Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 12 December, be approved.

The threat level in the UK, which is set by the independent joint terrorism analysis centre, remains at severe. That means that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely and could occur without warning. We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, but we are determined to do all we can to minimise it and keep the public safe. The nature of terrorism is constantly evolving. There are organisations that recruit, radicalise and promote and encourage terrorism, as well as those that commit terrible acts of violence against innocent people.

Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt the full range of terrorist activities. The group we propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, is National Action. This is the 21st order to be made under section 3(3)(a) of the 2000 Act. Hon. Members will be aware that this is the first time we have laid a proscription order for a far-right group. The Government are committed to tackling terrorism, regardless of what motivates it. National Action is a group whose views and ideology stand in direct contrast to the core values of Britain and the United Kingdom.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the decision to ban this group. Have there been any deproscriptions since the last time the House passed an order proscribing an organisation in July?

[Mr Wallace]

It has not happened since July. Two groups have been deproscribed. The People’s Mujaheddin of Iran or the MEK was deproscribed at the High Court and a Sikh group linked to allegations of extremism made representations and was deproscribed as a result.

Despite its name, National Action seeks to divide communities and stir up hatred—actions that are entirely contrary to the interests of our nation. Proscribing this neo-Nazi group will prevent its membership from growing and prevent it from spreading propaganda, which allows a culture of hatred and division to thrive. It will also help to prevent National Action from radicalising people who may be vulnerable to extreme ideologies and at risk of emulating the terrorist acts it glorifies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I have to be careful that we do not undermine the operational capability and effectiveness of the law agencies, which may take action. But it is certainly the case that, when an organisation is proscribed, it allows us to bring the full force of those agencies to bear on the threat posed by the proscribed organisation and the individuals within it. Within that, I would expect measures to make sure that any use of the internet for what is a kind of grooming is restricted or, I would hope, stopped completely, along with other measures. But I will leave that up to the security services and the police, as that will get the best effect, and it would be wrong of me to speculate further about what they may or may not do.

Although I cannot comment on the specific intelligence behind the decision to proscribe, I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities. National Action is a racist neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013. It has a number of branches across the United Kingdom, and conducts threatening street demonstrations and activities aimed at intimidating local communities. Its activities and propaganda materials are particularly aimed at recruiting young people. National Action’s ideology promotes the idea that Britain will inevitably see a violent race war, which the group claims to be an active part of.

The group rejects democracy, is hostile to the British state and seeks to divide society by implicitly endorsing violence against ethnic minorities and perceived race traitors. National Action has links to other extreme right-wing groups abroad, including in Europe. In May 2016, National Action members attended the Buchenwald concentration camp, where they made Nazi salutes and posted images online.

The Government’s counter-extremism strategy challenges extremism in all its form. Alongside the strategy, our Prevent work will continue to monitor whether extremist groups have crossed into terrorism. The group is relatively small and has been in operation in the UK for only a few years, but the impact of its activities has been felt in a number of United Kingdom communities.

[Keith Vaz]

In the evidence presented to the Home Secretary by the agencies before the decision was made to proscribe the group, was there any evidence of any links with other organisations in different parts of Europe? We have seen that far-right groups tend not to operate in only one country.

[Mr Wallace]

I cannot expand on the intelligence behind this particular decision, but I agree that we see far-right groups with a European network, and being active both here and abroad. Far right groups from abroad are active in the United Kingdom as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I along with others in the House completely support the Minister’s decision to proscribe this organisation. Ministers obviously have important and sensitive information that they are unwilling to share with the House on such occasions, but the Minister has gone a long way to reassure the House that the information he has is more than sufficient to take the action he is proposing today.

National Action will be the first extreme right-wing organisation to be banned, which is a very welcome step. We certainly need to be very strong in dealing with right-wing extremism and we need to be very concerned about it. I raised the issue of what was happening in Europe. The world can never forget the 77 victims of Anders Breivik in 2011. The Minister mentioned the words of the organisation in question when it praised the killer of our colleague Jo Cox. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) was right to remind us of what the Home Secretary said only this week: that this group has no place in our country.

The shadow Home Secretary—for whom I have enormous respect and who has campaigned all her political life against right-wing extremism and extremism of any kind—has visited the counter-terrorism unit, as she said. I am sure she will join me and the rest of the House in praising those who are part of that unit, who day after day, day and night, work so hard to keep us safe. Under the incredible leadership of Mark Rowley, they ensure that many of the plots that we do not know about are dealt with and prevented before they come to fruition. Mark Rowley has recognised that increasing numbers in the United Kingdom are “gravitating towards extremism” and has talked about 60 to 70 cases each month. This is a very large figure indeed.

It is important to recognise what has happened since the referendum this year. The number of hate crimes, especially against Polish and other eastern European citizens, has increased by 41% since 2015.

[Luciana Berger]

I note what my right hon. Friend has said about the number of people of concern. Does he share my concern that the latest figures from Prevent show that around 300 young people under the age of 18 have been identified as posing a threat of extremism from the far right? That figure should concern us all and should embolden the Home Office to do even more to ensure that the next generation embraces equality, not division.

[Keith Vaz]

I am astonished at those figures, but I think they are witness to what the shadow Home Secretary has said about access to the internet and social media. Individuals who may be very young could be operating from their homes, involving themselves in this kind of hatred. It is very easy to disseminate hatred, as my hon. Friend will know—she has been one of the victims in this House of hatred coming from social media and the internet. She has behaved with absolute dignity in the face of it. She is right to raise these figures. These are issues of enormous concern. The younger the people who get involved in these activities, the more difficult it becomes to turn them around once they become ingrained with them. There has also been a spike in anti-Semitic incidents across the country—11% higher than last year. We should thank the police and the counter-terrorism unit for the work they do in trying to combat this.

Oddly, just before this particular debate, the House unanimously endorsed without any debate the Government’s decision to opt into Europol—one of the very few organisations in Europe that we are joining at the same time as we are leaving the rest of the EU. Europol has an extremely important role to play in ensuring that we combat far-right extremism and extremism in general all over Europe. It has an amazing head in Rob Wainwright, who is a Brit, and it is able, through the capacity that we have helped to build as part of Europol, to ensure that we deal with these organisations.

I end by asking the Minister the question I asked a little earlier, as I think he may have misunderstood it. I asked how many organisations had been deproscribed since July. I think the People’s Mujaheddin were deproscribed several years ago—not since July. The Minister is right to prescribe that we should keep on monitoring the deproscription process. On numerous occasions when these orders have been discussed, I have raised the situation of the LTTE—Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—and my Tamil constituents, who still feel stigmatised by the fact that the LTTE is banned, even though it no longer exists. We need to be very aware of the need to look at the issue of de-proscription and keep it under review, while of course welcoming what the Minister has done.

The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, had made it very clear that he thinks there should be a time limit. In the case of this particular organisation, I think we are all agreed that the Minister has come to this House and made a powerful case. The House will speak with one voice in supporting what he has done absolutely. We look forward to this organisation being monitored very carefully indeed, so that none of its evil tentacles are passed on to other organisations, perhaps bearing a different name, but with the same personnel involved, who will seek to poison and destroy the minds of the people of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I am very grateful to my colleague for raising that point and I will be delighted to visit him in Southend. He will be pleased to know that the Home Office is working with the Essex police and crime commissioner, along with the Institute of Community Safety, to see what more we can do to help the situation in Essex. I understand that they will agree a plan of local action during a meeting this week.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Last week, a memorial service was held in Leicester for Tyler Thompson, who was killed with a knife aged only 16. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) said that 311 knives had been given in during the amnesty in Essex. Does the Minister have the figures for the whole country?

[Sarah Newton]

I do not have the answer to hand at the moment, but this was the first week, with 21 forces engaged in Operation Sceptre. That had a hugely beneficial effect, in terms of not only the surrendering of weapons across the country but arrests across the country. It sent out an incredibly clear, firm message: we will not tolerate people carrying knives as they will use them harmfully on innocent citizens.

Immigration Rules (International Students)

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered immigration rules for international students.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Tomorrow is International Students’ Day, so I thank hon. Members for turning out to mark the occasion. I also thank the numerous organisations that have got in touch to provide helpful thoughts and briefings—enough to fill the debate, although I promise I will not do that.

