraterritorial reach, but I want to be clear that the Bill does not deny UK insurance companies the premiums of £60 million to £160 million by simply transferring the fund to foreign companies. Will the provision apply to a company based in the UK but whose policy could be placed with an insurance underwriter based in America, France or Rome? I would be interested to know whether all those aspects are covered. I am sure the Minister will be able to allay my concerns and fears.

As an Opposition spokesman I continue to support the straightforward principle—I supported it when I was a Minister—that we do not pay ransom demands, because they simply encourage further kidnappings and associated activity. Does the Bill cover other areas, such as a kidnapped oil worker? We may not pay a ransom, but there might be insurance issues related to covering his loss of salary or his mortgage payments. I want to be clear that the measures cover the issue of ransom, as opposed to other insurance matters that a responsible company would want to implement.

Finally, the Bill has a clear definition of terrorism, but I would welcome the Minister’s view of, for example, Somali pirates. They are not terrorists, but does the definition cover the payment of ransoms in general, or is its focus on terrorism alone? If the Minister wishes to table further amendments, I would be happy to support measures that address other types of ransom, because it is a cardinal principle that we do not pay ransoms in any way, shape or form for individuals who have been kidnapped. I do not quite understand the Minister’s approach to insurance payments, helpful though it is, and I would welcome an explanation of his position on other types of kidnap ransoms.

We support clause 35, which is a sensible measure. I do not need to say anything else. I hope the Minister will respond to my comments.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. It is a sobering fact that ISIL alone made $35 billion to $45 billion between September 2013 and September 2014. There is no doubt that that has boosted its capability. Simply put, money paid to terrorists equals an increased threat to the safety of UK citizens. The right hon. Gentleman understands that, as he made clear in his speech.

We consulted leading representatives of the insurance industry and its regulators, the police and operational and international partners about the measure. We have had constructive discussions with the industry. This is a niche part of the wider insurance market and it makes up only a small part of the business of those insurers. Insurance companies have been clear that their policies exclude reimbursement of ransoms paid to proscribed groups in any case. The point of the measure is to make that absolutely clear and put it beyond doubt. Section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 centres on what constitutes arrangements and we are seeking to provide complete clarity. The measures are framed in the context of terrorism, although there are various insurance policies that operate in the market, because they are intended to prevent money going to terrorist groups.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about extraterritorial jurisdiction. The measures are intended to govern insurance companies based in the UK, so that they cannot offshore those payments; if they have some other insurance company with links to the UK, that company will be caught by the measures. It is therefore important that the legislation is framed in that manner.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

For the relevant document to need to be retained, the provisions in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 must remain outstanding: there must be consideration of whether the Secretary of State would use the royal prerogative, whether there are charges to be brought against that person, or whether there are other measures that may be relevant. The requirement still needs to be satisfied, which is why we have brought in the 14-day provision to ensure direct oversight and checks and balances through the mechanisms in the schedule.

On cost, following further discussions with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, it may be helpful to clarify and expand on the evidence I gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 3 December, on the availability of legal aid for those subject to the proposed temporary passport seizure powers and to provide clarity on the potential scope of legal aid in this context. I have written to the Chair of the Joint Committee today on this issue.

Legal aid would potentially be available for the magistrates court proceedings provided for in the Bill, but at present that would be a discretionary decision for the director of legal aid casework. The Government are considering whether it would be proportionate to bring those proceedings within the scope of the general legal aid scheme to put individuals’ access to legal aid, subject to the statutory means and merits tests, beyond doubt. Legal aid is available under the general civil legal aid scheme for judicial review challenges by those subject to the temporary passport seizure power and the temporary exclusion order power, subject to the statutory means and merits tests.

Returning to the provisions, a code of practice will provide clear guidance on how police and Border Force officers will exercise the powers. The Government will carefully review all responses received to the consultation that we propose to undertake in respect of the code, to ensure it contains effective guidance and provides clarity to officers on how the new powers should operate. The power is a proportionate and prudent response to the threat we face. It will allow the police to disrupt travel at short notice when there is reasonable suspicion that someone is travelling for terrorism-related purposes.

Let me now turn to the amendments before us. I shall deal first with those from the Opposition. Amendment 17 seeks to provide a process for individuals to appeal to the courts against the decision to remove their travel documents at port. As I have described, the Bill already provides a specific court procedure. In addition, the individual can decide, at any time, to seek a judicial review of the initial passport seizure in the High Court, where closed material proceedings may be available to allow consideration of any sensitive material. I do not believe, therefore, that the amendment adds a significant additional safeguard to the use of this power.

Amendment 29 seeks to introduce a sunset clause to the temporary passport provisions. Doing so may send an inadvertent message to would-be jihadist travellers of our lack of intent to deal with the threat they pose if they believed that the powers would end in two years’ time. Terrorism-related travel is a serious and ongoing issue. Our law enforcement agencies need to have a range of tools at their disposal to deal with it in a necessary and proportionate way. I wish we could be confident that the conflicts that attract these individuals will be resolved in two years, but it would be imprudent to plan on that basis.

[Mr Hanson]

If that is the case, why does clause 17 have a repeal date of 31 December 2016?

[James Brokenshire]

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman raises that point. The parallel I think he seeks to draw is not relevant in this context. As he well knows, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, to which this provision relates, contains a sunset clause because of the need to have further and wider debate on communications data. What we are talking about here is a specific and focused power to deal with the immediate operational needs of our police and law enforcement agencies at the border to disrupt terrorist travel. Therefore, the parallels he seeks to adduce between the two clauses do not actually stack up.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady has made that point several times, and she has been consistent in advancing her case, but there is a balance of risk, and we judge that bail in these circumstances would not be appropriate because of our fundamental focus on protecting national security. Furthermore, the Bill provides appropriate safeguards in several different ways to ensure that it is proportionate and meets the issues of necessity.

Finally, the Government are making a technical amendment in relation to the code of practice. Amendment 13 would

“make it clear that the Secretary of State can comply with the obligations”

in paragraph 19

“to publish a draft of the code…to consider representations, to make any appropriate modifications”

in the light of those representations

“and to lay the draft before Parliament by doing so before the Bill receives Royal Assent.”

Without the amendment, it could be argued that such things would only be valid if done after the Bill becomes an Act. The amendment removes any doubt about that.

With the assurances I have given, I hope that the right hon. Member for Delyn and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion will be minded not to press their amendments.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations and for reminding me that I have form on police bail as a Minister in the last Government. He will be pleased to know that although I gave the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) the opportunity to make her case, we do not support it, having listened to it. We might have form on this issue, but that form is consistent with our approach to the matter.

Our amendment 29, on a sunset clause, and amendment 17, on the right of appeal, still bear merit. The Minister has not convinced me that a sunset clause would be damaging in the long term to the Bill. Neither, given the concerns of Members such as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others about appeals, am I persuaded not to press amendment 17.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Under existing regulations and requirements, existing Eurostar and freight services through the channel tunnel are already obliged to meet security requirements on screening and other steps. The intent behind the provisions in the Bill is to look to a future where we have open access, and ensure we have the ability to impose similar controls, assurances and protections in relation to security. It is precisely for that future-proofing that we are introducing the provisions. I hope that explanation is helpful to the Committee.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

There has been a change on the Opposition Front Bench, while the Minister has had to continue, but I assure him that he will have our support on this group.

There is a substantial and severe threat of terrorist attack in the United Kingdom and the Opposition support the broad thrust of these measures. The Minister did not explicitly say it, but the explanatory notes indicate that about 500 individuals have travelled to Syria and Iraq because of their wish to join terrorist organisations, in particular ISIL. The measures are designed to enhance legislation—section 124 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, put in place by the previous Labour Government, and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Authority to Carry) Regulations 2012—in response to the changed circumstances. We support the broad thrust of the measures.

I have a few questions for the Minister and I hope he will reflect on them. They relate mostly to consultation, cost and scope. The Minister said that clauses 18 and 19 form the main provisions for the changes to authority-to-carry schemes, and that clause 20 and schedule 2 amend the law on the provision of information from carriers to the Secretary of State. The explanatory notes state that the Minister has undertaken a consultation, but I think he will recognise that the consultation was swift, if I may say so, and relatively short. I would welcome information on who responded to the consultation and what the responses were. If he does not have that information today, perhaps he could write to me.

I raise those issues because the Government’s impact assessment makes it clear that the measures, although welcome, relate to border security and will cost UK-registered businesses about £2.1 million net cost a year, with start-up costs approaching £10 million, at £9.7 million. The Minister has information relating to 11 scheduled registered carriers, but he will know that 144 carriers were not included in the assessment. Many carriers do not currently have the systems, which are referred to in previous legislation, in place. Scheduled carriers may be required to install interactive systems that would mean no-fly alerts and passenger screening requirements provided directly into carriers’ systems. The impact assessment makes it clear that while there are 11 registered carriers, of which only one already uses the system the Government want, there are 144 carriers operating scheduled flights into and out of the UK that are not UK-registered, of which only 11 use the system the Government want to introduce. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister not just as to the discussions he has had with the registered carriers, but on what assessment he has made of the wider costs for those carriers that are not registered. For a non-interactive carrier, the estimated cost of implementing an interactive system is £975,000, with annual maintenance costs of £125,000. That means that there could be costs of around £139 million to non-UK carriers who do not have those systems in place.

The impact assessment says:

“The consultation to gather relevant data was brief. Whilst data was provided by a sample of UK carriers we cannot be sure they are fully representative. In addition different carriers may face different costs dependent on their size or their existing systems. In the absence of this data we assume that carriers are all affected in the same way.”

That is the Government’s own impact assessment and it is really important that, as part of our consideration this afternoon, we have some indication from the Minister of the consultation responses. He may well already have published these—sometimes things pass one by in opposition—and if so, I would be grateful if he could refer me to where they are. If not, I would be grateful if he published the responses to the consultation.

It is also important—the Minister has touched on this—that the clauses ultimately include rail, maritime and non-scheduled aviation traffic as part of the regime that he is seeking to introduce. But I believe—I would welcome his confirmation—that there has been limited, or dare I say nil, consultation with rail, maritime and other suppliers. The Minister has indicated that there will be affirmative resolutions on these matters, but I would welcome him confirming at what stage he intends to undertake further consultation on costs and implementation with rail and maritime providers.

