Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness May of Maidenhead

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

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

[John McDonnell]

Can we be clear on this point? Clause 9(4) states that when a relevant notice

“has not actually been given to an individual, the fact that the relevant notice is deemed to have been given to the individual…does not…prevent the individual from showing that lack of knowledge of the temporary exclusion order…was a reasonable excuse”.

To be frank, that will not be strong enough in many cases.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but as I have just said to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, the point is that what is a reasonable excuse will be tested in the courts. I did not quote the exact words but I cited the spirit of the point in clause 9(4). As I say, that matter would be tested by the courts and it would be for them to determine whether or not what the hon. Gentleman describes constituted a reasonable excuse.

Passport Applications

Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness May of Maidenhead

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am sorry if the hon. Lady did not hear what I said earlier in my speech. Contingency arrangements have not just been introduced. Contingency arrangements have been being introduced since January of this year when it became clear that there was an increase above forecast in the demand for applications. As the demand has increased, and as the increase has been greater than that initially experienced, of course the Passport Office takes greater measures. That is right and proper. The Passport Office has increased its capability.

[John McDonnell]

I join the Home Secretary in congratulating the staff on their hard work, and I think that that is shared across the whole House, but is she aware that Passport Office staff are paid £3,000 less than equivalent grades in the Home Office?

There was a mechanism in the Passport Office where if the backlog got to 150,000, measures would automatically be put in place to deal with it. Management took the decision to increase that figure to 350,000. Was the Home Secretary aware of that, and why did it happen?

[Mrs May]

I am, of course, aware that there are different pay structures for HMPO and Home Office staff, and I will come on to address the issue of what people are referring to as a backlog and whether the figures people are referring to as being a backlog are actually a backlog. I take issue with the figures the hon. Gentleman has given. I want to turn to some of the claims that have been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I will get the exact figure checked and give it to the right hon. Lady.

The Opposition have repeatedly compared current staffing levels with those in 2010 but, as they well know, HMPO was not just a passport office in 2010. It was called the Identity and Passport Service because of the previous Government’s plan to maintain an identity database and introduce identity cards. One of the first things this Government did in 2010 was scrap ID cards and destroy the identity database. The Opposition know therefore that their comparison with 2010 does not stand up to scrutiny.

Thirdly, it is not true that the delays have been caused by the decision to close certain premises.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Home Secretary be absolutely clear about how many of those staff were employed on ID work?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman has been ploughing this furrow for some considerable time. He knows full well that, as a result of doing away with the ID card scheme and the identity database, it was possible to take action both in relation to staff numbers and to the closure of certain premises. The Opposition consistently raise that issue. They say that the delays have been caused by the decision to close certain premises. Those measures were taken because HMPO had too much office space after we scrapped ID cards. The Newport passport office continues to operate as a customer support centre and to offer face-to-face passport application services for premium and fast-track customers. It has 150 full-time equivalent posts.

HM Passport Office

Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness May of Maidenhead

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of that. In all the debates on the Passport Office, people have lost sight of the fact that the Government were able to cut the cost of passports. That will have been welcomed by hard-working people in Harlow and across the country.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Part of the anger and frustration is that these problems were not just predictable—they were predicted. They were predicted by the front-line staff. Will the Home Secretary review the correspondence of the past two years, at least, from Public and Commercial Services Union front-line staff representatives, who wrote consistently that

“the closure of 22 interview offices and one application processing centre and the sacking of 315 staff…around one in 10 of the workforce…has been a major factor in creating this current crisis.”?

She has set up a review. It is best to talk to the front-line staff doing the job. Will she meet a delegation of PCS representatives from the front line to talk about how we can go forward urgently and in the long term?

[Mrs May]

The point of the review, as the hon. Gentleman understands, is to see whether the processes are the best possible we can have in place. As part of that review, I would certainly expect information to be taken from front-line staff, not just from union representatives in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests. I will certainly look at the possibility, which happens anyway, of Ministers—either myself or the Immigration Minister—meeting front-line staff. That is what I think is important: to meet front-line staff. The views of a variety of people will be taken in the review, but I return to a point I made earlier and to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer: the very high level of demand experienced by the Passport Office. It has already taken steps to deal with that.

Immigration Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness May of Maidenhead

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that members of the public will say it is right that we are fair to people living in the UK and to those who have come here legally, and that we ensure that those who are here illegally do not find it easy to stay and that we are able to remove them.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

A lot of the individual sanctions will be dealt with by statutory instruments. So far it is clear that if a landlord fails to comply and lets a property, they will face a potential fine of £3,000 for each disqualified adult allowed to occupy the property. What sanctions, fines or prison sentence will be given to a doctor or nurse who treats, or a vicar who marries, a disqualified adult?