The debate offers us the chance to celebrate the contribution of international students to our education sector, our economy and our whole society. But not just that—it is also the perfect time to reflect on where the UK is in the increasing global competition to attract international students, what our ambitions should be and whether the Government are pursuing the right immigration policies to achieve those. I suspect that hon. Members will need little persuading that we should celebrate international students, so I will only briefly put on record the economic, social and cultural benefits that they bring.

In economic terms, international students’ contribution to UK GDP almost certainly exceeds £10 billion per year and supports around 170,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Many international students go on to undertake post-doctoral research in the UK, helping to drive world-leading research. All analysis of the economic effect of taking on international students shows that they have a significant net benefit.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Leicester has two great universities—Leicester University and De Montfort University—that have a number of international students. Does he agree that not only is it important that we have fair and effective rules so people can answer criticisms that are made of them, but the Government’s rhetoric is extremely important? We should encourage more international students to come and study here in the United Kingdom. If they do not, they will just go elsewhere. There is a big market out there, and unless we have them here, we will lose the revenue and advantages that they bring.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree wholeheartedly. Indeed, I will mention later the messages that the Government have been sending out and the negative headlines that they have been attracting in key markets for international students. The Government must seriously rethink those messages.

When considering the economic benefits of international students, we must also think about the personal and professional links that 84% of those students maintain after they leave the United Kingdom. They are a tremendous source of soft power for this country and allow trade links and political alliances to be built. We should also remember that those benefits are triggered not only by our universities; hundreds of thousands of other students are taught English as a second language in the UK each year at around 450 institutions accredited by the British Council.

The benefits of attracting the brightest international students go way beyond the economy. Such students enrich and diversify the research and learning environment by exposing our own students and staff to different approaches, contributing to their international experience and skills, and creating a more culturally diverse environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

I agree with the hon. Lady. There has been some very unfortunate rhetoric, and I am sad to say that we have even had incidents—I know of at least one—on the campus of Loughborough University, in my constituency, whereby those who have come from abroad to work or study have been made to feel unwelcome. I do not think that is the kind of country any of us want to represent.

[Keith Vaz]

The right hon. Lady was a distinguished Education Secretary, and whenever she spoke on these issues it was about getting more students to study in our country. Now that she is no longer the Education Secretary, can I tempt her to confirm the rumour we heard at the time she was: her Department was in favour of more students coming here, the Foreign Office was in favour of more students coming, the Business Department was in favour of more students coming—it was only the Home Office that spoiled the party. Will she confirm whether that was the case?

[Nicky Morgan]

The right hon. Gentleman is an old hand in the House. He knows he is tempting me down paths that are always dangerous for former Ministers to follow. I will say that this former Secretary of State for Education was very much in favour of making sure that our higher education institutions were open to international students, because we are at our best when we are outward looking. It is fair to say that there were certainly other Ministers who very much shared that view.

I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government are relying on reliable numbers when drafting their immigration policy. The annual population survey suggests that only around 30,000 to 40,000 non-EU migrants who previously came as students are still in the UK after five years. The rules introduced by the Home Office over the past six years have done the right thing in cracking down on abuses by those who came here for the wrong reason—not to study but to work without the requisite permission. However, we have to be careful that the rules do not adversely affect genuine students and institutions, and do not undermine the UK’s reputation as a desirable destination for international students.

I will also talk about public opinion, because it is important in the current immigration debate. We know that many of our constituents want immigration to be controlled. I think that means that we should know who is coming in, how long they are coming in for, why they are coming in and at what point, if any, they are going to be leaving, or whether we are going to get the benefit of their skills once they have finished their studies.

Recent polling from Universities UK and ComRes revealed that only 24% of British adults think of international students as immigrants. Of those who expressed a view in the poll, 75% said they would like to see the same number or more international students in the UK, which increased to 87% once information on the economic benefits of international students was provided. The poll also revealed that the over- whelming majority of the British public—91%—think that international students should be able to stay and work in the UK for a period of time after they have completed their studies.

In the interests of time, I will move on to my second point about the benefits that universities bring to our local communities, which the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East set out very well. Of course, as I am constantly reminded by Loughborough, we should not forget that our universities are not just about teaching, although that is important, but about research and driving economic growth in our local areas. All three Leicestershire universities that I have mentioned are key parts of our local enterprise partnerships and, I suspect, should be key parts of the Government’s industrial strategy when that is announced.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East talked about the contribution that universities make to our local areas. The international education sector is one of the UK’s biggest services exports, and I hope that the Department for Exiting the European Union listens very closely to what universities and higher education have to say on the deal that we will eventually negotiate with the European Union. UK education exports are estimated to be worth approximately £17.5 billion to the UK economy. International students, including EU students, support 170,000 full-time equivalent jobs across the UK and contribute £9 billion.

Those are big numbers but, if we boil it down, I know as a local Member of Parliament that my constituents are employed as researchers and academics, but also in less skilled jobs—the people who make the campus the place it is, who look after the students and who run businesses and other institutions, such as retailers, that rely on the student contribution to their local economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing this very important debate. It gives me great pleasure to place it on the record that Her Majesty’s Opposition believe that we should remove international students from Home Office migration statistics. The purpose of that policy, apart from making the stats more accurate in relation to people who are subject to immigration legislation, is to contribute to the detoxification of this area of British society and political life, beginning with the obvious benefit to our university sector. Of course, as hon. Members have said over and again, the truth about international students is that, far from being a burden, they make this country better off in innumerable economic, social and philosophical ways.

We have heard that there were 436,000 students from overseas in the UK in 2014-15 and that they comprised 19% of the total. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—I bow to the Department for BIS, although I know that there are different figures—estimated that the economic value of the contribution from international students was £14 billion in 2014-15 and was set to rise to £26 billion in 2025. As the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) said, this is not just about what they pay in fees; it is their financial contribution and their contribution to growth and GDP in many of our great cities. The presence of overseas students creates more than 250,000 jobs here.

The Home Secretary and her predecessor have claimed, falsely, that very large numbers of international students overstay their visas and so contribute significantly to the breach of their immigration target. They have yet to validate that claim. The most recent legal case collapsed in the Appeal Court as the Home Office attempted to use hearsay evidence that students had fraudulently obtained English qualifications. It has to be stressed that the vast majority of students return home after study. In 2014-15, fewer than 6,000 students applied for a tier 2 visa, applicable to non-EU students who wish to stay here, and that 6,000 may actually be too few for the overall needs of the economy. As I think many hon. Members know, an unpublished report from the Home Office, drafted when the Prime Minister was Home Secretary, seemed to show that the number of student overstayers is tiny, just 1% of the total—approximately 1,500. Therefore, they make no significant impact on overall immigration numbers.

[Keith Vaz]

Ministers in the past have said that one problem has been the abuse that overseas students have been involved in, yet we have seen little evidence to support that. We heard about one student working on the checkout at Tesco from a previous Immigration Minister, who is now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, but we have had no evidence. If there is evidence, it should be brought forward.

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to the distinguished former Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs for making that point.

Several stakeholders oppose what is happening. They include Universities UK, the teaching unions, the National Union of Students and many local authorities where education is a much-needed growth industry—cities such as Sheffield and Coventry. This is not just about the top 10 or Russell Group universities; our university sector benefits in so many ways from the contribution of international students.

If international student numbers are reduced in the way that Ministers seem to want, there will be a funding shortfall for universities and, as colleagues have said, courses for which international students make up a disproportionate number of the students may be imperilled. The Government’s policy on international students, with its financial implications, implies either further Government borrowing, which I do not find credible, or increased fees for UK-born students.

I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently floated the idea of excluding international students from the figures only to be slapped down by the Prime Minister. Despite that, the Conservative hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) has written that the “smart” thing to do is to exclude international students from the migration statistics. On this issue, it appears that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are on their own.

As we have heard, polls consistently show a majority in favour of excluding international students from the migration statistics; typically 60% are in favour and 30% against. As a follow-up, we should look at reforming the policy on tier 2 visa applications, to make it easier for non-EU graduates to work here in sectors that require them, whether they are doctors or IT specialists.