I have had a helpful brief from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which has raised a number of issues, some of which the Minister will be able to answer. But it is important that we are clear that the Minister’s aspiration—one shared by the Labour party—to have exit and entry checks undertaken at the earliest opportunity is separate from the measures in the Bill, particularly given the difficulties we have had with the e-Borders programme recently, the cancellation of e-Borders and the progress that the Government seek on an entry and exit check by April 2015. Helpfully the Minister has today answered a parliamentary question to indicate that that is still the Government’s objective but I just wanted to examine the relationship between the proposals in the clause, which may not be in law until February or March next year, and the wider exit and entry checks the Government are seeking to introduce.

I would particularly welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the measures in the Bill are fully compatible with EU law and with the laws of other states that passengers will travel to and from and with whose laws carriers must comply. It is important that we put in place measures in our own legislation, but I would welcome the Minister’s consideration of the compatibility between them and our obligations to our European colleagues and elsewhere.

The Labour party supports the measures because of the threat and the need to monitor and to take effective action against not just those coming to the UK, but those leaving the UK. The need to ensure that we prevent individuals leaving these shores from undertaking terrorist acts is paramount. The Minister will not find a cigarette paper between us on dealing with that issue, but I hope that he is able to reflect on the points I have made today on three issues: cost, compatibility with other legislation in Europe and beyond, and the key question of implementation, not just in terms of current carriers but in terms of the carriers who are not registered but who do currently travel both to and from the UK.

Home Department

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Hanson]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been removed from the UK under the Dublin Convention in each year since 2010.

[Official Report, 13 May 2014, Vol. 580, c. 450W.]

Letter of correction from James Brokenshire:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) on 13 May 2014.

The answer was given as follows:

[James Brokenshire]

The information requested is shown in the following table:

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I underline the reforms that the Government have made, which have been effective in cutting net migration from outside the EU. My hon. Friend raises the issue of EU migration and free movement. It is absolutely right that the Prime Minister has underlined the need for reform of free movement, and how, if we are elected as the next Government, that will be at the heart of our renegotiation with the EU.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Minister said in an article on 6 September—he has said again just now—that the Government have cut net migration by a quarter. Has he had a chance to see the letter to me, dated 9 October, from the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir Andrew Dilnot? It says that net migration was 244,000 in June 2010 and is now, four years later, 243,000—just 1,000 lower. Will he explain to the House how he came to that conclusion and, while he is at it, does he expect to meet the Government’s manifesto commitment made at the last election?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the poor record of the previous Labour Government. On their watch, 2.5 million people were allowed to come into this country. It is absolutely right that our focus should remain on returning net migration to sustainable levels, from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. I know that the shadow Home Secretary has said that she wants to talk more about immigration, but the Labour party’s record says it all.

Electronic Communications

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I very much support the process that the Government have brought forward today. The Opposition will support the regulations before the House this afternoon. As the Minister has said, they are made under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which we debated last Tuesday, although it seems a long time ago. It was certainly an interesting debate.

The Minister has outlined clearly why the regulations are needed. Last week we supported him in taking the Act through the House, because we recognise, as he does, that retaining records and data is vital in fighting crime, whether tackling serious organised crime, dealing with child abuse or helping to prevent terrorism. We also welcome the safeguards we discussed last week in relation to access to those data. As he explained, the regulations put in place broadly what is already in place, and they therefore have our support.

In offering our support, I wish to raise two issues that the Minister might like to respond to in any winding-up speech he cares to make. First, there was limited consultation on the regulations. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the 2009 regulations had a 12-week public consultation. Due to the pressing nature of the legislation we passed last week, the regulations before us had nothing that could be called a full consultation. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that the six-monthly review by the Information Commissioner of how the legislation is working will include the regulations so that providers and other individuals have an opportunity to put on the record any concerns they have about their operation and so that those concerns can be examined?

[James Brokenshire]

The interception of communications commissioner is required to make a six-monthly review, and my expectation is that that would certainly cover the use of those powers. We need to consider the interrelationship with the Information Commissioner, because it is a separate regulator that looks at the retention of those data. Obviously, we will consider any interrelationship and any discussions that might need to take place between the two regulators to give an assurance to the public about the use of those data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. My main point is that the legislation’s sunset clause means that it will cease to have effect in December 2016. The regulations are being made by the House today, but I want to ensure that they are examined on a regular basis, given that there was no proper consultation because the Act had to be rushed through last week.

Secondly—I raised this matter privately with the Minister’s office earlier today—the initial regulations specified 8 August 2014 as the date on which the European Court of Justice declared the data retention direction 2006/24/EC invalid. The date was in fact 8 April. I just want to be clear that the Minister has relayed that matter to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments so that there is no doubt about what we are discussing today and the way it has been framed.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for contacting my office earlier today to highlight that point, to which he will have heard me make specific reference in my opening remarks. A further draft of the explanatory memorandum is certainly in the process of being relayed, if that has not already been done, as he rightly indicated. We are clear that that has no bearing on this afternoon’s debate.

[Mr Hanson]

I just thought that it was worth placing that on the record, as I would not wish there to be any confusion, given the nature of the debate we are having today.

I am happy to support the regulations, given the potential for review and the safeguards we have put in place with regard to the Act. I look forward to formal reviews, as secured by the legislation. Given the assurances the Minister has given today, he will have our support for the regulations.

Relocation Scheme (Syrians)

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) on securing a debate on such an important matter. We have benefited from her direct testimony of visits to refugee camps, in which she explained the conditions and the situation. I recognise the passion, commitment and focus that she has brought to the issue, not just in the past few months but for a considerable time. She is committed to dealing with the refugee issue, which has motivated her to obtain this afternoon’s debate.

My hon. Friend made important points about the crisis in Syria, together with the continuing instability in Iraq, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also pointed out. It is right that the question of what support we provide to those in need provokes passion, and that was exemplified by the speech of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the contribution that this country should make to supporting people who are vulnerable and in need, and who are suffering during a huge humanitarian crisis.

I am sure that all hon. Members share our deep concern about the appalling violence in Syria and the suffering and hardship that that has caused for millions of people. Nearly 3 million refugees have now been displaced into surrounding countries and 6.4 million people are internally displaced inside Syria; 10.8 million require humanitarian aid. The scale of that tragedy caused my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central to pause in her speech, and it is worth pausing and reflecting on how staggering the figures are. The Government have always been clear that the crisis is of international proportions and that it needs a fitting response from the UK and the international community.

The Government have three clear priorities in Syria: supporting efforts to find a political solution to the conflict; alleviating suffering; and protecting UK security by tackling extremism and getting rid of Assad’s chemical weapons. I strongly believe that only a political settlement will ensure that Syrian families who have fled the crisis can return to their homes and livelihoods in peace. In the meantime, only humanitarian aid can help the majority of those in the region who so desperately need our help. Aid is also the best way to ease the enormous burden on Syria’s neighbours, and I think that was clear from what my hon. Friend said about her visit to Jordan and the pressure that the situation is causing in the countries that are most generously hosting and supporting refugees.

That is why the UK has pledged £600 million to the regional relief effort, making us the largest bilateral donor after the USA. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) acknowledged and appraised that fact fairly. UK funding is helping to support hundreds of thousands of refugees in Syria and neighbouring countries. The hon. Member for Strangford was seeking detail about that in some of his questions. For example, the UK provides food for up to 535,000 people a month, drinking water for more than 1.5 million and funding for more than 300,000 medical consultations. I think that that is the largest humanitarian aid effort that the UK Government have ever attempted, which shows the huge scale of the tragedy that has unfolded before us.

It is important to recognise the way in which aid can be focused on some of the most vulnerable people. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central highlighted the situation of children, and their lack of education. The UK helped to launch and mobilise international support for UNICEF’s “no lost generation” initiative, which provides education, psycho-social support and protection for Syrian children.

Humanitarian aid is the best way to ensure that the UK’s help has the greatest impact for Syrian refugees and their host countries. Compared with aid, resettlement can only ever support a comparatively small number of people in need. However, we recognise that there are some particularly vulnerable people who cannot be supported effectively in the region. That is why, in January, the Home Secretary launched the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme to provide sanctuary in the UK for displaced Syrians who are most at risk.

We are working closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify the people who need our help most. In particular, the scheme prioritises support for those with serious medical needs, survivors of torture and violence, and women and children at risk. Beneficiaries of the scheme are granted five years’ humanitarian protection, with all the rights and benefits that go with that status, including access to public funds, access to the labour market and the possibility of family reunion. All people who arrive under the scheme also receive a 12-month package of integration support to help them to start to build a new life in the UK.

I announced the scheme in January and am pleased to say that the first group arrived at the end of March, just eight weeks after that announcement. Groups are now arriving in the UK on a monthly basis. We expect more arrivals in July and August, and we intend to relocate two or three families a month. The figure of 50 people that has been cited is the number who had come by the end of June. We intend to provide the House with quarterly updates; as we publish transparency data in the Home Office, we intend to provide an update on the numbers who have benefited from the scheme, to keep the House and the public updated. Those who have benefited include a number of adults and children with severe medical needs, who could not get the treatment they desperately needed in the region.

The right hon. Member for Delyn asked me to provide estimates of future cost, but that is difficult, given that the needs will relate to particular families’ and individuals’ specific circumstances. We are not working on a quota at all. Rather, we are working on the basis of need with the UNHCR. Given the severe vulnerabilities of the beneficiaries, it is important that we ensure that the support and accommodation they need is in place before they arrive. As I said, we are working closely with UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration and local authority partners to achieve that.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Minister say when the first quarterly update is due, from today?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, the first update is due in August. We are providing quarterly updates on that basis, in that regular pattern. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see, quarterly, on our transparency release, the numbers of people who have benefited from the scheme. The intent is to provide a regular update in that way and that is fair and appropriate.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I know the clear position that my hon. Friend has enunciated on many occasions in the House. There will be wider debates and discussions on the position of the European Convention and a British bill of rights, with which my hon. Friend is very familiar and which I personally support to ensure that our domestic law is framed properly in the context of convention rights. However, we have reflected carefully on the judgment—the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) described it as dense and complicated—which the Bill reflects on in the nature of the obligations set out therein. We have judged that primary legislation to avoid any uncertainty is appropriate and necessary, given the huge reliance that is placed on communications data and the right to be able lawfully to intercept for the prescribed purposes. I am sure that the wider debate—and the Select Committee that my hon. Friend chairs—is focused on the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over matters that are opted into and the position post-December 2014. We have reflected carefully on the application, scope and enforceability of the Bill and its compliance with relevant legislation of whatever kind, and we are confident that it meets that challenge.

