Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say to Members that it is unfair to those the call list if I cannot get through it? We were slow on the last set of questions, and topical questions are meant to be short and punchy. Please let us work together. It is not fair on those who are missing out.

[The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)]

As the right hon. Lady has highlighted, in the absence of SIS II we will use Interpol channels to exchange information with EU member states on persons of interest.  All incoming Interpol circulations, notices and diffusions are uploaded to UK border and policing systems. Our use of Interpol predates our SIS II access, and provides the capability to exchange data and communicate with all our international partners quickly and securely.

Intelligence and Security Committee: Russia Report

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes several relevant points on the role of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the need for social media companies to do more. They need to step up, which is why we are introducing legislation on online harms and looking into the further role required of them.

I recognise the point about disinformation. I am sure that the important work of the cross-Whitehall counter-disinformation unit is reflected in the report that my hon. Friend references, which I will certainly look at. The important message we need to send from this House in respect of the ISC report is about that sense of vigilance and being clear-eyed about the threats posed by Russia, but equally that we are not picking an issue with the Russian people. This is about the Russian state and the Russian Government, so we are looking to them to shift their position, which is what our strategy is all about.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to get everybody in, it would be helpful if we could speed up the questions and the answers.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]]

Further to the question from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and for absolute clarity for people watching at home, Russians who invest £2 million or more in the UK can get a visa and in five years can convert that visa into citizenship. Does that not mean that restricting political donations to British citizens makes no real defence?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. Friend has, in his customary and very powerful way, set out the position on Russia Today and those who have supported it and those who have been engaged in it. We all have firm questions, doubts and real concerns about the objectivity of Russia Today. It is right that we have Ofcom and other agencies that are there and the independence of Ofcom on its regulation and therefore the need to step up and make sure that that sense of—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister will be familiar with the four horsemen of the apocalypse; I believe that Russia is one of those horsemen and a real danger to the free world. Will the Minister further outline what lessons we have learned from the report that will help us to counteract the very real presence of Russian interference, especially in social media? How do we balance safety with our inalienable right to hold and express our political opinions?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely recognise the different threats and challenges. That is why we have the Government Russia unit, which brings together the diplomatic, intelligence and military capabilities to maximum effect. There is a specific lead official at the Foreign Office who is responsible for our work on Russia. Therefore, the important point my hon. Friend makes about vigilance and the need to draw that information together is absolutely in place. We will continue to ensure that the interests of this country are, through that work, at the forefront and that we defend our nation’s security.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Riot Compensation Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 5th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That’s killed his career.

[James Brokenshire]

I do not know whether I am going to blot my copybook now or not, but I thank the hon. Lady for approaching this group of amendments in a constructive way, as she and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) did in Committee. That is the approach we have taken across the House, recognising that there is an issue in the Bill, and seeking to sensibly examine what is appropriate in terms of the manner in which it has been framed.

In introducing the amendments, the right hon. Gentleman highlighted his desire to probe these provisions and to ensure that the House has the opportunity to scrutinise them properly so that right hon. and hon. Members have the chance to underline important issues. He mentioned the Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who has also fought tirelessly on behalf of his constituents. Obviously, his role on the Front Bench means that he is not able to take part in these debates in the manner that we are. However, it is for him, the public and all of us to consider what the right mechanism is and to ensure that the Bill is appropriately examined so that we get it right. That is the overarching theme reflected in our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report this morning.

I want to draw attention to the operation of clause 8(8), which gives the Secretary of State the ability, through regulation, to make changes to the overall cap of £1 million set out in clause 8(1). It is important to look at the Bill’s subsequent provisions, which, again, underline the protections that are there. If regulations come forward to increase the level of the cap, that would be by the negative procedure. To have an additional safeguard if, say, the level was to be reduced—that would certainly not be our intention—that would be by the more positive affirmative regulation mechanism. That, again, reflects the spirit in which the Bill has been approached and the manner in which it has been examined.

The right hon. Gentleman highlighted a number of measures in the letter my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), the Minister responsible for policing, fire, criminal justice and victims, wrote to the Chair of the Public Bill Committee. Obviously, in previous consultations, we examined different ways in which compensation should be capped. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), in a very clear contribution to the debate, set out why that is needed and some of the thought processes involved. On further analysis, it was felt that the £2 million turnover cap initially suggested by Neil Kinghan would have meant more claimants not being able to get through the mechanism, with additional bureaucracy attached to the process. It was felt that that was not the appropriate way forward.