Let me say just a few words on India. As we have heard, the number of overseas students from India has plummeted as a consequence of both the rhetoric and the policies of this Government. The Prime Minister, I think to her surprise, on her recent visit to India, realised that there was great concern about the situation in relation to its students in the UK. That was at the heart of the negotiations. And what did the Prime Minister offer? Golden visas for the super-wealthy. There was no attempt to address the real concerns of Government and society in India about the way we are talking about and treating international students. It is an entirely self-defeating policy. Indian students do not want to stay on. They come here because it is one of the best education systems in the world and then they probably go to Silicon Valley. The Minister may be aware that the chief executive officer of Google is Indian; that is the path to fame and fortune for Indian students. We should be glad that they recognise the quality of our education and want to come here to study at least.

Earlier today, the Minister expressed concern that no one was leading on immigration for Her Majesty’s Opposition. I can tell him that we do have someone leading. It is the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, the shadow Home Secretary. The Minister seemed to wonder why I would bother my head with immigration. I do bother my head with immigration and I am happy and proud to lead on it. Over nearly 30 years, I have consistently been in the top 10 of MPs dealing with immigration casework. With the solitary exception of my good and right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), I have probably done more immigration casework, under both Labour and Conservative Ministers, than anyone in the Chamber today. I bother my head with immigration because I am the child of immigrants, and I am committed to a debate on immigration, on both sides of the House, that is based on fact, that puts the economy, society and British values first and that is not driven by short-term political concerns—I say that to all Members. It is a concern of mine; it is a concern of my constituents. Whether or not many millions of people up and down the country are frightened by the current tenor of the debate on immigration, both here and in the US, it is a concern of mine—it is a long-standing interest of mine—and I am proud to say that as shadow Home Secretary, I do indeed lead on immigration.

Draft Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) order 2016

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 General Committees

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I fully support what the Minister is proposing. These are very important measures. However, in the past couple of years, a number of individuals have gone missing while on these orders, and statements have been made to the House by the Minister’s predecessor about the individuals who have gone missing. Can the Minister update the Committee on how many of those individuals have now been apprehended?

[Mr Wallace]

After the absconsion of two individuals—I think that that was the number—a review was done, looking at the operational failures that perhaps allowed that to happen, and that review was submitted to David Anderson, the reviewer of terrorism legislation. It would not be appropriate to give the details of the review, because obviously that might expose vulnerabilities in our capability, but certainly the lessons have been learned and addressed.

[Keith Vaz]

It is always good to learn lessons when mistakes occur, and obviously I do not blame the Minister—the system clearly let us down—but my question was whether those two individuals have been apprehended, or are they still out there in the public space?

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Gentleman may not understand, but we do not comment on individual TPIM cases, for reasons, obviously, of operational security. However, he should take some comfort from the fact that the lessons from what led to those individuals absconding have been learned and measures are in place to do so. I can point him to the statistics for the number of people on TPIMs: there was one, and now we are at six for this year. I can certainly say that, where possible, we use them. We certainly do so as a last resort, but where we need to use them, we will. I think that we are in a better place than we were with control orders.

Under part 2 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, a TPIM notice can require the individual to reside in a property up to 200 miles away from their own residence without their consent, ban the individual from possessing certain weapons and require the individual to attend appointments arranged by the Secretary of State.

A key objective of the TPIM Act was to introduce a more focused regime that protected the public from the risk of terrorism but increased the safeguards in place to protect the civil liberties of those subject to the measures. There are several differences between the TPIM Act and the previous control order regime, including the strengthening of the legal threshold required to impose an order from “reasonable suspicion” under the control order legislation to “reasonable belief” for TPIMs. That threshold was strengthened even further to “the balance of probabilities” under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Additionally, control orders lasted for a maximum of 12 months, but there was no limit to how many times they could be extended. In a small number of cases, they lasted for more than four years. Under the TPIM Act, notices last for a maximum of 12 months and are extendable only for a further year. Evidence of new terrorism-related activity is required to justify a new TPIM notice.

An automatic right of appeal is built into the TPIM legislation. That allows individuals who are subject to TPIM notices to challenge through the courts the Home Secretary’s decision to impose them. However, unlike the previous control order regime, no TPIM has been quashed by the courts. In accordance with section 21 of the TPIM Act, the director general of MI5, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and the intelligence services commissioner have all been consulted, and they all recommend the continuation of the Secretary of State’s powers. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

This is my second outing as shadow Minister, although it is my first in Committee. The Minister and I faced each other yesterday, and he will be relieved to know that, as with the Criminal Finances Bill, the Opposition support the draft order.

The draft order will renew for a further five years the Secretary of State’s power to issue TPIM notices. Such notices are rarely used, but as was pointed out, they remain a vital last resort in ensuring our national security. As the Minister explained, the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 enables the Secretary of State to restrict an individual’s freedom of movement, association and financial action where that person is under suspicion but cannot yet be prosecuted or deported. Those powers enable the Government to prevent and investigate terrorist activity and ensure that our security services never have to wait for a terrorism plot to be carried out before they act. The Secretary of State can use such powers by issuing a TPIM, with the approval of the High Court. As has been explained and the Committee is now aware, TPIMs, like all aspects of our counter-terrorism legislation, were reported upon by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in 2013. We have had all that explained to us.

I want to touch on the two fundamental things that were changed as a result of those 2013 recommendations. TPIMs were tightened up, so that the Government could restrict where an individual may reside, which had been part of the control order regime. In the original debate in 2011, the Labour party argued that because of Liberal Democrat forces, or something like that, the Government were softer than we were on that issue, but that has been rectified. That recommendation was important, because individuals might find it easier to abscond if they can keep in touch with their former networks and the usual gang. There are two examples of people absconding: Ibrahim Magag and—this is close to home for me—Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, who, completely coincidentally, visited the mosque right next to our Labour party office in Acton on a Friday and escaped in a burqa. People in Acton still remember that.

[Keith Vaz]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment. She mentioned the so-called burqa case. She will have listened to the Minister’s reply to me that lessons have been learned from how that situation arose. We of course accept the Minister’s assurances that things have been tightened up, but does she agree that given that both cases resulted in statements to the House to inform Members that those individuals had gone missing, the Committee is entitled to know whether they are still at large or have been found? Does she agree that that would reassure the citizens of not just Ealing but the rest of the country?

Criminal Finances Bill

Keith Vaz Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

Yes, but I will come to that part of the Bill later on. It is certainly our intention to prosecute those corporations, or the corporate body, that allow their companies to facilitate tax evasion. Under the current system, an individual can be prosecuted for evading tax, and someone within a company can be prosecuted if they facilitate that evasion. At the moment, it is very, very hard to prosecute the corporate body. We are intending to make that change in our Bill. If the hon. Lady reads the Bill, she will see how we will do that. We will go after not only the corporate body here in the UK, but overseas companies. Being an overseas company will not be an excuse, and we will go after them in the same extra-territorial way that we do with the Bribery Act 2010.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment to the Home Office.

In evidence to Parliament earlier this year, the private sector made it very clear that it is trying to co-operate with the Government. There were 381,000 suspicious activity reports made under the ELMER system, only 20,000 of which could be looked into. What support is he giving the National Crime Agency to allow it to have a better system to deal with those reports?

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his kind comments about my appointment.

First, we will remove those barriers to information sharing. Often some of the regulators or the bodies that we deal with say that they would like to pass on more to us, but feel that they are not protected from sharing wider information. We will remove those barriers so that the National Crime Agency can see the full chain of a financial instruction. We will also empower the NCA with a stronger disclosure order so that it can force people—it can go and apply for an order—to release documentation or to comply with questions about a particular transaction. Such an order currently exists in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, but it only covers fraud. We will now do the same for money laundering. We will also extend the time limit for a suspicious activity report. At the moment, there is a one-off extension of up to 31 days, but we would like to see that extended to six months, which means that the NCA will have much longer for its investigations.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the Minister for his very full answer, but the real problem is that the system is old. The ELMER system needs to be replaced and renewed. Will he give the National Crime Agency the additional resources to pay for the new system to do all the things that he is suggesting? Without a new system, 20,000 simply does not go into 381,000.