Given that the European Court was considering only the data retention directive and not how member states implemented it, it did not take into account the rigorous controls in place in the UK as part of its judgment. Access to communications data in the UK is stringently regulated and safeguarded by the Regulatory and Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Data are retained on a case-by-case basis and must be authorised by a senior officer, at a rank stipulated by Parliament, from the organisation requesting the data. The authorising officer may approve a request for communications data only if the tests of necessity and proportionality are met in the particular case.

Our system was examined in detail by the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill, and it was satisfied that the current internal authorisation procedure is the right model. However, to ensure that communications data cannot be accessed using information-gathering powers that are not subject to the rigorous safeguards in RIPA, the Bill ensures that data retained under this legislation may be accessed only in accordance with RIPA, a court order or other judicial authorisation or warrant.

Hon. and right hon. Members who followed the discussions surrounding the draft Communications Data Bill will be aware that communications service providers are also able to retain communications data on a voluntary basis under a code of practice made under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. This clause ensures that the regulations made under this Bill can apply the same security safeguards and access restrictions to data retained under that code. I therefore believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I welcome you to the Chair of this important Committee, Sir Roger. I shall not detain the Committee for long because, given that we broadly agree with the Government’s approach on this key issue, the Opposition have not tabled any amendments to clause 1.

As the Minister said, the stated context for the Bill is the continued threat from serious organised crime and potential terrorist activity. Given that the European Court of Justice struck down the regulations because they were neither proportionate nor objective, we have taken the view that we need to look at how to frame legislation that will be proportionate and objective in respect of the retention of data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I will make a short contribution in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who I think made some extremely valid points in relation to amendment 1. I believe that the Government should at least look at it favourably and give a positive response covering the issues he raised. He indicated that issues such as defence contracts and national infrastructure are crucial to the United Kingdom’s infrastructure. I simply want to endorse his points.

I have one question for the Minister on clause 3. I think I know what it means, as I think most people do, but it would be helpful if the Minister outlined what he believes the statement

“relevant to the interests of national security”

means in practice. The clause gives the Secretary of State powers

“in circumstances appearing to the Secretary of State to be relevant to the interests of national security”.

An explanation from the Minister would be helpful, because I have received some representations on what it means, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) has made the point that it could be defined very widely. I think that it would help to reassure those outside the House if the Minister could give some clarity today by putting on the record what I think we already know.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for tabling the amendment and giving us an opportunity to look in detail at clause 3 and at the importance of the economic well-being purpose currently retained in RIPA. Let me set out a little more context. Clause 3 translates into primary legislation a constraint—it is intended to be a constraint—on the exercise of this purpose that is already provided for in the codes of practice issued under section 71 of RIPA. It effectively puts those statements into primary legislation. It requires that an interception warrant is only issued, and access to communications data only authorised, for the purposes of economic well-being where there is also an independent national security justification for the authorisation. It is intended to be read in that context. I hope that explanation is helpful as we explore some of the language in the Bill.

Clause 3 does not mean that economic well-being for the purposes of RIPA is synonymous with national security, but the amendment gives us the opportunity to underline the fact that there has to be that connection between the two, which obviously is relevant in determining whether or not the powers under RIPA can be exercised for the statutory purposes. Along with national security and the prevention and detection of serious crime, protecting the UK’s economic well-being is one of the statutory functions of the security and intelligence agencies, which are set out in the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

I understand and recognise the points made by the right hon. Member for Knowsley. I think that this debate has been quite useful in airing some of the cyber-security and cybercrime issues that I know he has raised in the House on a number of occasions. It has also highlighted our reliance on information communications technology, which is now a core part of our national infrastructure. I think that there is read-across into other legislation. I understand that he tabled the amendment on a probing basis, but I think that it requires careful thought.

A definition of economic well-being is reflected in the legislation I have mentioned—RIPA being the key focus for this evening’s debate—but it is also important to acknowledge its context as a well-established principle in law. Its origins lie in the European convention on human rights, which provides for exceptions to article 8—the right to a private and family life—when it is in the interest of the economic well-being of the country. Many aspects, therefore, are wrapped up in the broad context of how the definition has come about and the interpretations of it. Case law may also sit alongside this provision in determining the scope and ambit of the definition, so seeking to clarify it may have unintended consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Clause 5 is a simple but necessary part of the Bill that puts into law an important clarification. Today people communicate using a range of web-based services and applications. As the scale and diversity of these services have grown, there should not be any uncertainty about whether a communications service provider to users in the UK is covered by the definition. RIPA was written in a technologically neutral way to allow for developments in the way in which services are delivered. We believe that web-based services such as web-based e-mail, messaging applications and cloud-based services have always been covered by the nature of the definition. Clause 5 simply clarifies how this definition should be interpreted and makes it clear that these services are covered by the definition of a telecommunications service.

Some have asked whether this is extending the definition in some way. I want to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case. We are not changing the existing definition, which remains absolutely as it stands in RIPA. The Bill clarifies how the current definition should be interpreted, but a clarificatory provision of this kind cannot change or extend the meaning of the definition in RIPA to capture new services. This provision simply makes it explicit that the existing definition includes so-called over-the-top services such as webmail and instant messaging for the purposes of that interception. In many ways, it has been the industry itself that has welcomed this clarification and restatement of the existing legislation, which is why I think it is important to give that clarity to the House and to the industry generally. It does not extend the scope of RIPA; instead, it restates and provides clarification in terms of the existing definition, which remains as it was before.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Commencement, duration, extent and short title

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 6, line 41, at end insert

“and is subject to a reporting requirement as set out in subsection (1A).

(1A) The Commissioner for the Interception of Communications must report on the operation of this Act six months following commencement of this Act, followed by subsequent reports every six months.”

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

We are going back over ground addressed on Second Reading and in the programme motion debate, but it is worth restating the fact that the Bill does not extend powers that this House has already granted through RIPA. It effectively restates what is already existing law. The legislation does not, therefore, seek to create something new, but simply restates what is already being operated, giving it clear legal underpinning in the context of the ECJ decision and the pressures from industry and others in terms of challenge.

On the need to act now, I say again that no Government embark on emergency legislation lightly. No Government seek to use fast-track legislation unless they judge that it is necessary. Our real concerns are that we have reached a tipping point regarding co-operation on lawful intercept and the risk that our essential powers on communications data, which are used day in, day out by law enforcement and the security agencies that protect this country, will simply not be available. That could occur at any time between now and the long-stop date that the right hon. Gentleman and others are suggesting in relation to December 2014. That is why the Government have judged that emergency legislation is appropriate and why we think it necessary to have a review: to ensure that this House is properly informed of all the issues to legislate carefully in a sensible way by no later than 31 December 2016, when this legislation would cease to have affect.

These are complicated matters. We need to act swiftly to deal with the particular challenge we face and to avoid the damaging loss of capability that confronts us. However, I do believe a longer-term considered approach is appropriate, hence the reason for having the review and for providing assurance in relation to the commissioner for the interception of communications and his reports on operation. There are already a number of reviews in the system. The Intelligence and Security Committee is conducting an inquiry, as is the Royal United Services Institute.

There is also the further review, which is to be led by David Anderson, of the communications data and interception powers we need, and how they are regulated in the light of the threats we face. As I have indicated, the Bill will set this out in legislation in terms, but he needs to be given some time to conduct this work. New clause 7 asks him to complete his work by 1 May 2015. That being so, I can see no point in requiring Parliament to return to these issues almost as soon as we return from the summer recess, without the benefit of the work we have set in train. Any such legislation would also inevitably require an accelerated timetable. Rather, we believe that Parliament needs to consider these issues properly after the election, drawing on the outcome of the reviews that are in train and with the ability to consider everything at a normal parliamentary pace. Accordingly, I invite the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) to withdraw amendment 2, so that we can have this process recognising the needs now and recognising the need for further review and for the House to return to these matters in the light of that informed basis.

[Mr Hanson]

We have had a useful debate on the amendments. The Opposition had two objectives in tabling our amendments and new clauses today: first, to secure a review of this Act, if passed by this House and by the House of Lords, within six months and then every six months following that; and secondly, to put it on the record that we need to have a wider examination of the whole of the intercept evidence-data collection issue. I think we have had a meeting of minds on that issue. With that in mind, I am happy to withdraw amendment 3 and to support new clause 6, and to ask the Government to accept that as they have indicated they will. We will then support Government new clause 7, which meets our objectives. There are other consequential amendments but, for clarity, that is my objective. It would be helpful, given what the Minister said, if we proceeded on that basis.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 4, page 7, line 1, leave out “5” and insert

“(Half-yearly reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner)”. —(Mr Hanson.)

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

I call the Minister to move amendment 7 formally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

It is worth recognising that many people working in the Passport Office are going the extra mile to see that people are receiving their passports in time for travel. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to highlight the exceptional work that is being undertaken in passport offices.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

On 8 June, the number of passports classed as “work in progress” stood at 493,289. Figures I have obtained show that two weeks after the emergency measures were brought in by the Government, on 22 June, the figure stood at 537,663. Will the Minister update the House on whether the “work in progress” figure is less than when he introduced the initial emergency measures?

[James Brokenshire]

This is an exceptional period of demand. To put this into context, the Passport Office would usually handle about 5.5 million applications per year, and this year it has received about 4 million applications already. That gives some context to the work that is involved. “Work in progress” figures will run into hundreds of thousands because of the output that the Passport Office is delivering—about 170,000 a week. That gives a sense of the scale of the work that is involved. Yes, there are pressures there, but the Passport Office is responding to the challenge.