Through the different amendments, the right hon. Gentleman has made a number of different suggestions. I know he was not seeking to favour one over the other, but rather to ask, “Have we properly examined this? Have we properly thought this through?” In terms of replacing the £1 million compensation cap by a £10 million cap, the experience of the riots of August 2011 demonstrates that it is not right for the taxpayer to shoulder the burden of unlimited liability. As my hon. Friend highlighted, liability for the Sony claim alone has already run into tens of millions of pounds, so it is clear that a cap is needed. As a point of principle, it is not unreasonable to expect a business with more than £1 million in assets to take out insurance to protect itself from a wide range of risks. The £1 million compensation cap was generally welcomed by stakeholders. It will provide full protection to the vast majority of individuals and businesses, while ensuring that liability to the public purse is not unlimited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I do not think I am going to shock you by saying that I have had absolutely no indication of anybody coming forward with a statement. However, the hon. Gentleman has quite rightly, as ever, raised the matter, it is on the record, and I am sure that people in different Departments will be listening as we continue this debate.

[James Brokenshire]

A £1 million cap strikes the appropriate balance between protecting the public purse and helping those who need it most. Increasing it to £10 million would increase police and public purse liability tenfold, which is neither necessary nor appropriate. If the cap were raised to £10 million, the most likely beneficiaries would be insurance companies seeking to reclaim the costs of any very large claim from the relevant police and crime commissioner. I do not think that that was the intent behind the right hon. Gentleman’s approach in his amendment, but I respect the manner in which he has sought to draw the House’s attention to how we have reached this point and why we judge that £1 million is the appropriate level.

The right hon. Gentleman has proposed, as an alternative, that there should be regulations following a public consultation, with reviews taking place every three years. As I said, we believe that there is a compelling reason for having a cap in place. There are benefits that attach to having certainty on the level of the cap, with it being clearly defined, rather than perhaps having further uncertainty in the future as to what it might be. Leaving it to be set by regulations after a public consultation would serve only to remove certainty and increase bureaucratic burdens. A public consultation would achieve very little, given that 99% of claimants would have been paid in full from August 2011.

Humanitarian Crisis in the Mediterranean and Europe

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 9th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

We are the only major developed country in the G7 that is making this contribution—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr MacNeil, you have been doing very well this Session—let’s not spoil it.

[James Brokenshire]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that we should be proud of this. In his opening speech, he highlighted the real benefit that we as a country should look to—

Counter-terrorism

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Amendment and Guidance) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 12 March, be approved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this we shall take the following motion:

That the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 406), dated 26 February 2015, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 February, be approved.

[James Brokenshire]

This secondary legislation has been brought forward to implement measures in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The measures were debated by the House very recently and the primary legislation was enacted only on 12 February. During Parliament’s consideration of the legislation, there was widespread recognition of the threat from terrorism and broad support for the measures in the Bill. The instruments bring to life two of those important provisions. In passing the legislation in February, the House accepted the need for these measures.

I should inform the House that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered both the instruments we are debating. I place on the record my appreciation for the forbearance that was shown by the Chair and members of the Committee in considering the instruments outside the normal time scales. The Committee cleared the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Amendment and Guidance) Regulations 2015, but drew the attention of both Houses of Parliament to the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015. I shall return to the issues that were highlighted by the Joint Committee later in my contribution.

It may help the House in its consideration of the instruments if I briefly outline what the Government seek to achieve by them and why we have brought them forward at this time. The regulations have been brought forward in respect of part 5 of the 2015 Act, which is concerned with reducing the risk of people being drawn into terrorism. During the recent debates on the primary legislation, there was a very informed debate on the duty that is imposed by section 26 of the Act, which is known as the Prevent duty. The regulations are crucial to the effective implementation of the new duty.

The purpose of the regulations is threefold. First, they amend schedules 6 and 7 to the 2015 Act to add Scottish bodies to the list of authorities that are subject to the Prevent duty and to those that are listed as partners to local authority panels, which are required to be in place by section 36. Those panels form part of the Channel programme—the deradicalisation programme—in England and Wales, and Prevent Professional Concerns in Scotland, which are programmes designed to provide support to those who are vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism.

Secondly, the regulations make a number of amendments to the Act that are consequential on adding those Scottish bodies. In particular they ensure that Scottish further and higher education institutions will have the same requirement to have particular regard to the need to ensure freedom of speech and the importance of academic freedom while complying with the Prevent duty as their counterparts in England and Wales. It has always been the Government’s intention that provisions in part 5 of the Act would apply to bodies in Scotland. We have consulted Scottish Ministers, and they are supportive of adding Scottish bodies to the duty.

Thirdly and finally, the regulations will bring into effect guidance issued under section 29(1) of the Act for specified authorities in carrying out the Prevent duty. The guidance sets out the detail of what that duty will mean in practice for authorities subject to it, and seeks to explain the steps that should be taken to best secure compliance.