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that 381,000 referrals is a hefty amount to get through. First, we need to ensure that there is time to get through them. Secondly, what we do not want is what has happened in the past, which is that the private sector makes a suspicious activity report by default. If we can remove those excuses about why it cannot get to the bottom of a transaction before it passes it on, that will ensure that it passes on proper suspicious activities, rather than the ones that it can satisfy itself are not such a problem. In that way, we can cut out some of the referrals that are unnecessarily done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

If someone walks around the most expensive neighbourhoods of London—Knightsbridge and South Kensington—they will see house after house dark every night. Some have no lights on because the owners are out, but many more have no lights on because they have been bought as an investment and lie empty most of the time. Some of the most expensive properties in the capital are unoccupied because they have been bought solely for the purpose of laundering dirty money.

In 2016, money laundering is not just happening in accountancy offices or the back rooms of banks. It is happening in plain sight of ordinary Londoners, because we see some of the most expensive domestic properties in the world change hands but remain mysteriously and persistently empty. We welcome the Bill, which has been introduced with the express purpose of providing new powers and safeguards to improve the Government’s capacity to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing and, above all, to recover the proceeds of crime. I want to make it clear that, in principle, the Opposition support the aims of the Bill.

We do so because it is vital to do as much as we can to bear down on illegal activity, including targeting the enablers of illegal activity: lawyers, accountants and estate agents. We support the Bill partly because public opinion, encouraged by the work of the Public Accounts Committee under distinguished past and present leadership, rightly demands that politicians do more to stop tax evasion. We also do so because some of the poorest countries in the world have had their Treasuries denuded by money laundering. If the UK, which is often described as one of the money-laundering centres of the world, could act effectively against money laundering, not just our own tax authorities but the populations of countries in the global south, from which some of this money has been looted, would benefit.

We will wish, however, to ascertain that the provisions of the Bill will actually work and impact in reality on the harms that the Minister set out. We will weigh carefully the civil liberties implications of those provisions. Furthermore, we seek assurances that the Government agencies tasked with implementing the legislation will have all the resources and support that they need.

[Keith Vaz]

The issue of resources was raised by the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). Despite the effective way in which the Minister made his case, he did not answer my question. When will the NCA get a new computer system? When will ELMER be renewed so that the agency can look through SARs? The system is designed for 20,000 complaints, but it is currently dealing 385,000. The agency needs a new computer system to do what the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) want the Bill to achieve.

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that important intervention. If the Minister does not give a clear reply to that question on the Floor of the House, I can assure him that we will pursue the issue in Committee.

The Minister said that money is not the main obstacle to pursuing money launderers and criminal actors, but it does not help when agencies such as the NCA experience cuts. The Home Affairs Committee produced an important report in June on the proceeds of crime, and I am indebted to the then Chair and the Committee as a whole for their investigatory work. The Committee pointed out that money laundering takes many complicated forms, ranging from complex financial vehicles and activity in tax havens around the world to property investments in London and high-value jewellery. I share the Select Committee’s astonishment that of over 1 million property transactions last year only 335 were deemed suspicious. I agree with the Select Committee’s conclusion that supervision of the property market has been “totally inadequate” and has

“laid out a welcome mat for launderers”.

The Select Committee report also made the important point that it is all too easy for people who want to launder money to buy property in London, let it out in the capital’s high-value lettings market, then take in clean money in perpetuity.

Overall, the NCA believes that up to £100 billion of criminal funds could be passing through the UK each year in the form of property, luxury cars, art and jewellery. Transparency International estimates that there are hundreds of properties in the UK that are strongly suspected to have been acquired with the proceeds of corruption. Land Registry figures show that UK real estate worth more than £170 billion is held by more than 30,000 tax haven companies. I do not argue that there can never be a legitimate reason for holding UK real estate in a tax haven company, but I believe that, all too often, what we see could well be illicit activity.

[Ms Abbott]

I made a point of saying that there can be legitimates reasons for holding UK property in tax haven companies. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was not every single detail of the activity of the last Labour Government that I supported.

Most owners of those companies hide behind anonymous trusts or nominee directors and shareholders. For instance, in a single 50-storey apartment complex in London, The Tower at St George Wharf in Vauxhall, a stone’s-throw from the House, a quarter of the flats are held through offshore companies. This Bill aims to close a loophole which means that authorities cannot seize property from overseas criminals unless the individuals are first convicted in their country of origin. The orders will apply to property and other assets worth more than £100,000. If the owner fails to demonstrate that a home or piece of jewellery was acquired using legal sources of income, agencies will be able to seize it.

The Opposition support the new law in principle, but stress that for it to be effective agencies must be given the financial and political support to take powerful and wealthy individuals to court. Furthermore, there is some concern, which we will explore in Committee, that the measures may be too widely drawn. Throughout, the sole safeguard for seizure orders is the reasonable suspicion of a police officer on their own authority. This may be too low a bar as a safeguard against the incompetent use or abuse of state powers.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind comments about the Select Committee’s report published in July. In evidence to the Committee, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe suggested that the criminal law should be amended to ensure that those who had not paid their compensation order should be the subject of a second criminal offence. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for those who are subject to a compensation order to go to prison, finish their sentence and come out without it being paid? We need to look very carefully at this aspect.

[Ms Abbott]

My right hon. Friend is right. We need to look at the case of people who serve a prison term that may be relatively short, but are able, in effect, to flout the compensation order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) and listen very carefully to the important points he has had to make. I am glad he has had his meeting with the Minister and that promises have been made which I am sure he will ensure will be fulfilled.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, because one of the most important reports the Home Affairs Committee produced this year was that on the proceeds of crime. I am sorry to have missed the speech by the hon. Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani), who is a member of the Committee, but I am sure she spoke brilliantly about the conclusions of that report. I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for mentioning it and for the points she made concerning the practicalities and the issues it revealed.

The Minister did not mention the report, but I am sure he has read it. I am sure he has taken on board some of the points the Committee made. When seeking to legislate, it is important to first see where the problems are and where gaps exist, to listen to all those with experience—when we conducted the inquiry we did not just go to the usual suspects; many members of the private sector also gave evidence—and try to come to a conclusion that will provide the basis for sound legislation.

The Minister, who is newly appointed to his position in the Home Office, will have a pretty easy ride in respect of today’s proceedings, because I understand that there will be no vote. There is general support throughout the House for the measures the Government are proposing. They are the right measures and they are sound measures. They are designed to deal with the issues of criminality and terrorism. On those two issues, he will always find a House united. However, I hope he does not take that support as carte blanche to get the proposed legislation through in its entirety. I hope Members will table amendments in Committee based on the important points they have made today. I hope the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and others will table amendments relating to the important measures they have put forward. In advance of her speech, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who will be making her maiden Opposition Front-Bench speech on this important subject. More importantly, she will not be dividing the House, for which I think we are all very grateful.

The Bill identifies three priorities, which I will compare in turn to the findings of the Select Committee report published earlier this year. Robert Barrington, the director of Transparency International, says that every year over £100 billion might be laundered through the United Kingdom. That is equivalent to the GDP of Ukraine. A lot of that money goes through London, but as we are reminded by our colleagues from north of the border, other great financial centres, such as Edinburgh, are also used. Colleagues from Northern Ireland—we were having our own little debate as the main debate was going on—pointed out the particular difficulties they face, as Dublin is sometimes used by money launderers as an entry point to the EU. All those great financial centres are being used in this way, which is why it is right that action is taken, and taken immediately.

The Committee was shocked to find that poor supervision and enforcement in the London property investment market are making a safe haven for laundering and the proceeds of crime, a point made by the shadow Home Secretary. As we found out from the regulators themselves, it is far too easy for this to happen in a financial centre like London, which we believe—Edinburgh is, of course, respected—to be the greatest financial centre in the world. It is therefore essential to look at the markets here, how regulation operates, and try to deal with it in a constructive and positive way.

The hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) is not in his place, but he raised what I thought was a very important point about the necessity for resources. The Committee found that the private sector was using suspicious activity reports as a box-ticking exercise, sending in their information because it was their duty to do so. I was heartened by what the Minister said about the Government’s wish to cut through red tape so that information is sent on as quickly as possible.

Only 335 of the 1.2 million property transactions were deemed to be suspicious in 2015. The estate agents and their regulators were saying themselves that it was not possible to deal with all the complaints because there were so many of them.