Migration Statistics

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Thursday 26th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[James Brokenshire]

I will come to exit checks. The way in which advance passenger information data can be used to supplement and for support is important and I will address that directly. I highlight the fact that there are other sources of data. My hon. Friend may be aware of the workforce data survey and the use of the statistics for national insurance registrations. The IPS itself highlights and provides data in its reports and analysis in respect of different countries and provides separate analyses of where those flows come from, such as net migration from outside and from within the EU, and it produces the graphs that my hon. Friend has no doubt seen, tracking those back over 30 years. It gives a sense of long-term trends; it is important to understand where there may be growth in particular areas and what that might mean in terms of informing policy.

It is important to recognise some of the excellent and innovative research and analysis that has increased our knowledge of migration—for example, the migrant journey reports, the report on the social and public service impact of migration, and the recent report on labour market changes. All that work is critical in helping us to understand and appreciate the impact of migration on our country.

I highlighted the 2011 census, which provides extremely valuable data that has captured a much broader range of information on migrants than any census previously. The new census questions on the passports that people hold and the length of time they have lived in the UK recognise the strong public concerns about immigration. We welcome that new statistical resource, which will go some way to meeting the Committee’s recommendation, but I will come to further refinements.

The Home Office has commissioned additional data to inform our understanding, such as a new question on emigration in the international passenger survey, the first results from which are now in the public domain, and a new question for the labour force survey on why foreign respondents had originally come to the UK. The breadth and depth of that work reinforces the fact that no single data source can provide a comprehensive picture of migration. That is why I also welcome the work in the UK statistical system to develop and enhance the range of sources, which together mean that we have a picture of migration that I believe is as good as that available to any other country across the globe.

I noted what the shadow Minister said about filling out the ESTA form and how that might be used. It is interesting to note that the US uses population surveys, not the ESTA system, to measure migration. It is important to recognise the interrelationship between the two, and that in some respects the information from e-Borders may help to supplement, but not replace, other information.

[Mr Hanson]

The point I was making about the ESTA system was that—unlike, potentially, our visa system—the Americans would know when and whether I had left the country.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman draws me on to the e-Borders system and its programme. We hear the point that the Committee has made in respect of that. While valuable, the border systems data are, in our judgment, not the right way to measure immigration flows, for which we believe that well-designed surveys are more appropriate. The data do not capture passengers’ onward travel plans or duration of stay, so they could not be directly used to measure long-term international migration. Rather, they are designed to alert us to passengers of interest leaving and entering the country, so that we can strengthen security and immigration controls. They allow law enforcement partners to target and monitor those seeking to travel to and from the UK who might harm this country’s interests—the point my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor highlighted. They are an extremely valuable tool; indeed, since 2010 our border systems have issued alerts resulting in more than 13,300 arrests, including 60 for murder, 59 for kidnap and 167 for rape.

I therefore understand why the Committee took the view that border systems data might entirely replace the IPS. However, that is at odds with the statistical advice we have received and the evidence that academic experts provided to the Committee. None the less, it is important to see how the information can be used to interpret what is happening. That is why it is important to share Semaphore data with the ONS, so that the ONS can carry out further analysis.

I want to come back on some of the points made about exit checks. The Home Office is on track to meet by April 2015 the commitment to introduce exit checks on those who leave the UK via scheduled international air, sea and rail services. Exit check capability will be founded on advance passenger information, supplemented by embarkation checks at ports, where necessary. That will further bolster border security.

Exit checks will also identify individuals who are wanted by the police, who pose security, immigration or customs threats, or who fail to comply with the conditions of their visas. It is important that checks are used in that way. We have introduced a power in the Immigration Act 2014 to enable those already involved in outbound passenger processes—for example, the staff of airlines, other carriers and port operators, as well as others—to integrate embarkation checks with existing processes where necessary. There is also a power to compel them to do so, if necessary.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Minister say what the position is on non-scheduled traffic—in particular, private flights and through small airfields and small ports? I have tested him on those issues in parliamentary questions and have had no reply as yet, although that is for reasons of national security, which I understand.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Border Force, which is led by Sir Charles Montgomery, takes the issue of small airfields and the maritime arena very seriously. Indeed, those flying in or out of airfields must provide various reports, and that is monitored to ensure there is a focus on border security. We are focused on all those issues, and Border Force is attentive to those arrangements, as well as to broader approaches and the advance passenger information provided in respect of existing scheduled airlines and other forms of transport.

I want to come back to some of the accusations the right hon. Gentleman made, which may be founded on a reading of press reports following the appearance of the director general of Border Force at the Home Affairs Committee in March 2014. Sir Charles Montgomery wrote to the Committee to explain that the reporting in the media was “factually incorrect”. He said that the work of the e-Borders programme

“has been incorporated within the…Border Systems Programme”.

None of this work has been suspended; indeed the pace of development has quickened. The Home Office remains committed to delivering exit checks by 2015. It was never the intention of the e-Borders programme, as now incorporated in the border systems programme, to deliver a direct measure of net migration.

As a Government, we must decide what is feasible, taking account of expert evidence. The reasons why we will not be able to rely on the border systems data to measure international migration were set out in the UK Statistics Authority and Government responses to the Public Administration Committee’s report. I will not repeat all those points here, but we hold detailed information on those passengers required to apply for a visa. However, Home Office systems do not require information from those travelling from other EU countries. There is, therefore, a limit to what visa data provide.

Borders system data collect information on an individual’s travel documents, so one might imagine that one could track travel movements over time to identify the proportion of migrants. However, Professor Salt, who provided expert witness evidence to the Committee, alluded to the fact that this is not a simple matter. Difficulties associated with dual nationality, lost and renewed passports and changes of name preclude the possibility of producing statistically reliable estimates of migration flows. That means the data do not meet the very fine tolerances that would be required for a reliable statistical estimation of migration.

As I mentioned, that does not mean that data cannot be used to identify individuals of interest for valuable operational purposes. The ONS also believes there are significant benefits in using the border systems data, which will help to improve IPS weighting methodology and the identification of the main flows into and out of the UK. That will significantly enhance the degree to which we can rely on the IPS, but it does not imply that we can replace the IPS completely.

The new exit checks system, which will be introduced by April next year, will give us, for the first time, a more complete picture of those leaving the UK. The system will improve our ability to take appropriate enforcement action against those who have potentially overstayed or are abusing the UK’s health and welfare systems. However, it will not, on its own, provide a replacement for the comprehensive estimates of the number of migrants arriving in and leaving the country.

That said, the Government acknowledge the importance of the debate. That is why we will keep under review the arrangements for collecting statistics in this vital policy area. Only by ensuring that policy making and public debate are as well informed as possible can we continue to build on the successes we have already achieved. I very much welcome the contribution the Committee has made. I also welcome the contributions that right hon. and hon. Members have made this afternoon. We will keep the issue under close focus, given the importance of reliable statistics and the faith and trust that the public put in them. That will inform the important debate on immigration into this country, as well as Government policy on this essential issue.

Student Visas

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in giving me advance notice of the statement, which is an astounding statement of systematic abuse on this Government’s watch. They said, no more bogus colleges; instead, we now have the major abuse of bogus certificates again being issued. As the Minister said, in February 2014 the Home Office announced that it had acted by suspending language tests run by ETS following an investigation by “Panorama”. The scale of the abuse—involving a minimum of some 48,000 students —is truly shocking and leaves open the question why it took the BBC, rather than the Minister’s own Department, to find the problem. Did the Minister or the Home Office know of this problem prior to the BBC reporting it, if not why not, and what checks did the Minister or his Department undertake?

It is clearly an abuse for language tests set by ETS to be taken by fake sitters, one that damages the integrity of the whole system. It is clearly right that the Minister has, finally, taken action today, and that criminal investigations are being pursued. Controlled migration and tackling bogus colleges are vital in protecting UK borders and stopping this exploitation. Indeed, that is why the previous Labour Government closed 140 colleges between April 2009 and January 2010.

However, my constituents and those of other Members will be outraged, and rightly so, by the news today that 48,000 people have fraudulently obtained language certificates, despite being unable to speak English, on this Government’s watch. There are a number of unanswered questions the Minister has not touched on that need further explanation. How many of these students are still in the United Kingdom? Does the Minister know where these 48,000 students are? Does he have addresses for them, and will he co-operate with the university sector and other sectors to ensure that we know where these individuals are, and take action? What steps is he taking to meet universities and colleges such as Glyndwr university, close to my own patch, to ensure that we rectify this problem as a matter of urgency?

Let us be clear: this Government’s failings are of their own making. They have been in office for four years. This is a scheme they established themselves, and this is a border crisis on the Home Secretary and the Minister’s watch. This is a Conservative-led coalition failure on immigration. The Government were warned about student visitor visas, which have increased from 38,000 under the last Government to 77,000 in the last 12 months. There are fewer checks and there is more scope for abuse.

This issue has been flagged up by John Vine, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. In November 2012, he said that the Government were clearly failing to follow up on notifications of potential bogus students and that at the time of his inspection there was a backlog—or should we now, following the passport crisis, call it “work in progress”?—of some 153,000 such notifications without action being taken. What action is the Minister taking today to meet the obligations set out by Mr Vine in his November 2012 report regarding the backlog of notifications of bogus students? What steps is he taking to rescind the certificates, and on the fake students and their surrogates?

The UK remains a key destination for international students. The UK market in international students is worth £8 billion, and has the potential to rise to £25 billion by 2025. However, the Government are failing to follow up with sufficient energy the notifications of bogus students, they did not take action on this issue when they knew about it, and they are now putting in place measures to slow down visa applications. At a time when the Minister is missing the net migration target that he himself set, he is now failing on the integrity of the system. He needs to restore that integrity today as a matter of urgency.

[James Brokenshire]

Listening to the shadow Immigration Minister, one might be forgiven for thinking that Labour believed in controlled immigration, but let us remember some of the facts about Labour’s record: record net migration of 2.5 million; hundreds of bogus colleges selling immigration, not education; students turning up at Heathrow unable to answer questions in English or even to explain what their course was about; and supposedly highly skilled immigrants working as security guards.