[Mrs May]

We are not talking about people not being able to receive treatment in the national health service. We are talking about two things in the NHS. First, when people come here and use the NHS, we will ensure that the NHS recovers the money from their country that it should be recovering. It has not been doing that as well as it should be. Secondly, when people come to stay here for a limited period—for more than six months, but not permanently—we will ask them to pay a surcharge to reflect the fact that they might use public services when they are here.

The Bill will increase the marriage and civil partnership notice period to 28 days—

[John McDonnell]

Will the Home Secretary answer the question?

[Mrs May]

I have tried to explain the point about sanctions in the NHS by pointing out that the hon. Gentleman’s assumption about the system that we are putting in place appears to be incorrect. He also mentioned members of the clergy who conduct sham marriages. If he looks back at the press from the past couple of years, he will see that members of the clergy have been arrested and prosecuted for conducting sham marriages on purpose.

The Bill will increase the marriage and civil partnership notice period to 28 days in England and Wales, and allow for it to be extended to 70 days when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a marriage or civil partnership is a sham. The Home Office will investigate the genuineness of the couple’s relationship and consider taking immigration enforcement action when we believe it to be a sham. If the couple do not comply with the investigation, we will prevent a marriage from taking place. Should a sham marriage or civil partnership go ahead, couples will not gain an immigration advantage, but will be removed or prosecuted.

Fixing the immigration system cannot be done overnight. There were too many problems with the system that we inherited for that to be possible. However, the Bill will help us further along the road. It is frankly ridiculous that the Government have to operate such a complex system to deal with foreigners who fail to abide by our laws. It is ridiculous that the odds are stacked in favour of illegal migrants. It is unacceptable that hard-working taxpayers have to compete with people who have no right to be here. The Bill will begin to address those absurdities and restore balance. I commend the Bill to the House.

UK Border Agency

Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness May of Maidenhead

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We have spent considerable time looking at what the right structure is for the agency. We have had the experience of working with the Border Force. If we look at its operation today, we see that it is in a different place from where it was previously. That experience has shown that if we can create a smaller entity that has a clearer management and focus on its activities, we can make progress, and that is exactly what we are doing by splitting the agency in this way.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Is it not true that part of the problem is that ministerial attention has been diverted to policy stunts prepared for prime ministerial statements and speeches? Can the Home Secretary confirm that ministerial attention has recently been focused on discussions in the inter-ministerial group on barring migrant children from compulsory education? The Department for Education then intervened and the children’s rights adviser said:

“If we were to withdraw the right of education from any children in the UK, regardless of their status, we would be hugely criticised for it by the UN. With the periodic review report due to be submitted in January 2014, this would be very controversial.”

Can the Home Secretary confirm that statement?

[Mrs May]

We have been looking at public services across the board in relation to what we describe as the pull factors. We have focused on housing, health and the benefits system. We do not propose not having the provision of education for individual children, but the hon. Gentleman’s opening remark, which was that policy changes were about publicity stunts, is far from the truth. We have been sorting out a chaotic immigration system and immigration policy introduced by the previous Government that led to net migration in this country reaching hundreds of thousands a year. We aim to bring it down to tens of thousands. We have already seen net migration cut by a third. That is not a publicity stunt; it is a real benefit and a policy that the people of this country want to see.

Olympics (Security)

Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness May of Maidenhead

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I will not go down the route that the hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me down on a matter that is more appropriate to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, I would say that G4S is one of the largest security providers in the world, so it was natural to look to exactly such a company for venue security.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Security begins at Heathrow. For months, the Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents border control staff, has been warning the Government that there are too few staff. BAA wrote to the Government saying that the queues were caused by too few staff, and the former head of border control has said that the temporary staff who have been brought in are totally inadequately trained to meet security needs. I am worried not just about the embarrassment caused to this country by passengers who are coming for the Olympics spending more time in the queues than watching the Olympics, but about the security of the staff working at Heathrow, many of them my constituents. Does the Home Secretary not understand that her statement will be seen as utterly complacent about what is really needed at Heathrow airport?

[Mrs May]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the Government’s approach to border security. When we identified that security checks had been relaxed and put to one side on many occasions between 2007 and 2011, we decided that as the job of the border forces is about border security, we would tighten up that security.

European Convention on Human Rights

Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness May of Maidenhead

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I shall make a little progress, if I may, because I have taken a number of interventions.