We—Committees of this House, Members of Parliament —have made the point over a number of years that the assets and finances available to our law enforcement agencies cannot compare with the level of criminality in existence. Let us look at the budgets of the three main organisations dealing with this issue: the National Crime Agency has a budget of £450 million; the Financial Conduct Authority has a budget of £500 million; and the Serious Fraud Office has a budget of £45 million. However, the amount of criminal assets recovered has been very poor—only £155 million was recovered in 2014-15.

In defence of those three agencies, whose assets total about £1 billion a year, they say that it is not just about the recovery of assets—they are involved in other areas and they are part of other operations, which mean that the contribution that they make is not fully assessed. However, if we just compare like for like, we will see quite a difference between what the budgets are and what is recovered.

I pay tribute to Lynne Owens, who has done a tremendous job as head of the NCA. The creation of the National Crime Agency was one of the legacies of the previous Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister. In fact, I am on record as saying that we had something of a revolution in policing in the six years when the Prime Minister was the Home Secretary. The whole of the Home Office was shaken up and new organisations and institutions came into existence. She stayed Home Secretary longer than any other Home Secretary since the last century. We cannot expect Home Secretaries to stay for ever—as with Chairs of Home Affairs Select Committees, there is always an end to the fun of doing these jobs. The fact remains that there are aspects that have not fully settled down, and one of them is the ability to give organisations the resources they need in order to finish the job.

Lynne Owens is doing a terrific job, as is her organisation, but I am extremely worried about the computer system that exists to do the very things that the Government want to do. I assume that the Policing Minister will be winding up this debate. When he does, he will, I hope, have the answer to the question I posed to the Minister for Security—the question has been posed over months and years—about when the ELMER system is going to be renewed. It is all very well saying that we want more information coming in but, if we look at the figures, we know that they just do not add up. This is an old and creaking system, designed to manage only 20,000 suspicious activity reports. On the basis of the last available figures, there were 381,882 suspicious activity reports, so how is a system designed to deal with 20,000 supposed to deal with 381,882?

The Minister seemed to be saying that people are ticking boxes and sending in information and they do not need to send in that information, but I do not think that we should expect the private sector to be involved in becoming officers of the law. It is similar to what we have seen over the last five years with landlords becoming immigration officers, as have people working for airlines when they check passports and tickets. Despite what immigration Ministers have said over a number of years, we do not have 100% immigration checks on exit. The airlines check, but no immigration officer checks a passport or a ticket on departure from our airports, which is very sad. That is a different story. My issue is that we cannot get staff in the private sector to act as enforcement officers; they are not trained to do so. That is why we need a new computer system.

When we asked the then Home Secretary—the present Prime Minister—about that, she had no answer to the question of who was going to pay the bill. Would the money come from the budget of the National Crime Agency? Would it come from the Home Office budget? That, I think, is crucial to ensuring that this legislation is properly resourced. Are we going to give the NCA and the Serious Fraud Office the equipment that will enable them to deal with these issues productively? I hope that the Minister will tell us when the new ELMER system will be established, because that is a fundamental issue when it comes to suspicious activity reports.

Another aspect of the Bill is the granting of powers allowing banks to close accounts. I believe that the threshold is too low, and that the Minister must look at that, although it is really a Treasury issue. A number of my constituents have come to me—I know that this applies to other Members as well—and expressed concern after being told that their banks have closed their accounts. They are never given an explanation. Unfortunately, that has happened to too many members of the south Asian diaspora community, and, indeed, the African community. The Somali community was so concerned that representations were made to Treasury Ministers that, just because they happened to be Somali, their bank accounts had been closed. On Friday, I met someone from the Yemeni community who had been told that his bank account had been shut down in 28 days. He had been given no explanation, because banks are private organisations.

Obviously we do not want people to be told “By the way, we are closing your bank account because you are a terrorist” if inquiries are ongoing, but certain explanations need to be given. We need to be sure that the powers that we are granting are appropriate to the agencies to which we are granting them.

[Charlie Elphicke]

May I take up the issue of money laundering and the NCA? When I was a lawyer, one would do an ID check and then the information would be put in the bottom drawer, never to be seen again. If one were at all concerned, one would just do a “tipping off” and dump it on the authorities as a box-ticking exercise. There is no qualitative method of processing such information. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there should be such a method?

[Keith Vaz]

I think that, when it comes to the hon. Gentleman, it is probably a case of “once a lawyer, always a lawyer”. He is absolutely right. Training should be given to those who are involved in these activities, and in each organisation there should be a compliance officer who has received the necessary training. I do not know what kind of law the hon. Gentleman practised, but we would not expect every single lawyer to be trained to deal with issues such as SARs. We would expect a compliance officer in a big firm of solicitors to be able to do that, because there would not be the time to train everyone. However, I do not believe that that would cut the figure of 381,000 to 20,000. Faced with a third of a million SARs, even the best-trained lawyer—and I would put the hon. Gentleman among, probably, the best that one could find—would not be able to lower that figure. So as well as giving the private sector more responsibility to check, we need to ensure that the equipment is fit for purpose.

Let me commend the suggestion made to the inquiry by the outgoing Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe. I pay tribute to the excellent work that he did as commissioner. The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) will remember that, when she was a member of the Home Affairs Committee—before she was poached by the Policing Minister to become his Parliamentary Private Sector; we used to train them well in the Select Committee— Sir Bernard came up with a suggestion that was very important in relation to those who were involved in criminal activity. I raised this point with the shadow Home Secretary, and I am grateful to her for saying that she would consider it. I hope that the Policing Minister will also consider it, because when it comes from someone as distinguished as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner it is worth looking at again.

Those Mr Bigs or Mrs Bigs who serve their sentence and come out of prison and still have not paid their compensation order are at an advantage. I agree with my constituency neighbour, the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), that we probably should not keep them in prison indefinitely, but there needs to be some sanction for them to pay up.

One of the issues that arose was that compensation orders were given for assets that probably did not exist. They sound like fabulous figures in court—“This criminal involved in mass criminal activity has millions and millions of pounds”—but actually they do not have those kinds of assets. We need to be realistic about what we are going to recover when we issue the compensation orders. However, there needs to be a penalty. We need to ensure that something is done so these people have to pay up before they come out of jail, otherwise they will simply use a sentence as an opportunity to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure and come out and have access to that money.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker—or should I say very finally? [Interruption.] I did not realise we were short of time; I thought this debate was ending at 7 o’clock.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There is not a shortage of time, but when the right hon. Gentleman says “Finally” I actually believe him.

[Keith Vaz]

Mr Deputy Speaker, after all these years how can you believe a Member when they say, “Finally”—how can you assume they are about to finish their speech? But this is very finally, in honour of you, Mr Deputy Speaker: when the Policing Minister replies, I want him to address the issue of the police funding formula.

We have been waiting for a long time for the new police funding formula to be decided upon. Every Member of this House has a constabulary. That includes you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and Lancashire was very vocal last year: its Chief Constable Finnigan said he was running out of money and the reserves were going to run out.

All the constabularies have been waiting for the Policing Minister to announce the arrival of the police funding formula. His predecessor told the House he could not give us the formula because Sara Thornton, head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, now at the National Police Chiefs’ Council, was doing her analysis and we could not have a police funding formula until she had completed her work. I understand that that is not the case and that there is no reason why we cannot have the police funding formula.

Why do we need that to deal with the issues raised in the Bill? It is because it is not all about the City of London. This kind of activity happens all over the country and if we expect local police officers in Leicestershire, Lancashire, Kent, Sussex and throughout the country to be able to plan to deal with this issue, we need the formula. Therefore, I hope that, as well as telling us about ELMER, the Minister will give us the co-ordinates and the new date for the announcement of the police funding formula.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

This is the first time that I have spoken from the Dispatch Box and I am pleased to find it accommodates even people of Rupa size.

I am pleased to be responding for the Opposition on the Criminal Finances Bill, which touches on issues that have been catapulted into the public eye with both the Panama papers scandal and the anti-corruption summit held here in May under the previous Prime Minister—how long ago that all seems now.

We have had a good debate today, which has strayed into the murky underworld of illicit finance, terrorism and international aid as well as home affairs, and we have had contributions from my right hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), the right hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) and for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) among others.