I hear what the shadow Immigration Minister has said, but Labour did nothing to tighten up the system, and it has fallen to this Government to introduce further stringent measures. It appears that, despite all that—despite the serious issues highlighted in my statement today— Labour now want to introduce blunt targets to increase international student numbers. Indeed, I think the shadow Immigration Minister wants to take students out of the net migration numbers altogether. We will take no lectures from the Labour party about immigration and controlling the issuing of student visas.

The shadow Immigration Minister managed to ask some serious questions, and I will address them now. On the investigations that have taken place, I can say that we have taken significant steps to follow through on identifying, locating and removing those responsible. Hundreds of visits have already been conducted and removals have begun. The criminal investigation is ongoing, and he will understand that I cannot comment further on those cases.

We are taking steps in relation to Glyndwr, and have suspended its highly trusted sponsor status. We are keen to provide support for genuine students whose institutions are affected by this. From today, there is a designated student helpline available specifically for all students at the affected institutions. Dedicated staff will take calls on the helpline to ensure that students have an avenue for their questions to be answered and their concerns alleviated.

We are also setting up a working group with relevant education establishments, including Universities UK—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but the Opposition do not seem to care about what is happening to the students who are involved in this. They might want to listen. We are setting up a working group with Universities UK, the UK Council for International Student Affairs, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the Scottish Funding Council and the National Union of Students to enable the sector to support those genuine students who may eventually need to find a sponsor.

The right hon. Gentleman tried to make his general point about university applications, but the truth is that, while we have cut out much of the abuse in the student visa system, the number of overseas applications to study at British universities is up by 17% since the election, and that figure is based on genuine students. We are attracting the brightest and the best while, at the same time, resolutely focusing on ensuring that those who should not be here are stopped.

I was struck by what the right hon. Gentleman said about the immigration system not working, but I have to tell him—as we have done many times before—that it will take years to fix fully the system that we inherited from his party. We are making the difference. As the former UK Border Agency chief executive, Rob Whiteman, said last week, the agency that Labour set up was never going to work and it was right of this Government to break it into smaller pieces, because staff and managers can now get on with trying to put it right. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to Rob Whiteman, he could listen to the shadow Business Secretary who said that when he used to work in his predecessor’s surgeries, he could see how chaotic the UKBA was. “Hands up,” he said, “That was under my Government.”

All the facts I have outlined today are a direct legacy of the Labour party. A significant proportion of the students who have been caught cheating came to this country through a student visa system created by Labour. Under the previous Government, bogus colleges flourished, student visas were used for economic immigration and students did not even need to prove that they could speak English. The Government are focused on controlling immigration. Sadly, the Opposition still do not get it; it is as simple as that.

Immigration Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I will draw my comments to a close, as I have been generous to hon. Members across the House.

In conclusion, this power is narrowly drawn and aimed at addressing a real and current threat posed by a small number of individuals. The Government have taken steps to listen to the concerns of both Houses about statelessness. We are committed to taking proportionate action to protect the public and remove the privileges of British citizenship from those who abuse it. That is what these provisions do, and I commend them to the House.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I support the Lords amendments. Having listened to their lordships and to contributions from Members across the House, and having noted the keen interest there appears to be in this debate, I hope that the Minister will reflect on what he has said and support the Lords amendments in due course.

I will start with a quote:

“If we identify someone as a person proposing to commit a serious terrorist offence, for example, surely the obligation is on us to deal with that person. If we simply deport him, we shall be handing on—in my submission, irresponsibly—this terrorist problem to another state which may not have the same capability of dealing with it as we do. 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. 277-78.]

That was the late Lord Kingsland who spoke in October 2002 as Conservative shadow Lord Chancellor when these matters were debated in relation to nationality. At that time, the then Labour Government determined that statelessness should not be part of the legislative framework, and that prompts the question why have the Government brought forward this proposal at this time?

I think the Lords did a service to Parliament in providing it with an opportunity to discuss this proposal again, and I remind the House that the Lords voted by 242 votes to 180 to ensure that the amendment was accepted in another place. Among those who voted were a large number of Labour peers, and it is fair and proper that I report that to the House. There were also many others, both Cross-Bench, from the Government Benches and among the Bishops, who voted to ask this House to consider the matter again. Those included Lord Judge, a former Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Hannay, a former senior diplomat, as well as such Liberal Democrat notaries as Lord Lester, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Lord Oakeshott and Baroness Neuberger, and also the notable former Foreign Secretary Lord Howe of Aberavon. That group of peers did not vote for the amendment to cause trouble for the Government; it is a group of peers who take an interest in this matter and have reflected on the Government’s approach. Whatever else can be said, the Home Secretary did not convince the other place that her measures were right and proper. In fact, the charitable view is that the Home Secretary has made a mess of this matter. She has tried to rush the proposals through.

[James Brokenshire]

No.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister says no, but the Home Secretary brought forward the proposals on 30 January on Report, after they were tabled on 29 January. We had to table a manuscript amendment on Report, which we withdrew because we wanted to take legal advice. That legal advice led to a cross-party Lords amendment, moved by Lord Pannick, to ensure proper consideration of the proposals in Committee.

The Lords amendment is reasonable. It asks for the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on the complications of the removal of citizenship and the issues raised by Members across the House. From discussions I have had with the Minister, I know he is concerned that that would lead to delay, but I hope I can reassure him. Through agreement outside this House, we could, if the Lords amendment was accepted, give a time scale to that consideration to ensure that we have detailed examination and, effectively, pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposal, so that we can take the concerns raised in another place seriously, look at what points are being made even today by Members of this House and come to a consensus on this extremely serious issue—the removal of citizenship from individuals.

I think we can come to an agreement whereby a proposal is considered and completed perhaps, dare I say it, by the summer recess. I do not want to pre-empt the Gracious Speech in a couple of weeks’ time, but it will undoubtedly include a criminal justice Bill. Measures could be introduced at that stage and looked at in detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend has anticipated some of my own arguments. Like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I think we need to examine important issues relating to both the deprivation of citizenship and the impact on terrorism prevention. The Minister is seeking to delete the amendment in order to prevent potential terrorist action. I want to test him on that, potentially during scrutiny in the Committee, but also in the House today.

If citizenship is removed from an individual who happens to be outside the country, we shall have given up all jurisdiction over that individual, who could be returned to the United Kingdom by a third-party country that did not recognise him as having citizenship of that country. As Lord Kingsland said in 2002, he will not be the responsibility of the United Kingdom, but will still be potentially able to undertake activity that the Minister would not support, as a result of the Minister’s own actions.

[James Brokenshire]

I am somewhat confused by what the right hon. Gentleman is now saying. Does he not support the Government’s existing use of the deprivation powers to deal with counter-terrorism?

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister should reflect on that. He will know that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 specified just two grounds on which citizenship could be removed: it could be removed from those who had gained it through fraud, and it could be removed

“if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of…the United Kingdom”,

provided that the revocation of citizenship did not render the person stateless. That is the point, and that is the position that was taken by the Labour Government in the 2002 Act, about nine to 12 months after the horrendous events of 9/11. Surely, if we made that judgment in 2002, at the height of concern about the impact of 9/11, the Minister will be able to back it up in 2014. If he cannot, let him justify that to a Joint Committee. Lord Pannick said in another place:

“The Joint Committee will also want to consider whether the benefits, if any, of the proposed new power justify the… international implications.” .”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2014; Vol. 753, c. 1169.]

How can the British Government lecture others, or promulgate international law, when the Bill proposes the establishment of circumstances which, in my view, would break international requirements across the board? The Minister says that that is not the case, which is a view that we need to discuss.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Clearly, having announced the trials at the end of January, I want to see them proceed. It is important that we test the service and the system, which is patchy and not as consistent as I want it to be. Equally, some local authorities provide good services and it is important that we recognise that and learn from them. We want an enabling provision in the draft Modern Slavery Bill to be the bedrock that provides the mechanism, which can be informed by the trials that I want to happen, that can be acted on and be the statutory underpinning that allows it to be developed through the experience of the trials. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will find that helpful in underlining the Government’s commitment not simply to provide a statutory mechanism through that enabling provision, but to deliver practical action. The most important thing is that we provide support, advice and guidance for this extraordinarily vulnerable group, and that we ensure they are supported through the system. That is what matters most.

[Mr Hanson]

Can the Minister remind us how many trials there will be, and where and when? What is the date of completion and when does he intend to report back to the House?

[James Brokenshire]

The trials are intended to be conducted in 23 areas, commencing at the beginning of July. We have not, at this stage, set an end point for the duration of the trials, but I want evidence and feedback that can inform the consideration of an enabling power in any modern slavery Bill that comes forward. A statutory mechanism will ensure that the trials can commence and that we can learn and benefit directly from them, enabling a statutory underpinning of the optimum provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that and I have certainly heard the points she has made.

I know that others wish to speak to their manuscript amendments, but let me just say that Lords amendment 19 clarifies that the Bill does not limit the duty regarding the welfare of children imposed on the Secretary of State or any other person by section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Under section 55, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that her functions in relation to immigration, asylum and nationality are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK. That duty continues to apply, and nothing in the Bill impinges on it.

Lords amendment 20 relates to some technical changes concerning the bank accounts measures. Lords amendments 21 to 23 respond to recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, ensuring that, where appropriate, affirmative procedure processes apply in respect of certain notices and certain aspects of the sham marriage provisions contained in part 4 of the Bill. I believe that the Lords amendments, with the exception of Lords amendments 16 and 24, improve the provisions, making them clearer and more workable in practice.

[Mr Hanson]

I, again, thank the Minister for his helpful introduction to the Government’s position on the Lords amendments. I am here to maintain Her Majesty’s official Opposition’s support for them and wish the Government to reflect on that again during today’s debate. I pay tribute to Baroness Butler-Sloss for tabling her amendments in the other place. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for scrutinising the evidence for the draft Modern Slavery Bill. I have heard what the Minister said about the proposals on a pilot and the enabling power in such a Bill, but I remain unconvinced that that will lead to the action that we want and, indeed, the action that the other place has proposed for consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

That is the right way round. The Lords expressed a clear view on the matter. The Lords will be able to examine the Government’s proposal when the Modern Slavery Bill comes forward. But we have a clear template today, and I want to see that enacted. If the Government accept this today, the proposal is a clear template. We have a number of proposals from Baroness Butler-Sloss, and I have gone through them today.

