EU Migrants: National Insurance Numbers

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Thursday 12th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman’s last point is obviously a matter for colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, and clearly we continue to assess these matters, but his key point was about the long term versus the short term. The clear statements from the ONS highlight that the right measure to look at is the long-term immigration measure through the international passenger survey data. That is the clearest way to set out the pressures of migration. The ONS has also said very clearly that national insurance numbers are not an appropriate measure of assessment for that purpose. Yes, they indicate trends or patterns, but for overall net migration numbers the international passenger survey remains conclusively the best measure we have, and it is right that the Government use it, as we have been doing consistently, in line with the UN definitions for that mechanism. I note what he says and his endorsement of the ONS’s report this morning.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen the report by the London School of Economics this morning demonstrating that wages in this country have continued to rise strongly since the first flood of arrivals to this country from Poland and elsewhere, and that the fall in wages in recent years was plainly caused by the deep recession—the worst since the second world war—in 2007? This refutes other anti-immigrant arguments that some of the Brexiteers keep using in the present campaign. Does he accept that the real migrant crisis facing him and this country is the problem of how to deal, in a civilised and effective way, with the flood of people coming from war and anarchy in the middle east and north Africa, and that the problem is not Polish construction workers and Romanian nurses, who make a valuable contribution to the economic life of this country?

[James Brokenshire]

I must confess that I have not had the opportunity to see the LSE report to which my right hon. and learned Friend has referred, but I shall seek it out after I have left the Chamber. He clearly makes a strong point about the challenges we face in dealing with the migration crisis, and obviously the Government are taking clear steps, both in region and in Europe, to respond to and deal with that. On the issue of new EU members, the Government are clear on how we would use our veto if we were not satisfied with the terms on which a country was to join the EU—in terms of convergence with the economies of the EU and those issues, which we recognise, of free movement. We have that veto and will certainly use it, if we are not satisfied with the terms of entry.

Dublin System: Asylum

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the migrant crisis that we face is our part of a crisis that affects every European Union member state and requires a European Union solution? It is a complete absurdity, first promulgated by the UK Independence party, that if we left the EU these people would somehow no longer be a problem for us.

As the Government have played a full part in the limited progress so far on closing the outer border of Europe and making arrangements with Turkey for the return of asylum seekers, does the Minister accept that although we are legally quite entitled to insist on the Dublin convention, and of course must exercise our opt-out when it is in our interests, we must have regard to the problems of Greece, Italy and other countries? Those countries have not encouraged these vast numbers of people to come to them, and we will need the co-operation of their Governments if we are eventually to restore order in every member state, including the United Kingdom.

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right that this is an EU-wide problem which we will need to continue to address at that level, and that it is clearly not the case that the UK leaving the EU in the referendum would suddenly make the migration crisis go away.

My right hon. and learned Friend mentions Greece and Italy, and he will equally know that the EU-Turkey deal is intended to support efforts on the frontline. From next week we will be sending out about 75 experts to support front-line activity in Greece.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

It is a question of the seriousness of the measures. We recognise, because of the changes we are making, that there should be a higher burden placed on the Secretary of State in determining whether one of these measures should be provided. That is why we have moved this up to the “balance of probabilities”. Let us not forget that under the previous control orders regime it was not at that level, but two notches down at “reasonable suspicion”. Under TPIMs, we brought it up to “reasonable belief” and, on the balance of the measures we now have, we judge that moving to the “balance of probabilities” is the right stance to take. I will come on to clause 13 later.

The changes are being introduced in the light of the changing threat picture: the ongoing conflict in Syria and Iraq; the fact that 500 subjects of interest have travelled to that region; the risk that they may pose on their return; and the risk of more people seeking to travel out. It is against that assessment that the threat level has been raised to severe, the second highest threat level, and that has had an impact on our assessment of the measures that need to be available to the police and the Security Service, and it is why we have brought forward the measures in this way.