This Bill seeks to tackle money laundering and corruption, to recover the proceeds of crime and to counteract terrorist financing, all measures Labour supports. This seems like good news in a year in which that has been in short supply on many fronts, but we must temper our reasons to be cheerful by identifying certain omissions and sounding some notes of caution.

First, the green ticks. We welcome the eye-catching unexplained wealth orders, which would force individuals with assets way above their means to account for those possessions, which can now include jewellery and art work as well as property. The new seizure and forfeiture powers will mean that such assets can be frozen and possession of them can be taken. As a London MP, I am all too aware of genuine Londoners who want to get a foot on the property ladder, but the transactions involving the ill-gotten gains of gangsters are messing things up for those people and creating an over-heated property market.

We also commend the fact that the investigatory powers are being extended to politically exposed persons. A thumbs up, too, for the new offence of failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion being applied to corporations and regulatory bodies. We also applaud the improved data sharing between the private and public sectors, and the Government’s extension of disclosure orders to money laundering investigations, bringing them into line with corruption and fraud investigations. Also to be commended are the strengthened suspicious activity reports. The period of investigation used to be 31 days. I think that there will now be six extension periods, adding up to 186 extra days. We live in an age when terrorism is probably the biggest threat of our time, so we also welcome the extension of powers to include terrorists’ property and finances.

So, what’s not to like? We acknowledge the steps being taken to tighten the net on corrupt practice, and we shall not seek to divide the House this evening, but more could be done to end the status of the UK as a magnet for dirty money. There should be no safe havens, particularly in our own back yard, where the proceeds of international corruption often turn up. Taken as a package along with its overseas territories and Crown dependencies, the UK constitutes the most secretive tax jurisdiction in the world. That is not a record to be proud of. Good work has been done in the reports produced by the Public Accounts Committee and the Home Affairs Committee, when they were chaired by my right hon. Friends the Members for Barking and for Leicester East, but not all their suggestions have been taken up. Many Members on both sides of the House have flagged up the fact that action must be taken on our overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and we argue that they need public registers of beneficial ownership. The British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands are among the worst offenders, and we administer them. We assert that this is the most gaping hole of all.

A trick has been missed. Applying transparency to those opaque corporate structures is a key part of the solution, but the Bill does not go there. We know that 75% of the corruption cases investigated by the Met police’s proceeds of corruption unit involve companies in secrecy jurisdictions, and that 78% of the companies involved are registered in the UK’s overseas territories or Crown dependencies. We need full transparency, but the Bill does not go far enough. A measure on the failure to prevent economic crime was trumpeted in May 2016, but it is missing from the Bill. Without some degree of transparency in company ownership, we cannot be completely aware of the scale of the problem or the damage that is being done. Kenya, Nigeria and Afghanistan have all conceded this point.

It has been pointed out that the people interpreting the rules need resources, and the weaponry that we use for crime-fighting could do with an update. The National Crime Agency will have more work to do, so the Bill will have cost implications in that regard. The agency is the successor to several bodies that have been merged. Notwithstanding the one-off cash injection that it received in the spending review, it needs consistency in its funding rather than just receiving one-off blockbuster sums. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East eloquently made the point that there were serious question marks over the IT system designed to support the suspicious activity reports regime. It was originally designed to deal with some 20,000 cases, but, as he said, it is currently processing 381,882 of them. It is creaking at the seams. A new system was promised—I think its name is ELMER—and I again ask the Minister to tell us when we can expect it.

[Keith Vaz]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Huq]

Will it come off my time?

[Dr Huq]

Okay. Go ahead.

[Keith Vaz]

I can assure my hon. Friend that I would never want to reduce her time. I congratulate her on making an excellent maiden Front-Bench speech.

The delay in ELMER, and in the new system that the Government will want to put in place as technology moves on, will lead to more criminal activity. The quicker this is done, the better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I reassure the hon. Lady that she is quite safe in giving way during a winding-up speech. She has plenty of time. Indeed, she has until 10 minutes to 7, but she will know that the House would prefer that she does not take quite that long.

Calais

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are initially making proper checks on every individual—every child or minor—who is brought across. We have to ensure that there is safeguarding and the interest of the child is served first before bringing them over to the UK. Those checks are always being done.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I join you, Mr Speaker, in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on her election as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee? She will do an excellent job.

Does the Home Secretary agree that the primary responsibility for the disturbing scenes we are seeing lies with the French Government? This is happening in France. I do not believe that we in this country would have allowed the development of the camp in this way. We want this to end as quickly as possible. My concern, while welcoming her strong commitments on child protection, is that the problem will be displaced to the Hook of Holland and to Denmark. There is already evidence that the people traffickers are moving away from Calais and into other areas. Can she assure the House that our small ports and airports will receive the security back-up they need to protect them from this activity?

[Amber Rudd]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that this is taking place in France and is largely a problem for the French to address. It is, however, in the UK’s interests that it is addressed, that the camp is dealt with in this way, that Le Touquet is maintained and that we play an active role. He is also right to point out the danger of displacement. We are alive to that. We are talking with our French counterparts, and with intelligence services, border forces and police forces, to make sure that we keep an eye on where that might happen. We will of course support our ports to address that.

Rights of EU Nationals

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

I do not think I can answer the intervention better than my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that in Scotland, by a huge majority, we voted to remain a member of the EU. The SNP will do everything in its might to ensure that the wishes of the Scottish people are respected.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The hon. and learned Lady makes a very powerful case. Am I right in saying that all she is seeking to do in this debate is to ensure there is clarity? The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that nobody in this House would like to see any EU national leave the country. Would it not be the best possible course of action at the end of the debate if the Minister were just to say that these rights are granted?

[Joanna Cherry]

I could not have put it better or more succinctly. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

I mentioned earlier the phenomenon of the rise in hate crime across England and Wales since the referendum. Home Office statistics published just over a week ago show that hate crimes have soared by 41% in England and Wales. I suggest that this is a symptom of the negative and xenophobic rhetoric used by some—not all—in the lead-up to the referendum. This has had a major effect in legitimising hate crime on the part of a small but violent and vocal minority.

Many of us were very concerned about some of the rhetoric that came out of the Conservative and Unionist party conference in Birmingham the other week. This is not just a concern of the SNP. Concern has also been raised by other Members and by international human rights bodies. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance have all expressed concern about the spike in hate crime in England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

There are many limits to my capabilities, and one of those is the inability to be in two places at the same time. I apologise if I have to dash off at the conclusion of my remarks to give evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, but the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will wind up the debate and pass on any comments particularly directed at me.

My job this afternoon is to reassure the House of our aspirations to protect the interests of EU citizens living in the UK and to counter some of the scaremongering that we have just heard. When I read the motion on the Order Paper, I was concerned and thought that there was a typographical error whereby the word “should” had been substituted for the word “when”. The fact of the matter is, as the Prime Minister has made clear, that Brexit means Brexit, and we are determined to carry out the wishes of the British people to leave the European Union. The negotiations that take place will be to secure the best possible deal.

As the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said in the Opposition day debate last week, the Government are determined that

“Parliament will be fully and properly engaged in the discussion on how we make a success of Brexit.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 326.]

I am therefore pleased that the House has the opportunity to debate this aspect of our future relationship with the European Union.

There are over 3 million European Union nationals currently living in the UK. They make a vital contribution to important aspects of our economy and public services, not least in the NHS and care sector.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the Minister for providing us with the figure of 3 million. However, some EU nationals will have arrived without passports, and those coming from Romania or Italy would have travel documents in order to enter the United Kingdom. How is the Minister’s figure a genuine one, given that he could not know precisely how many people are here?

[Mr Goodwill]

That is certainly one aspect of the negotiations that we would need to explore. Indeed, the security aspects of some of these travel documents are not as robust as passports that have the biometric data that is so important to ensure that people’s identity is clear when they are crossing borders.

[Keith Vaz]

I am not raising the issue of identity, which is, of course, important but a separate issue. My point is that when an EU national comes here—for example, a Romanian or an Italian—with a travel document instead of a passport, it is not stamped. EU citizens do not get their passports stamped. Is the Minister basing the 3 million figure on those who have acquired national insurance numbers, namely those in work, or is it based on some other data? That is what I want to know; it is not a security issue.