[James Brokenshire]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to accept the Lords amendments because he feels that they are right, but that if he does so, it would not allow any further consideration by the Lords in terms of reflecting on what I have said from the Front Bench.

[Mr Hanson]

Their lordships have expressed their view clearly, and what the Minister has said today is known already. He announced that he had said in January that he would have pilots on the matter. The draft Modern Slavery Bill has been scrutinised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, and there is a template that we should support, and that is why I reject the Government’s proposal.

Asylum Seekers (Support)

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The UK has a proud history of granting asylum to those who need it, and the Government are committed to providing support to those who would otherwise be destitute while their claims are being considered. The payment levels to asylum seekers need to be considered as part of the overall support package. Accommodation—plus utilities such as gas and electricity —is provided free.

I do not accept my hon. Friend’s characterisation of the assessment process. A detailed assessment was concluded last June and, indeed, we will carry out a further assessment of levels this year to take into account relevant factors and to assess whether there should be any change. I can certainly assure her that we will consider these matters very carefully.

My hon. Friend makes various comments on the judgment itself. It is a very detailed judgment—it runs to about 90 pages and the Home Office is analysing the detail carefully and, indeed, whether we will be appealing it.

The Home Office takes its responsibilities in respect of asylum support extremely seriously in setting the rates and considering what is appropriate. We believe that it does provide support to enable those who seek asylum and who are destitute to see that their claims are decided, and that support is given to them during that process.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for raising the issue, which, as she mentioned, is about the basic level of support given to those fleeing torture, rape or oppression and who seek asylum in the United Kingdom.

Given that the rate was frozen in 2011 and has now been frozen through to 2013-14, yesterday’s judgment was damning. The Home Secretary was ordered to review the amount of money given to support asylum seekers after the High Court ruled that she had used insufficient evidence in deciding to freeze those payments. In his judgment the judge said the decision was “flawed” and that the Home Secretary

“misunderstood or misapplied information which she treated as important in reaching her decision.”

He added:

“In my judgment the information used by the Secretary of State to set the rate of asylum support was simply insufficient to reach a rational decision to freeze rates.”

In the judge’s view, the rates involved

“a reduction in real terms from what was regarded in 2007 as the base minimum level necessary to avoid destitution.”

Remember, Mr Speaker, that these are individuals who cannot work. In the light of that, will the Minister—he has hinted at this—indicate whether he intends to appeal that decision? If he does intend to, will he tell the House how much has been spent to date on legal costs in defending the decision to freeze the rates and how much he expects to spend on any appeal? Will he estimate the number of individuals who are involved? The judge yesterday mentioned some 23,000, but I should welcome confirmation. I should welcome confirmation also on how many of those 23,000—if that is the figure—have children who now face destitution because of the freeze.

If the appeal is made and is not successful, will any new rates be applied from today, or from 2011? What estimate has the Minister made of the impact of any unsuccessful appeal on the level of rates?

Does the Minister agree with what the hon. Member for Brent Central asked for, which is what Refugee Action and, indeed, the Refugee Council, which I spoke to this morning, have asked for, namely a wider examination of the review of and support for asylum seekers—not failed asylum seekers, but asylum seekers fleeing torture, oppression, fear or intimidation, and who cannot, I remind the House, work?

What assessment has the Minister made of those currently in receipt of assistance who now face this freeze? Has he made any assessment, in particular, of the impact on children? Will he ensure that he urgently reviews recommendation 82 of the Home Affairs Committee’s unanimous report of 11 October last year, which asked for a review of section 4 support? How many asylum seekers does the Home Secretary’s Department believe cannot now buy enough food to feed themselves, as referred to in that report? How many asylum seekers does her Department believe missed a meal because they could not afford to eat? How many asylum seekers does her Department believe do not have money to buy clothes?

Proceeds of Crime

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly hear my hon. Friend’s point, and we will monitor that carefully in relation to the directive. As I have indicated to the House, there is currently no proposal in the directive dealing with mutual recognition.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I hear what the Minister says, but I wish to clarify it. In another place’s proceedings on the matter only recently, on 22 May, Lord Henley, the Minister, said:

“The directive offers us a valuable opportunity to raise the standard of asset recovery legislation in the EU, enhance our co-operation with member states, and increase our powers to recover criminal assets held overseas.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 May 2012; Vol. 737, c. 778.]

Why did the Minister in the Lords say that only two weeks ago, whereas the Under-Secretary is saying today that we are not going to opt in?

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman reads the report, he will see that my noble Friend underlined clearly that the Government had not concluded their consideration of the directive at that point and had not formulated their decision on whether to opt in. We have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by law enforcement partners about civil recovery powers, and we have determined that the best course of action to protect our laws and our current civil recovery operation is not to opt in. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman seems to challenge that view. He seems to have determined that it would be appropriate to opt in.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take a different course, I am happy to give way to him.

[Mr Hanson]

I was simply looking at what was said only three weeks ago in another place and what the Minister is saying now. Given what he has said today, is he willing to publish in the Library at least some sort of précis of the responses that he has had from the agencies concerned, so that we can examine them in the light of the directive?

[James Brokenshire]

I am certainly happy to consider that, but the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are sometimes operational sensitivities attached to doing so. We have heard clear representations from operational law enforcement partners, which have been an important factor for the reasons that I have outlined. We none the less recognise that the UK would benefit from the directive raising standards across the EU regardless of whether we opted in, because of the developed legislation that we have in place in this country.

Not opting in at this stage is not a sign that we do not care about asset recovery. It is a sign that the UK takes it very seriously and is committed to getting legislation right for the UK and all member states. Our ultimate aim is to achieve better mutual recognition of both criminal and civil confiscation. The directive will not achieve that, and we will press for a further instrument or instruments in due course that would have that effect. We will analyse the directive carefully, but in the context of the current version, and for the reasons that I have explained, our clear judgment is that the UK should not opt in at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

Case proved, m’lud: the hon. Gentleman, along with the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others, does have concerns about this issue in principle. What I take from the Minister this evening is that the advice that he has received from operational organisations points to concerns about the ability of the measure to deliver what it should deliver, which is an increase in the assets taken from criminals and terrorists, and their repatriation to the United Kingdom. If that is the reason he is lukewarm this evening about progressing the measure, I will look at that in detail. If the reason is the pain and suffering that hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others may bring upon him—because of their fundamental objections to further European co-operation on such matters—that is something that we will also revisit in due course. If the Minister can provide us with a timetable for further discussion and examination of the issues, and if he is saying that he will rule out for ever signing up to this—[Interruption.] If he would like to say that on the record, that would be helpful.

[James Brokenshire]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not rule anything in, and we do not rule anything out. It will depend on how the negotiations proceed. The EU itself will be leading the timetable, and the presidency will take that forward. I understand his desire for a timetable, but that is not within my gift.

[Mr Hanson]

We have heard an interesting development in the consideration of the order this evening. There has been a clear position change from that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, only two weeks ago.

[James Brokenshire]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Hanson]

I am afraid there has. The Minister has explained this evening the basis on which he has made his comments on the order. I will seek to obtain further information on that, as that would represent valuable progress. I suspect, however, that underneath all this there is a slight concern about the reaction of some Conservative Members, who will undoubtedly raise the concerns that I have mentioned, during the rest of the debate.

Emergency Services (Interoperability)

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Havard. I echo the clear and common message that has emerged from this debate, which is to thank the emergency services for their contribution, day in, day out, to keeping us safe. I thank them for their significant professionalism and bravery, examples of which have been cited during the debate. I am sure that the House would underline that clear message of gratitude for the work of our blue-light emergency services.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on securing the debate and on chairing the all-party parliamentary group on the emergency services, following that work through and facilitating a good and constructive discussion on the issues that are relevant to interoperability, to which I will seek to respond in my comments. I am certainly pleased to have this opportunity to update the House on some of the work that we have been doing to support the emergency services and to promote a better joined-up working approach.

It is clear that police, fire and ambulance teams work together on a daily basis with successful outcomes. Although the response to major incidents from our emergency services is among the best in the world, we are not complacent. The emergency services face significant challenges in responding to major incidents, particularly in the initial stages of a complex and fast-moving situation when the picture can be confusing and there may be unseen dangers. The three services must be able to come together as quickly as possible to share information about what is going on, to manage the risks and rescue any casualties. When the emergency services work together in that way, they save lives.

We continue to learn from events, such as the 7/7 London bombings and the shootings in Cumbria, and from regular national exercises designed to test the joint response. The severe impact and complexity of major incidents and other civil emergencies mean that we must strive for continuous improvement in the combined performance of the emergency services in joint operations.

The Home Secretary has asked the emergency services to set up a new programme of work designed to further improve our joint response to emergencies. The overall aim is to ensure that the blue-light services are trained and exercised to work together as effectively as possible in response to a major incident, including fast-moving terrorist scenarios, so that as many lives as possible can be saved.

The programme will be led by the emergency services through a joint forum, which will enable them systematically to plan, test and learn together. We fully support the delivery of the programme and have provided dedicated resources to look at how future improvements can be made.

I am conscious that a number of contributions highlighted the need for effective co-ordination and joined-up working at national level. Let me assure my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and for Hexham (Guy Opperman) that the Government are working collectively on this important issue. There have been a number of cross-departmental ministerial meetings to agree how to promote interoperability. The most recent was last month when the Home Secretary and her colleagues met senior representatives from the emergency services to discuss the plan for the new joint emergency services interoperability programme, which I will talk about in more detail shortly.

It is also worth highlighting that the Home Office, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government are working closely together on a daily basis. The Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Health, the Minister for the fire and rescue service, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and the Minister for the Cabinet Office will oversee that work through a cross-departmental ministerial board. We understand that we cannot work in silos and that a unified Government response is required.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) rightly highlights the need for engagement with the devolved Administrations, as policing, health and fire and rescue are devolved matters. We continue to work with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations, as do our emergency service partners, on the breadth of the programme, to promote a consistent approach to the development of responses and response capabilities and to facilitate the sharing of best practice.

At local level, the local resilience forums have an important role to play. Emergency services are required by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to come together with other organisations defined as Category 1 or Category 2 responders to identify and assess the risks in the area and develop and validate plans to respond to them.