The measures also follow the recommendations from David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, in his most recent annual report on TPIMs. As he has said, however, there is no need to turn back the clock. Control orders were not working and were being struck down by the courts, whereas TPIMs have been consistently upheld and therefore provide a basis in law that is robust and has withstood the scrutiny of the courts. TPIMs have been endorsed by the courts, counter-terrorism reviewers, the police and the Security Service. This change enhances the powers available to manage TPIM subjects by moving them away from harmful associates and making it harder for them to engage in terrorism-related activity. That is why we judge, at this time against the threat picture we see, that it is appropriate to introduce these measures.

It is important, however, that appropriate limits are placed on the use of the powers, and the Bill seeks to do that. We are also acting on David Anderson’s other recommendation to increase the test for imposing a TPIM notice, so that the Secretary of State must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that an individual is, or has been involved, in terrorism-related activity, as well as narrowing the definition of what that activity can entail.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I intervene on my hon. Friend as someone who supported the original move from control orders to TPIMs and thought the Government had got the balance about right in the original proposals. I am just wondering what the particular reason is for reintroducing the location requirements. What has been revealed to be missing by getting rid of them? They were thought to be a great restriction on freedom. The shadow Minister appears to believe that two people absconded because there was no location requirement. I think it is possible to put on a burqa wherever one is living and that it is quite possible to get into a black cab if someone has let one keep one’s passport. If that is being used as a reason, it strikes me as an excuse for letting two people go.

[Mr Clarke]

I apologise, Mr Hoyle. What exactly has happened to give rise to the need to bring back what I thought were fairly useless relocation orders?

[James Brokenshire]

In large measure, it has been the changing nature of the threat picture. My right hon. and learned Friend will know from his time in government that in the past two years we have seen a very altered threat picture and, as he will no doubt recognise, a rise in the threat level earlier this year. The Government need to consider, in a responsible fashion, that changed threat picture and the advice we received from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The proposals in the Bill are formed with that insight clearly in mind and David Anderson’s specific recommendation on this point. It has been against all those factors that we have judged that the right thing to do is to introduce the measures in this way, subject to the safeguards I have spoken about in respect of the change in the burden of proof and the specific limitation on relocation being limited to 200 miles from the location of the individual. I will come on to speak on that in a more direct fashion, recognising the point the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North rightly raised in her amendment.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lord Clarke of Nottingham

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The balance is indeed difficult to draw. We have debated the balancing test on various occasions and in the past I have rather resisted it because it gives rise to the possibility of the judge saying, “Oh yes, there is a risk to national security. What a pity, never mind. I wish open justice to be done, so let’s take a chance with national security.” That is probably a somewhat broad-brush piece of opposition, and we are reflecting on the issue. The proper response to the right hon. Lady’s entirely sensible and pertinent question is probably best given in Committee, when we will have had more time to decide the position.

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

indicated assent.

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend is nodding; he will be presenting our reactions.

“Norwich Pharmacal” is the phrase used by lawyers to describe a process that grew up in the sphere of intellectual property law, in which someone is enabled to apply for the disclosure of evidence—documents, usually—relevant to a claim that they are making. It is used to force a third party who is mixed up, however innocently, in suspected wrongdoing, to disclose information that a claimant feels may be relevant to a case that they are bringing in some other jurisdiction, usually abroad.

In 2008, as a result of ingenious arguments, the Norwich Pharmacal principle was extended to national security law. The purpose of proceedings under the principle now is for people involved in a legal process of some kind, usually overseas, seeking to obtain disclosure of intelligence material in the hands of the British Government.

As the purpose of the proceedings is only disclosure—no other judgment is being sought—the Government do not have the option to withdraw from or settle proceedings; if the judge orders disclosure, there is no option but for the Government to release the secret intelligence. That has given rise to understandable fears that if a person shares information with the British Government’s agencies, British judges have the power to order the release of some of it and that person cannot be certain of being able to resist that.

There is no point in my setting out obvious platitudes about the nature of intelligence work. If intelligence agencies are not able to guarantee to their sources, be they friendly overseas Governments or agents, that they can keep secrets, people will not share so much information with them. Lives will literally be at risk in some cases as will international co-operation on such vital issues as torture prevention and human rights.