[Mr Goodwill]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. The 3 million figure can only be an estimate, particularly as exit checks have been introduced only recently. Although we might know who has come into the country, historically we were not aware of who had left. There are a number of ways of compiling the figures, including national insurance numbers, but there are other ways, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

The shadow Secretary of State made that very clear last week. The right hon. Gentleman misrepresents Labour’s position. I do not know whether he was present for the debate, but he might usefully read Hansard. Opposition Members accept that there will be adjustments to the arrangements and believe in reasonable management of migration.

[Keith Vaz]

I congratulate my hon. Friend most warmly on his appointment to his new post; I am sure that he will find it very challenging. The Opposition’s position is very clear, and it is the common-sense position, which is a double guarantee: we want to see British citizens keep their rights in the EU, and we want to give EU citizens their rights to stay here. No EU country has said that it wants British citizens to leave the EU. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Paul Blomfield]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is unfortunate that some of the cavalier comments by Ministers have put this issue on the table.

As I was saying, EU nationals want some certainty for themselves and their families, and, if we do not offer it, many of them will only find it by leaving the UK. That is unfair to them, but it is also a loss to our country.

The Opposition do not believe in cutting off our nose to spite our face. We want unilateral and immediate action from the Government to guarantee the status of EU nationals who contribute so much to our society, and we do not believe that that will undermine the Government’s ability to secure the status of UK nationals living in other EU countries, because we believe that they, too, are an asset to the communities in which they have set up home.

If the Government position is not playing too well with our partners abroad, it is not going down well here at home either. Polling for British Future conducted immediately after the referendum shows that an overwhelming majority of both leave and remain voters take the same view: EU nationals should be allowed to remain. Some 84% of people, including 77% of leave voters, want existing EU nationals to stay. A letter to The Sunday Telegraph back in July calling for guaranteed rights for existing EU nationals brought leave and remain supporters, Migration Watch UK and migrants’ rights groups together.

Last week this House made it clear that simply repeating “Brexit means Brexit” will not wash. It will not wash for this House, and it will not wash for people up and down the country. The uncertainty it is creating is having its impact on our economy. So we welcome the Government’s commitment to share their plan for Brexit with Parliament, albeit following pressure from both sides of the House, but there are some issues that cannot wait, and this is one of them.

People who have made their lives here deserve better. Withholding rights from EU nationals here until rights for UK nationals abroad are guaranteed sounds logical enough until we look into what it means in practice. It means that decisions to invest or expand businesses are being scrapped because EU nationals do not want to wait until 2019 to find out if they are welcome and public services are strained further as EU doctors, nurses and teachers uproot and move somewhere they are welcome and can plan for their future. In the meantime the status of UK nationals in other European countries is no more secure since Brexit negotiations are ongoing.

In his statement to the House last week the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said that

“five out of six migrants who are here either already have indefinite leave to remain or will have it by the time we depart the Union.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 48.]

Leaving aside the arrogant assumption that EU nationals will just wait around and hope that they will be okay rather than go somewhere they know they will be welcome, what will concern EU citizens who heard that statement is that indefinite leave to remain is not handed out automatically on the basis of length of residency. It has to be applied for, and applying for it is costly and onerous, and there are no guarantees. Perhaps the Minister can today clarify whether that is really what our offer is to those helping run our public services and contributing to our economy—“Stick around for two years and you might be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain.” That is simply not good enough: it is not good enough for them, and it is not good enough for our country.

We are grateful to the SNP for bringing the issue back to the House, and we repeat the call we made in July, which this House endorsed, which is that the Government should provide immediate clarity to EU nationals who are taking decisions about their future now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to support such a consistent politician as the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams)—a remainer one day and a leaver the next! However, he made a strong case for a guarantee for EU citizens to remain in this country. The difficulty is that all those amazing quotes he has gathered—which the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), with all his internet shopping, was unable to give us—are actually worth nothing unless they are spoken from the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member for Cardiff North is right to say that Ministers and others have talked about the contribution made by EU nationals, but at the end of the day it is for the Government to make those statements here in this House or in written statements.

I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on her powerful, eloquent and clear speech. In fact, all that she has sought is clarity, and all that we have heard from Ministers so far—the Minister for Immigration has left the Chamber, leaving it to the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, whom I congratulate on his appointment, to answer for the Government—is that it is all going to be all right on the night, but they just cannot say that in the House of Commons. All Members of the House have made the point that clarity is extremely important. If we have that clarity, it will be clear where we stand and there will be no need for the Opposition to keep bringing this debate back to the House every two weeks or so.

As a former Minister for Europe, I know that nothing at summit meetings is kept private. There is no question that any EU Head of Government has said to our Prime Minister either publicly or privately—if it was private, it would be public by now—that they want to remove British citizens from the EU. We heard today about the double guarantee. There is no question but that the SNP and the official Opposition would guarantee British citizens the right to remain in the EU if we had the power. All that we seek is the guarantee that EU residents in this country will be allowed to stay here.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we are the White Queen in these negotiations and that we have to make the first move? If that move is gracious, it will invite a gracious response.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Lady, who made a powerful speech, is right. It is possible for us to take that position, and the position of the other EU countries is also clear because nobody has said that they want to do any damage to British citizens abroad, so we can show leadership by saying what the deal is. That would clear the matter up immediately.

The problem with putting the matter into the negotiations is the disparity of numbers. There are 1.2 million British citizens in the EU and 3 million EU citizens here. We do not want people to say as part of the negotiations that we will have absolute parity of numbers. That is what worries me.

The Minister nods. He will have the chance when he winds up the debate to state that there will be no question of our saying to the other EU countries that we will allow only 1.2 million people to stay. That is why it is far better to be clear about the rights of EU citizens now than to wait until the end of the negotiations.

There are three possible cut-off dates: 23 June, the date of the referendum; 31 March 2017; and 31 March 2019. I favour the date of the referendum, because it is absolutely clear. Others may favour the date that we actually leave the EU, but the point is that we are making a mess of our immigration policy if we keep negotiating in this way. We need absolute clarity, particularly on immigration. The Government are worried that if they wait until 31 March 2019, there will be a spike in EU citizens coming to this country before we exit in order to secure the right to stay here. When the Minister comes to wind up, I hope that he will give us the figures for how many EU nationals have actually come to Britain. In fact, many are so worried that they are considering leaving our country because they simply do not know where they stand.

The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) asked the SNP whether it was necessary to keep bringing this debate to the House when the matter is actually all settled. I am sure that it is settled in his mind and my mind, but it is not settled in Government policy. However, we can have a settled Government policy. We just heard an excellent statement from the Immigration Minister that EU citizens who are studying in our country will be allowed to remain and get the support that they have had in the past. If a Minister can come to the Dispatch Box and make a clear statement of that kind to reassure EU nationals who are studying here, it is simple for the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to get up and make exactly the same statement about EU nationals who are resident here. The fact that the SNP included the word “should” in its motion should not stop the Government supporting it. They had the opportunity to enter into negotiations with the SNP, as we saw last week when they avoided another vote, which everyone thought was going to happen but which did not happen, thanks to the position taken by the Government. If we are trying to ensure that the fears of EU nationals are put to one side and that EU nationals are reassured, we can easily make such a statement today.

My next point relates to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), a former Immigration Minister, who said in his intervention on the current Immigration Minister that we would also consider the matter of EU nationals in our prisons as part of the negotiations. That is news to me. I did not realise that that was going to be part of the negotiations. Over the past 10 years, successive Governments have been trying to send EU citizens back. They constitute 10% of the entire prison population and we have not been able to move them out. Are we suggesting that we will put the question of EU citizens in our prisons into the negotiating pot as part of the deal for allowing EU citizens to remain here?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

We have an EU agreement whereby all EU Governments agree that they will exchange prisoners, so the current legal position allows that to happen. The problems that have stopped that happening are largely logistical and rather wrapped up in the bureaucracy of the Interior Ministries of different countries. At the moment we have reciprocal agreements, and EU countries have agreed to accept their own nationals to complete their sentence in their own country if they are returned as prisoners from other countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. He probably negotiated that agreement when he was either Home Secretary or Lord Chancellor. There is therefore no need to put that into the negotiations because it is already there, although Poland has a derogation and the Polish situation will become live again only at the end of this year.