Let me talk a bit more about how we will address the need for overarching co-ordination. At national level, the Government have set out in both the draft strategic policing requirement and the draft fire and rescue national framework, the requirement for connectivity between the emergency services. The strategic policing requirement will, for the first time, set out the national threats and the appropriate national policing capabilities that are required to counter them. The election of police and crime commissioners allows Government to get out of the way of local policing, rightly putting accountability in the hands of local people. The strategic policing requirement demonstrates our commitment to get a better grip on the national threats that we face and to ensure a unified approach. Under the strategic policing requirement, police forces will consider consistency between forces and connectivity with other emergency services so that we can improve interoperability between the police, other blue-light emergency responders and other partners in responding to significant emergencies.

The new police professional body will take on the policy functions of the Association of Chief Police Officers and set standards for police professionals. It will ensure that police officers and police staff have a common skill-set and common tactics, where appropriate.

We have talked about the need for interoperability. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby said that it was important to recognise joint working between individual agencies: the fire service, the ambulance service, the police and other agencies. Equally, there is a need for individual agencies to operate effectively themselves, and communication is certainly one element of that. I shall highlight some of the work that has been done around communication.

At this stage of the programme, our highest priority is the interoperability of police, fire and ambulance responders operating in a time-critical environment, where speed and accuracy of information are fundamental to the saving of life. However, we accept that the requirement for interoperability extends to a wider group of emergency responders and other agencies, who will be involved in and consulted on the development and implementation of the programme. I join right hon. and hon. Members in praising the work of local resilience forums, including their efforts to bring local responders together and to plan for risks that local communities might need to deal with, and I agree that such forums are a strong example of interoperability in action.

Future work, led by the joint emergency services interoperability programme, will ensure that responders have effective communications, guidance, training and exercises to support their response to a major incident. In response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, the programme will also consider opportunities for equipment and procurement sharing.

There are three key priority areas for the programme. The first is communications. Rapid sharing of information and intelligence is at the core of an effective response. It is needed to establish the type of incident, and to mobilise and co-ordinate the appropriate response. Ongoing communication within and between the emergency services will support on-scene commanders, who need to work together to make decisions and take urgent action.

The sharing of information within and between the emergency services is supported by Airwave radio communications. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby clearly highlighted the importance of strengthened joint communication. The programme will seek to ensure a common approach to the use of mobile communications during major incidents. Effective communications will also be enabled by the national resilience extranet, which is an information-sharing tool. In addition, the Government are working to pilot the direct electronic incident transfer, which will allow the electronic exchange of incident logs between front-line responders.

The right hon. Member for Delyn highlighted the future of Airwave and it might assist him if I gave a further response on that subject. The Airwave contract across the police and other emergency services expires between 2016 and 2020; I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself indicated that that was the case. As a consequence, the emergency services mobile communications programme has been commissioned by the Home Office to examine potential replacement solutions for the emergency services post-Airwave. Future service provision will be based on a review of the anticipated operational needs of the emergency services, and the technical capabilities and commercial opportunities available. Various technologies are being considered, but at the moment the programme is at an early stage of technology evaluation, with the first version of the strategic outline business case due in October.

For the future, interdependent relationships with the emergency services mobile communications programme will ensure that interoperability is a central feature of the future replacement for the Airwave service, when the current commercial contract expires. We will certainly provide further details to the House, as and when they are available.

[Mr Hanson]

I seek clarification from the Minister on just one point. Will it be mandated that police commissioners have to allocate budgets to purchase the system replacing Airwave? Is that the plan?

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman refers to the Bill, he will see that the time period contemplated is two years, in order to allow proper consideration of all the relevant 1,300 to 1,400 powers of entry. This is not something that will simply lie in abeyance. The review of all powers must be completed within two years of Royal Assent, and we have said that we will report back to Parliament every six months to provide an update on progress, so there will be a steady updating process. I hope that that gives him comfort. I also highlight to him the Home Office gateway, which provides an ongoing check and balance in relation to new powers of entry, as well as the ability to review existing powers of entry that may be triggered as a consequence.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

What ultimate sanctions are in place in the event that the two-year review is not completed by any Department?

[James Brokenshire]

The review is a specific statutory requirement, and we are focused on ensuring that it is undertaken with all due expedition. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the requirements of the ministerial code and other requirements on Departments and Ministers to abide by the law. In addition, the ongoing six-monthly review that I mentioned will enable the House to maintain pressure on Departments to ensure that the provision is being properly adhered to and followed through with the intent and spirit of the Bill.

I point out to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that we have made significant progress through the Home Office gateway, which considers all applications by Departments for new powers of entry. To date, 19 applications to create or amend powers of entry have been considered, and we have added greater safeguards in every case. Every power of entry in respect of domestic dwellings that has been approved through the gateway process has included a requirement that entry is obtained either with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. We have also taken the opportunity to scrap a number of powers.

I hope that that reassures right hon. and hon. Members that we are serious about ensuring that powers of entry are subject to appropriate safeguards and that we are committed to rolling back intrusive state powers and strengthening the privacy of home owners and businesses.

When taken together, the gateway process and the measures that I have outlined add up to a significant commitment to tackle what we have recognised to be a significant infringement of the rights of home owners. I have also made it clear that we cannot, in every case, demand that entry is effected only with the consent of the occupier or on the authority of a warrant. I put it to the House that our approach will ensure that the necessary safeguards are put in place to protect home owners, while providing greater legal certainty and ensuring that the police and others can act swiftly to protect the public. I therefore have no hesitation in inviting the House to disagree with the Lords amendments.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this short debate.

Lords amendments 16 and 17 were supported in another place by Lord Selsdon. I welcome the debate about powers of entry and look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that I will put to him. When both I and Lord West were Ministers in the Home Office, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), commissioned him to write a review of entry powers. The report that Lord West produced was overtaken by events with the general election, but I will refer to it with regard to the matters before the House.

The genesis of the Protection of Freedoms Bill lies in a document published in 2010 called “Modern Conservatism: Our Quality of Life Agenda”. I hope that the Minister will not think this too harsh, but I thought that, on balance, it was a rather tawdry document and I disagreed with almost every word of it. I do not say that very often or very lightly. The Lords amendments, which were passed with the support of the Opposition in another place, as the Minister said, would hold the Government to account for what they said they would do in that document. It stated that a Conservative Government, who I accept are upon us, would

“cut back the intrusive powers of entry into homes. Public bodies (other than the police and emergency services) will require a magistrates’ warrant, and approval for such a warrant will be restricted to tackling serious criminal offences or protecting public safety.”

This is an area of private grief between Government Back Benchers in another place and the Government. The Lords amendments would allow the Government to deliver on one of their major promises. That is something that the Government have failed to do on many occasions.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I rise to respond briefly to a number of the points raised. Let me assure my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and for Wycombe (Steve Baker) of this Government’s commitment and resolve to roll back the arms of the state that may seek to intrude into private life.

The measures before the House this afternoon are important. They underpin our focus on ensuring that powers of entry are proportionate, appropriate and respect the right to be able to enjoy one’s home without undue interference. The House will also recognise, however, that there are certain circumstances in which such intervention might be appropriate—to protect health, to prevent harm or to ensure that criminals are legitimately brought to justice. That is why we are undertaking the review that I have outlined this afternoon.

I assure the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that I understand his desire to get on with this. We have said that we will report back to the House on a six-monthly basis, and I anticipate that that will involve a joint report on behalf of all the relevant parts of the Government Departments undertaking the review, to provide an update on the progress and the steps that are being taken. We intend the review to be Home Office-led and it will be undertaken in large measure by officials, but they will be responsible to Ministers, and I assure the House that Ministers will be driving the process forward, recognising the House’s strong feelings about the importance of liberty.

It was a bit rich of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to suggest that we were trying to kick this matter into the long grass and to defer or delay it. On the contrary, we are legislating through the Bill, we are taking action and we are setting out a clear process to roll back powers of entry, which grew enormously under the last Government. The fact that 600 new powers of entry were created during their period in office underlines the fact that due regard was not given to the implications of those measures. I am proud that this Government are introducing a clear mechanism to review the impact of powers of entry and the necessity of their remaining on the statute book or being made subject to further safeguards. The measures in the Bill will allow that to be done.

I very much welcome the support that has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House this afternoon. I know that the right hon. Member for Delyn will want to ask what target we have set, but I hope he has realised that we are not a Government who arbitrarily set targets. We will look at this matter in a measured, considered way and decide what is in the best interests of liberty and the protection of freedoms in relation to safety and security, as well as of the freedom from the intrusion of an overbearing state.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way, having made a challenge to the shadow Policing Minister.

[Mr Hanson]

I sense that the Minister is about to finish his speech. Before he does so, will he try to answer the question that I put to him earlier? In the event of a Secretary of State not meeting the duty set out in clause 42, what sanctions would be available to address their failure to meet that target?

[James Brokenshire]

I think I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman’s questions fairly and squarely in terms of the statutory requirement on which I hope the House will legislate. I hope that that measure will go on to the statute book. The Bill represents a significant step forward—one that the previous Government failed to take during the 13 years in which they were creating 600 additional powers of entry. I note that he is seeking to push and challenge us on this, but I must point out that the Bill represents a significant step forward. Ministers will be bound by the provisions, and they will take the new responsibility extremely seriously.

I hope that the House is minded to disagree with the Lords in their amendments this afternoon. That in no way implies a lack of commitment, resolve or focus on the Government’s part to ensure that powers of entry are properly examined and, as appropriate, scaled back to ensure that they properly protect without intruding, and that they are not retained on the statute book if they are not necessary.

Lords amendment 16 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 17 and 18 disagreed to.

A New Clause

Stalking

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, the provisions relate to the consent of the parents. They say that the consent of one parent is required, but it is left open to the other parent to object, and such an objection would stand. If need be, in the light of the arguments that the right hon. Member for Delyn makes for his amendment, I will provide further clarification.