With the changes that I am making, there will generally be no need for a separate assessment of article 8 beyond the requirements set out in the immigration rules. Compliance with the immigration rules will mean compliance with article 8, other than in truly exceptional circumstances. So, a foreign criminal who does not meet the criteria set out in the rules will be deported and they will not have a second bite at the cherry via article 8. Similarly, a migrant seeking to come to the UK to join a partner must meet the criteria set out in the rules or a visa will be refused and there will be no separate article 8 claim. The immigration rules will no longer be a mere starting point, with leave granted outside the rules or appeals allowed under article 8 for those who do not meet them. The rules will instead take into account article 8, relevant case law and appropriate evidence and they will be proposed by the Executive and approved by the legislature.

Of course, the courts have a clear constitutional role in reviewing the proportionality of measures passed by Parliament, but now the focus of the courts should be on considering the proportionality of the rules rather than the proportionality of every individual application determined in accordance with the rules. Where the courts consider individual deportation decisions, it should now be with consideration of Parliament’s public policy intent firmly in mind.

Some have suggested that Parliament cannot set out how article 8 should be qualified because we are bound by the European convention on human rights. They evidently do not understand that article 8 is a right that is qualified by the convention itself. Of course, judges will continue to consider each case on its individual merits, but it is the courts themselves that have said that Parliament needs to make its views clear. In a case in 2007, the House of Lords said that a statement from Parliament was needed on where the public interest lies in the operation of article 8 in immigration cases. The Court of Appeal, last year and this year, has indicated that greater weight is to be given to the public interest when that has been endorsed by Parliament. Today’s motion provides the courts with the statement and the endorsement from Parliament that they have said is needed. The courts should then give that statement from the elected legislature the weight that it deserves.

[John McDonnell]

Will the right hon. Lady clarify whether we are legislating today? Are we passing into law the rules that she published less than a week ago?

[Mrs May]

The motion recognises the qualification of article 8 and invites the House to agree that it is set out in the immigration rules. The immigration rules themselves have been laid before Parliament—[Interruption.] I am very happy to read the motion again. It states that the House

“agrees that the conditions for migrants to enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their family or private life should be those contained in the Immigration Rules.”

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Baroness May of Maidenhead

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We have also taken the opportunity in the Bill, as Members can see, to make improvements to the police complaints system. There are of course other important aspects to the Bill, notably those relating to licensing. I think that Labour’s disastrous Licensing Act 2003 made the problem of binge drinking in this country worse, not better. Far from giving us the continental café culture that we were promised at the time, the Act did nothing to help police and local communities in their ongoing fight against alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder. That is why the Bill will help to turn the tide by ensuring that all those affected by licensed premises have a chance to have a say in the licensing process, allowing early morning restriction orders and the late-night levy on licensed premises opening after midnight to help pay for late-night policing and other services, such as taxi marshals or street wardens.

We have brought forward an amendment to introduce locally set licensing fees so that the fees can achieve what they were intended to, which is to recover fully the costs of licensing authorities in discharging their duties. I think that local government will feel that this is long overdue. We have also repealed the previous Administration’s legislation on alcohol disorder zones, and there was overwhelming support in our consultation for doing that. Those measures, together with a number of others, show that we are committed to stopping the harm caused by alcohol abuse.

As well as measures to tackle alcohol abuse, we will be providing powers to crack down on the damage caused by so-called legal highs. The Bill introduces the power to make year-long temporary class drug orders, which will allow us to take swift action to ban temporarily substances that have been specifically developed to get around existing drugs legislation but that can still cause significant harm.

I hope that the whole House will agree that for too long Parliament square has been subjected to unacceptable disruption and damage from the long-term encampment.

[John McDonnell]

No.

[Mrs May]

No, the whole House does not agree, and I should have pointed out that the hon. Gentleman made his views very clear in our previous debate and through the amendments that he spoke to.

The Bill contains, I think, a tough but proportionate package of measures to deal with encampments and other disruptive activity, and we have responded to Members’ concerns about the powers for authorised officers.

The Bill also makes sensible changes to the procedures for obtaining an arrest warrant for universal jurisdiction offences. We have heard the objections from a small number of hon. Members on the matter, but the Government continue to believe that the requirement to seek the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions that a case has a realistic chance of success is a fair and proportionate measure.

The Bill is a balanced package of measures to tackle real problems in our society. It includes directly elected police and crime commissioners, to give people back power over policing locally and to help to cut crime; tougher rules on licensing and drugs to help stop the harm that alcohol-fuelled disorder and legal highs can cause; and appropriate powers to restore the right to peaceful protest outside the mother of Parliaments, while removing the long-term encampments that cause so much damage, disruption and distress. We have had very good scrutiny of, and good debates about, the Bill. I believe that it is a very good Bill, and I commend it to the House.