The Minister is in his first, well-deserved job in government and can make a hero of himself to the Government Whips, because they will not need to keep bringing back debates on the European Union and the rights of nationals, to Worcester and to the EU. Rather like the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams), he was a remainer but is now a committed exiter as a result of the decision on 23 June. All we seek is clarity, so let us be clear. Nothing is put at risk by accepting what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West has said. Let us put the matter to bed. Otherwise, the Minister can be sure that the issue will return again and again.

Finally, the EU summit is tomorrow and the Prime Minister will presumably, since we are still members of the EU, be there. Some Members have suggested that Members of this House should begin the negotiations, which is well above our pay grade, but the Prime Minister is going to that EU summit tomorrow. The will of the House can be expressed today and the Prime Minister can begin the discussions on this particular issue tomorrow. I am sure that she will get a positive reply from the other EU leaders.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I echo the comments about how disappointing it is that the SNP chose to play a game of political football rather than to discuss the issues seriously. There is little in the motion that I would disagree with except for the word “should”, to which I will return in a moment. The motion asks us to recognise the huge contribution that people from other EU countries have made to this country. Of course we all recognise their contribution. That point has been made over and over again on these Government Benches, and inside and outside the House by people in both the remain and leave camps. Let me say it again: people from other European Union nations have made an enormous contribution to this country. They are very welcome in this country. They were welcome before the referendum took place, they are welcome now and they will be welcome after we exit the EU.

[Keith Vaz]

May I add the hon. Gentleman’s wife, who is of Hungarian origin, to that list of people?

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was going to mention that. I declare an interest in that my wife is Hungarian. My children are completely bilingual and have dual nationality. It is a cliché, but when I say that some of my closest friends are from eastern Europe, I mean that I go on holiday and share houses with them, which makes us pretty close friends. It is ludicrous even to suggest that people who are involved in the leave campaign—dare I say that I was the leader of the campaign in Wales?—have some kind of xenophobic or anti-EU agenda.

At the same time, we should also be making it clear that we welcome the contribution of professionals from countries outside the EU. I have dealt with many EU nationals who work in the NHS and the public sector in Wales, but I have also dealt with doctors from Egypt, businessmen from India and nurses from the Philippines, and they are also making a huge contribution to our economy. These people from outside the EU nations are also very welcome and will continue to be so. It is ridiculous to suggest that people from EU states should somehow be scared or worried about what is going to happen when we leave the EU, given that we already welcome and appreciate the contribution of so many people from outside it.

This Government have put compassion at the heart of their policy. We are spending more money on foreign aid than any other Government in this country has ever done and more than any other country in Europe is doing; we have ring-fenced NHS spending in England—Labour certainly has not done that in Wales; and we are dedicated to ironing out the inequality within the education sector. It is ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that anyone on any part of the Government Benches would ever want to round up people from other EU nations and throw them out—that is a fantasy and it will never, ever happen. Nobody wants it to happen and nobody has ever called for it to happen. I am just grateful for the opportunity to say that clearly once again.

Apparently, there have been issues with hate crime. May I say once again, as someone who was heavily involved in the leave campaign, that I, along with everyone I campaigned with, unreservedly condemn any form of hate crime towards anyone, be they from EU nations or outside, and whether it is because of their sexual orientation, the colour of their skin, their religion or their nationality? I, along with every person I have ever worked with on the leave campaign and with every person I have been involved with in politics, totally condemn that sort of behaviour. We should not run away with the idea that people from eastern Europe or from other European nations are constantly being hassled as they walk around; in my experience, which is considerable, that is simply not happening. I have been married for 13 years to somebody who moved here from eastern Europe and who has never been a victim of that sort of behaviour. I am not suggesting it does not happen, but I sometimes think there is a tendency to over-exaggerate.

Police Officer Safety

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Holly Lynch]

There are no two ways about it. I will come on to that in more detail in my speech. That is a very serious incident. Sending officers out on their own just is not working.

When I asked the House of Commons Library for statistics, by police force, of assaults on officers, it responded by saying that there is a lack of official statistics in this area. A recent Home Office report cites that assaults on officers and police community support officers are not collected as national statistics. Instead, the figures are estimates based on two limited data sources. To be fair to the Home Office, I very much welcome the recent efforts it has made to improve the system for recording assaults on officers, but there is still a long way to go.

Last year the Home Office asked forces to provide data on assaults on a voluntary basis. However, it recognised that there were flaws to that approach, concluding that

“the figures…are not directly comparable at police force area level”,

and that

“the estimates are relatively crude, and should be interpreted with caution.”

As the data are not collected, we simply cannot answer some of the bigger questions. Is the number of assaults going up? Are some forces failing to protect their officers? Have cuts to police budgets made policing more dangerous?

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaign. I and other Members of the House attended the police bravery awards this year, where we saw the incredible work being done by our police forces all over the country. One of the issues that has been raised for several years is that cuts in the psychiatric service have resulted in police officers having to deal with mental health issues in the custody suite. Does she agree that that needs to be addressed? This is really not what police officers should be doing.

[Holly Lynch]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We see police forces having to pick up the slack where there have been cuts to other agencies—agencies that should be taking a lead in dealing with some of these quite difficult social problems. I will come to how many vulnerable people were missing when I did my shift with West Yorkshire police and the impact that had on how many officers were available to respond to 999 calls.

To return to the statistics, I am asking the Home Office to work with police forces to standardise the process of collecting that information. Quite simply, if an officer is assaulted, in any force at any time, let us record it. Assaults on officers must be the subject of robust investigations. While officers need to play their part in that and follow up by reporting instances where they have been the victim of an assault, I also appreciate that they will not report injuries unless they have the confidence that those involved will be investigated and prosecuted appropriately.

Calais Jungle

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I will investigate the issue of the French Red Cross and get back to my hon. Friend. As for the census, her question highlights the challenges that exist in camps such as this. What we need is information, but the people who are seeking that information are often not viewed as friends of those whom they want to help. We, too, have been told that they are carrying out the census now. We have people in the camp as well—we have people advising them—and we will do our best to ensure that the census is as complete as possible so that we can use it as constructively as possible. The French have the same interest as us, which is to ensure that the children who are entitled to come to the United Kingdom are brought to the United Kingdom. Now that they are clearing the camps, that is their intention, so I expect them to give us the list as soon as they have it.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Let me first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on her appointment as shadow Home Secretary. We entered the House together, and I am delighted that she has done so well. I am sure that Home Office questions will be box office: not quite Trump versus Clinton, but certainly pretty fiery.

I welcome what the Home Secretary has announced today. She is right to make a start in getting this matter resolved, and I do not doubt her commitment. Does she agree, however, that the ultimate responsibility rests with the French, who have been warned for years about the deteriorating situation in Calais? Does she also agree that the European Union can deal with the crisis by processing and registering unaccompanied minors when they arrive in the EU—in Italy and Greece—so that there is no pull factor in Calais and other EU countries can take their responsibilities, as they should have done in the past?

[Amber Rudd]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is a French issue and a French responsibility: these people are in France. That is one of the reasons why it is sometimes hard for us to engage in the way that Members would like us to. The fact is that all European countries are now becoming much more aware of the need to have not so much clearer border controls as clearer assessments of who is coming in and their personal details. We will be moving towards that position throughout Europe, not just in the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question, and I am aware of his expertise as a former police officer. We are leaving the European Union but I can reassure him that our co-operation on security with our European and global allies will be undiminished. We are about to begin negotiations and it would be wrong to set out unilateral positions in advance, but I share his view on this important matter.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I warmly welcome the Home Secretary to her post? I hope that she has a long and successful term as Home Secretary. As she knows, earlier this year Siddhartha Dhar left the country, having not handed over his passport to local police officers, and went to fight for Daesh. The Home Secretary’s predecessor, who is now the Prime Minister, changed the Policing and Crime Bill to make the situation tougher for those who seek to go abroad. Will the Home Secretary follow the advice of Mark Rowley, the head of counter-terrorism, and expect suspects to hand over their passports as a precondition for bail?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this very important matter. This was a very distressing case, where the suspect was able to go away while on bail to do such damage and join Daesh in Syria. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is something that the former Home Secretary addressed, and we are looking at the best way to implement it. We may well follow the particular route that he has outlined, but rest assured that we take it very seriously.