Finally, I turn to the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 28. The amendment is a response to an observation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that questioned the necessity of an affirmative procedure for an order revoking a temporary extension order. In the Government’s response to the Committee, we concluded that it was not necessary to subject a revocation order to parliamentary scrutiny, given that it would be neither appropriate nor meaningful. The Committee did not take issue with that conclusion. It would be perverse if Parliament were in the position of debating and voting on a revocation order when it had not had the opportunity to approve the original temporary extension order, given that the order had been revoked before it had been approved. Any such debate would be likely to be academic because a temporary extension order lasts for only three months, and there is therefore a strong possibility that an order would have expired before any debate had taken place. Furthermore, a revocation order will simply return the maximum period of detention to 14 days, the maximum period already approved by Parliament, which negates the need for parliamentary approval of a revocation order. That remains the Government’s view, and I hope that the House will not support the Opposition’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.

[Mr Hanson]

As the Minister has said, we are indeed traversing old ground that is familiar to me, to him and to his officials. The initial discussion on DNA retention had its genesis in the debates on what became the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was produced during what I shall have to call the dying days of the last Labour Government. At that time, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and I, the then Policing Minister, wrestled with the issues on DNA retention. We looked at them in great detail, and made an assessment of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on these matters.

We also considered how we could maximise the envelope that was available for the retention of DNA. That was a matter of judgment. We wished to ensure that we had the greatest possible ability under the legal requirements set down under those European Court judgments to maintain the retention of DNA so that we could use it to catch criminals who had committed crimes or who could potentially commit further crimes. We made the assessment—rightly or wrongly; we believe rightly—that there were between 20,000 and 23,000 individuals who might well have committed crimes during the six years. With the shorter period that the Minister is proposing in the Bill, such people will not now have to face that judgment. The police might not be able to use the DNA samples any more when the Bill comes into force, as the DNA profiles will no longer be in place. This is indeed old ground.

The 2010 Act was the subject of a difference of opinion between me and the then shadow Minister, and that difference has not changed in the subsequent two years. Happily in many ways, I was not party to the Bill’s initial consideration in Committee, as I was at that time shadowing Treasury Ministers. I returned in October, however, to find that the Government were intent on progressing the change in the DNA regime. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), who was a Home Office Minister at the time. Let me say that as a name for a Bill, the Protection of Freedoms Bill is one of the greatest misnomers ever in my near 20-year career in this House. It unpicks the impact of Labour’s 2010 Act. In so doing, I believe it puts at risk individuals in our communities who could have been helped and supported and could have been protected from becoming victims by the provisions of the 2010 Act.

Our amendment (a), to which the Minister has referred, is meant to provide a device to allow us to debate some of the serious offences that would be impacted by the Government’s proposed changes to the DNA regime. We have argued strongly—it is a matter of judgment—that the Crime and Security Act 2010 was the best way to meet our European obligations at the same time as trying to protect civil liberties and ensuring also that the British people would be free of murder, rape and crime. There are balances to be struck in ministerial life, which is always about balances. When I was in government with my fellow Ministers in the Home Office—the Department that the present Minister is now privileged to serve—we felt that under European law and paying respect to the protection of liberties, we should try to extend the window of opportunity to protect as many people as possible by ensuring that DNA samples were collected.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The short answer is no. Those involved in door-to-door sales will need to trade their product through scrap metal dealers, so they will be subject to the Bill’s provisions.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am afraid that that answer is not really good enough. On what basis has the Minister determined that an exemption from cashless payments should be made for itinerant collectors of scrap metal? Will that not drive a Steptoe and Son-sized coach and horses through the rules, and will not people such as his hon. Friends whose communities have lost metal in war memorials, gates and rails be appalled by the existence of that loophole?

[James Brokenshire]

I would never cast the shadow policing Minister in the role of Del Boy, but I would say to him that the provisions we have brought forward will ensure that those involved in door-to-door selling must trade through a registered scrap metal dealership. They will therefore be subject to the restrictions on cashless payment. That underlines the fact that those itinerant collectors need to be registered and approved by local authorities and police—another form or enforcement that needs to be focused on.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I rise to speak to new clause 16, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Clive Efford) and for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and the others listed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, who originally tabled new clauses and amendments on behalf of the shadow Home Office team, has been promoted to the shadow Cabinet. If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, I will begin by paying tribute to him for his sterling work in the police field during his time in this brief. Once upon a time, he was the Policing Minister. I succeeded him in government as the Policing Minister, he succeeded me as the shadow Policing Minister in opposition, and I succeed him again as the shadow Policing Minister. Between us, we have several years of service, but not continuously. I wish to place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for his work in raising what we accept are politically contentious issues at a time when there is real concern about the future direction of policing and there are real differences between the Government and the Opposition. However, I hope I can say, on behalf of the Government as well as the Opposition, that he exercised those duties in a fair and equitable way.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I, too, put on record, in the nicest possible way, my best wishes to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). He and I had some frank exchanges over the years, but I certainly mark out the good-natured way in which we were able to reconcile our differences at times, and I welcome him to his new responsibilities.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the Minister’s support for my comments about my hon. Friend. I assure the Minister that I will try to kick him very hard on some of the political issues, but I hope that we can enjoy a similar relationship to that he had with my predecessor. Having dealt with the hon. Gentleman from the Government side of the Chamber when he was in opposition, I am sure that we will have a positive relationship.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), who has joined the shadow team and is graciously supporting me in this debate.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

When I look at the Members of Parliament who contact me about the DNA database, there are not huge stacks of correspondence relating to the retention of DNA. The correspondence relates to the many people who complain about their DNA remaining on the national DNA database when they are innocent of any crime, and who say how that offends them. Let us look at some of the cases involved. GeneWatch UK has been quite helpful in highlighting the issues. There is the 12-year-old schoolboy arrested for allegedly stealing a pack of Pokémon cards; the grandmother arrested for failing to return a football that was kicked into her garden; the 10-year-old victim of bullying who had a false accusation made against her; and the 14-year-old girl arrested for allegedly pinging another girl’s bra. Those people have been arrested; their DNA would be retained under the arrangements that the previous Government seemed to laud. That issue of injustice is very much at the heart of the matter.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the hon. Gentleman place in the Library information on exactly how many letters he has received on the topic and how many complaints he has had, as compared with the number of innocent people who will be killed, raped, maimed or injured because of the proposals before the House?

[James Brokenshire]

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to try to take us down that path. I am speaking honestly and fairly about the correspondence that comes from hon. Members on both sides of the House on the injustice that some minority communities feel in particular. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has highlighted how acutely many communities feel about the issue.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question of judgment and balance. The Labour party, when in government, did not focus properly on putting the guilty on the database. We are focused on doing that, and on not retaining all the DNA of those innocent of any crime. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle may perhaps suggest that privacy is in some way a science, but it is not. Liberty cannot be decided on by testing in that way. It is a question of judgment and looking at the evidence, and reaching a conclusion on how to strike the balance fairly between collective protection and individual liberty.

As for what has been said about the previous Government’s proposals, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle may pray in aid all sorts of things, but there was very limited support for the idea that six years was appropriate. We believe that the protection given by the Scottish model means that that is the right approach, and it strikes the right balance, and I therefore commend it to the House.

[Mr Hanson]

I confirm to the Minister that this is a matter of judgment—a judgment as to whether one is on the side of victims and the prevention of crime. There are very difficult issues that the Minister knows we have wrestled with to do with balancing civil liberties with the protections that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) has so eloquently spoken about today. I pay tribute to him; he has made a compelling case that Government Members ignore at their peril. I do not say that to the Minister in a threatening way; I am simply saying that I suspect that there will be people who are victims of crime because he rejects my right hon. Friend’s amendment this evening.

The Minister will know that my right hon. Friend and I included the provisions that we are discussing in the Crime and Security Act 2010 after considerable thought and consideration of the European judgments that were brought against us. We tried to balance the civil liberties of the British people with their ability to secure their future, free of murder, rape and crime. The Minister will know that there are balances to be struck; ministerial life is about balances. I accept the point made by the hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), and for St Albans (Mrs Main): if the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend is accepted, there will be people whose DNA is on the database for three years longer than the Government propose. Those people may not commit a further crime, and they may well feel aggrieved, but the purpose of the House is to protect the rights of citizens as far as we can.

When my right hon. Friend and I were in government, and were Ministers in the Department in which the Minister is now privileged to serve, we felt that, within European law and within the rights of protection of those liberties, we should try to extend the window of opportunity so as to protect as many people as possible, by ensuring that DNA was collected. We have to balance the aggrieved feelings that the hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned with the rights of citizens as a whole. There will undoubtedly be people who feel aggrieved, but we have to accept those consequences. Ministerial life is about making not just judgments, but the right judgments. On this occasion, the Minister has got that judgment wrong.

Britain is leading the world in DNA technology, which provides critical investigative leads. The DNA database provides the police with almost 3,300 DNA matches per month. There were 832 positive matches on the DNA database in cases of rape, murder, and manslaughter and other serious crimes in 2009. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned his concerns; Chris Sims, the chief constable of the West Midlands police, who leads on the issue not for the West Midlands but for the Association of Chief Police Officers, has said that much more detailed information is important to ensure that we protect the public from serious crime. There is no dispute about the fact that three years should be included in the Bill—both sides have accepted that. We are arguing for the maximum envelope that we introduced in 2010, which will protect future victims of crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Brokenshire and David Hanson

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman may also know that Chief Constable Sims acknowledged that such estimates were

“notoriously difficult to put figures on”.––[Official Report, Protection of Freedoms Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2011; c. 8, Q1.]

The Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee also heard evidence from GeneWatch which pointed in a very different direction. I again point the hon. Gentleman to past circumstances and to statistics highlighting that, despite the huge increase in the number of people that his—the previous—Government put on the DNA database, DNA detections have fallen.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Last Friday a man with no previous convictions, Mr Ronald Toms, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for the attempted rape of an 84-year-old woman. He was caught because he had been previously arrested but not charged with an offence, and his DNA had been taken. Will the Minister confirm that under his proposals Mr Toms would be free to rape again?

[James Brokenshire]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, with all respect, that he will well know that the use of individual cases cannot be undertaken lightly, given that they rely on all sorts of other issues such as consent and on other identification evidence. We have taken a very measured approach by making sure that those who are guilty are retained on the DNA database, and that there are matches to ensure that the cold-case database is used effectively. That way more crimes are detected.