The House will recall that the Government introduced an amendment to the Bill to ensure that the guidance will only take effect following Parliament’s approval. During the passage of the Bill, a formal public consultation on the draft guidance took place, and hon. Members will have read the summary of responses referenced in the explanatory memorandum. More than 1,700 responses were received during the consultation, and another 300 people were reached over the course of five events held in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and Edinburgh. The responses enabled a thorough revision to take place, and the results of that revision are now before the House.

There are two versions of the guidance: one for authorities in England and Wales, and a separate one for authorities in Scotland. Following discussions with the Scottish Government, the Government decided that separate guidance that specifically addresses the particular circumstances of Scotland would be more helpful than trying to address those circumstances through one set of guidance. The Scottish guidance has also been subject to consultation through a targeted process undertaken by the Scottish Government.

Hon. Members will have noted that neither document addresses the issue of managing speakers and events in further and higher education institutions. How universities and colleges balance the Prevent duty with the need to secure freedom of speech and have regard to the importance of academic freedom is an extremely important issue that requires careful consideration. On account of that, the Government amended the legislation to ensure that institutions pay particular regard to the importance of academic freedom and freedom of speech when complying with the Prevent duty. As I made clear during the passage of the Bill, that freedom is important in challenging extremist views and providing almost an antidote to some of the extremism that might take place were it not for that challenge. We shall use the time before the duty commences to produce further guidance on managing speakers and events in further and higher education institutions, and it will be for the next Government to bring that to Parliament early in the next Session for the approval of both Houses.

Student Visas

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Again, my hon. Friend highlights the need for those academic institutions to fulfil their responsibilities and to know that students are attending their courses. It is precisely such measures that our inspectors investigate when they check whether those institutions are meeting their responsibilities. Ultimately, as a highly trusted sponsor, they should know where students are residing and whether they are attending their courses. That is precisely the purpose of the system and why we monitor it in the way that we do.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, I call John Glen.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

To what extent are London campuses opened by universities based many miles from London simply devices to harbour bogus students, and how can we be sure that we will not see many more bogus students siphoned through those campuses in future?

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 6—Review of sections 6 to 11.

New clause 4—Expiry and renewal—

‘(1) Sections 6 to 12 of this Act expire at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument, provide that sections 6 to 12 of this Act are not to expire at the time when they would otherwise expire under subsection (1) or in accordance with an order under this subsection but are to continue in force after that time for a period not exceeding one year.

(3) An order under this section may not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’.

New clause 9—Recording of data relating to closed proceedings—

‘(1) Rules of court relating to closed material proceedings under this Act, and applications for them, must make provision—

(a) ensuring that key data is centrally recorded for all proceedings, including—

(i) the duration of open hearings and closed hearings; and

(ii) the number of witnesses heard in closed proceedings and the nature of those witnesses; and

(iii) the length of a closed judgment; and

(iv) whether the claimant, defendant and/or intervener applied for closed material proceedings; and

(v) whether the claimant, defendant and/or intervener contested the application for closed proceedings; and

(b) ensuring that centrally recorded data is available to the independent person appointed by the Secretary of State to review the operation of the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006.’.

Government amendments 49 and 51 to 54.

[James Brokenshire]

The last debate was about the principles of closed material proceedings; we now turn to a new group of amendments relating to additional reviewing mechanisms for the CMP provisions—in particular, Government new clauses 5 and 6 and associated consequential amendments.

In Committee I said that I was prepared to listen further to concerns expressed about transparency and particularly about ensuring that the new provisions did not make CMP commonplace. I undertook to table amendments on that matter. I have considered the issue carefully and decided to adopt the view of the Constitution Committee. I therefore intend to bring forward annual reporting and a review of the CMP provisions to be conducted five years after Royal Assent.

Given the often lengthy nature of litigation, we believe that the frequency set out in the amendments allows for regular but meaningful reporting and for a review to be informed by enough cases to provide for substantiated conclusions and reasoned recommendations where necessary. We believe that an annual report is the most proportionate approach, as it is anticipated that CMPs will be used infrequently.

The consequence is that there is likely to be little to report on a basis more regular than once a year. Annual reports will not, however, be the only way in which facts relating to cases involving CMPs will be made public during the reporting period. The Government have made an amendment in the Lords to ensure that when an application is made under clause 6(1), that must be reported to the other parties in the proceedings. There are already mechanisms through which the courts publish their open judgments.

The reports will focus on court procedures, as CMPs are a procedural option for the courts and not related to the use of Executive powers. The new clauses list the matters of key concern to be included in the annual reports such as the number of CMP applications and who they are made by; how many CMPs are granted and how many revoked; and how many judgments, both open and closed, are published with respect to the determination of section 6 proceedings. That would include judgments made on the substantive trial and regarding the outcome of the application for a CMP declaration. The new clauses would also cover proceedings deemed to be section 6 proceedings, such as the application process for a declaration and the review of Norwich Pharmacal certification.

In addition to an annual reporting requirement, the Government seek to introduce a provision for a comprehensive review after five years. In line with other legislation, such as the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, it requires the appointment of a reviewer and does not specify the remit of the review except to indicate that it covers the operation of closed material proceedings. That type of review of CMPs would be different from other reviews, in that it would concern not the operation of the Secretary of State’s powers but rather the operation of court processes. That means that the reviewer will have to take care not to review judicial decisions regarding the operation of court processes or the fair running of individual cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I would just say that we have had an extensive debate on all the amendments on which the hon. Gentleman suggests there has been no debate. I wonder whether he might like to reflect on that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. What I can reflect on is that we should be sticking to the new clauses before us, and, as I have said, I know that is what we are going to do now.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Lords amendments 2 to 10.

Lords amendment 11, and amendment (a) thereto.

[James Brokenshire]

The Bill returns to the House after its consideration in the other place. It was subject to lengthy and detailed scrutiny here in the summer, with 10 sittings in Committee, a Report and a Third Reading, all of which were characterised by a high standard of debate.

Their lordships have now given the Bill the full benefit of their expertise, and I am pleased to say that its main provisions are largely as they left this House, reflecting an acceptance that, however unfortunate this might be, there are a small number of individuals involved in terrorism whom we cannot successfully prosecute or deport, and the measures in the Bill are needed to deal with such individuals.

The Bill returns from the other place subject to 11 Government amendments, which are largely minor and technical changes to clarify drafting and better to reflect the policy intention. I will briefly explain why we have made those amendments, dealing first with Lords amendments 1 to 10 before moving on to Lords amendment 11 and Opposition amendment (a).

Lords amendments 1 and 2 make a small but necessary change to clause 8. The clause provides that the court must, when granting permission to impose a terrorism prevention and investigation measure notice—a TPIM notice—at the outset of the process give directions for a directions hearing in relation to the automatic full review of the case. As the Bill was originally drafted, that directions hearing would have had to have taken place within seven days of the TPIM notice being served, unless the individual agreed to postpone it.

The programming of such hearings is, of course, a matter for the courts. It became clear that the original provision had unintentionally introduced a restriction on the discretion available to the courts to manage similar directions hearings in the control order context. We were therefore asked by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service to make a change to the Bill in order to provide the courts with a degree of flexibility in that respect and to facilitate effective management of court time.

We have therefore amended clause 8 so that the court may programme the directions hearing later than seven days after service of the TPIM notice, if it so directs. Of course, the intention is that directions hearings will be listed within those seven days where possible, but when the court is unable to do so, for example over a holiday period, the amendment will give the court the discretion to list the hearing slightly later.

Clause 8 still ensures, at subsection (5), that directions given at the hearing must provide for the substantive review hearing to be held as soon as reasonably practicable.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alun Michael]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he is dealing with important issues. He is right about scrutiny, but it cannot simply be the threat that leads to the power before us being brought in. That would apply to prevention of terrorism legislation, to the Emergency Powers Act 1964 and so on, but in relation to this power only the investigation and preparation of specific cases and the need for additional time can justify the use of such legislation. The House can be sensitive and, in some circumstances, speedy, but surely the Minister accepts that in the consideration of such matters there is a fault line which is problematic for the Government and for the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need shorter interventions, as we still have a lot of business to go.

[James Brokenshire]

The Joint Committee set out that point very clearly in its report, and we have heard it, but we believe that a distinction can be drawn between the principle of extending 14 days to 28 days and the consideration of an individual case—and that it is entirely possible and practical for the House to do so.

I appreciate that in considering a detention of terrorism suspects (temporary extensions) Bill, Parliament would not be able to discuss matters relating to particular individuals or anything that might compromise an investigation or a future prosecution, but it is important to recognise the clear difference between Parliament's considering whether 28-day detention should be available in principle and the judiciary’s role in determining whether in an individual case to extend a detention warrant under schedule 8 to the 2000 Act. Parliament would not take a decision about an individual suspect or suspects; that would be a decision for the proper judicial process.

Parliament would take a decision about the principle of 28 days in a given set of circumstances, which would be explained in as much detail as possible. Parliament would also be able to discuss in general the issues of the threat and the reasons why an increased threat might require a longer maximum detention period.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between James Brokenshire and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this 56.