Higher and Further Education

Debate between Keith Vaz and Shabana Mahmood

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I have met some of the students at London Met. It is not just a question of being financially worse off; some had come to the end of their degrees and had been asked to take re-sits when they were six weeks away from getting their PhDs. It is very important that no matter what the Government have done—they may have done the right thing; the courts will decide in the end—genuine students should not lose out as a result of their decision.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My right hon. Friend, who is Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, has been speaking up powerfully on behalf of genuine international students at London Metropolitan university, and I commend him for his efforts in trying to protect them from the impact of the decision to revoke its highly trusted status. He is absolutely right. Genuine international students who have paid huge sums of money for the privilege of a UK higher education and who have come to the end, or almost the end, of their studies at London Met should at least have been given the opportunity to continue and complete them there rather than have to scramble around to find an alternative institution that might take them. It seems entirely right that new international students are prevented from coming to London Met until these issues are resolved, probably through the courts system, but those who were already here and were genuine international students should not have had to suffer in this way.

This is one of the hardest years for universities, which begin the year 20,000 places down thanks to 10,000 places being directly cut by the Government and a further 10,000 being taken away because of the discredited, and frankly chaotic, core and margin policy. Core and margin was a deliberate attempt to force fees down—but crucially, not to benefit students but because the Minister got his sums wrong when he, the Business Secretary, who is sitting next to him, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister were busy telling everybody that £9,000 would be the exception rather than the norm and that the average would be much more like £7,500. We now know that that is not how things panned out. To cover that up, and no doubt to get the Treasury off his back, the Minister introduced his core and margin policy. That policy does not put students at the heart of the system. First, it sends a dangerously conflicting message about the cost of tuition. On the one hand, the Government tell students that they can afford £9,000 a year because of the repayment terms, but on the other they try to show that cheaper courses are a good option for those put off by the top level of £9,000. It also acts as an inverse pupil premium. Incentivising poorer students to take up cheaper courses means that they are entering into a higher education experience with the least being spent on them, their learning resources, their activities and their institution. This undermines the Deputy Prime Minister’s pupil premium policy, and there is a risk that it will further entrench educational inequality in the UK.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Debate between Keith Vaz and Shabana Mahmood

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will return to the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir shortly and hopefully deal with the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

I have a number of questions about the order for the Minister. Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum states:

“The Secretary of State has regard to additional criteria (announced by the Secretary of State in 2001) in deciding as a matter of discretion whether or not to proscribe an organisation. These are:…The nature and scale of the organisation’s activities…The specific threat that it poses to the UK…The specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas…The extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK…The need to support international partners in the fight against terrorism”.

Those criteria seem to be perfectly sensible in providing the basic test against which a Secretary of State may decide to exercise his or her discretion, but will the Minister shed some light on how, in this particular case, they have been applied? The 2001 criteria are not contained in primary or secondary legislation, so in light of that are they under regular review by the Home Office? Will he give us some details about how the Government intend to keep them under review? How frequently will that be done?

Given that the criteria were stated first in 2001, does the Minister consider them to be fully comprehensive still? Could they usefully be added to, and are there any plans to do so? He will be aware that there is a large and settled British Pakistani community in this country, and many British citizens from that community travel regularly to Pakistan to visit family and friends. What is his assessment of the threat that Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan poses to them? That will be a matter of some interest to the British Pakistani community, so I hope that he will take this opportunity to address it. Related to that, is Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan operative in this country? How has the threat that the organisation poses in this country changed since it was set up in 2007, and what is the extent of its operations in this country?

The Minister will also be aware that, as a result of the devastating floods in Pakistan last year, the effects of which are still being felt by the Pakistani population, a large number of British aid workers operate in Pakistan and are involved in vital efforts to provide humanitarian relief and assistance to the flood affectees. Soon after the floods, Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan made a number of statements, widely reported in the British media, threatening British aid workers. Will the Minister update the House on the threat posed to British aid workers engaged in flood relief work in Pakistan, and will he give some detail about the efforts being made to provide the maximum possible security and support to them?

The organisation was set up in 2007, proscribed by the Pakistani authorities in 2008 and designated by the United States in September 2010. What prompted the Government to follow suit now? How was the timing of the decision arrived at? There is, of course, necessary and close co-operation between the Pakistani authorities and the Government in combating terrorism. Is the Minister confident that the Government are doing enough to support the Pakistani authorities and society as a whole to prevent the rise of Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan.

[Keith Vaz]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Is she satisfied about the current process for challenging decisions? We understand that once the House makes a decision, an organisation is proscribed, but there is a process for challenging such moves, and that is right in a democratic society. Is she satisfied with that process, or do the Opposition wish to make any changes to it?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. In fact, I intended to put that question to the Minister in relation to any plans that the Government might have to look again at the legal process of appeal for an organisation that has been proscribed. I know that, in previous debates when the previous Labour Government proscribed organisations, my right hon. Friend raised the potential deficiencies in the processes for proscription and for challenging proscription, so can the Minister state the Government’s plans in that regard?

Do we know whether other countries intend to proscribe the organisation in the near future? What co-operation has there been between the Government and our allies engaged in operations in Afghanistan and other parts of the world in terms of proscribing it? Will there be continued co-operation, and what is the extent of such work?

Will the Minister give the House some details about the procedure by which the Government intend to keep the list of proscribed organisations under review? Will such reviews take place monthly, quarterly or less regularly, and can we be confident that all organisations that pose a threat to our national security are proscribed?

The House will be aware that during today’s Prime Minister’s questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) asked the Prime Minister about his plans to proscribe another organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir. This was also mentioned by the Minister. Although Hizb ut-Tahrir is not subject to this order, the Prime Minister’s comments about it raise questions about the Government’s policy on proscription as a whole.

Further to what was said at Prime Minister’s questions, my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has written to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. Let me refer to his letter, because it is important for the House to know this. His letter points out that last year the Prime Minister made a commitment to banning Hizb ut-Tahrir

“despite having not seen any of the evidence”.

He continues:

“The clear suggestion was that proscribing this organisation was a simple act that could be made without any legal obstacles on the basis of the…evidence”

that was available in the public domain. He asks the Prime Minister a number of questions, which I will repeat for the Minister to comment on. He asks the Prime Minister when he intends to fulfil his commitment on Hizb ut-Tahrir and on what dates the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have met to discuss the matter. He asks:

“Will you share with me, on Privy Council terms”—

and, one hopes, in a timely way—

“the latest available evidence about”

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s

“activities?”

He says:

“On the basis of the available evidence, is it still your intention to proscribe this organisation?”

and asks whether the Prime Minister has

“any plans to amend the relevant legal tests”

as set out in the Terrorism Act 2000 and amended in the Terrorism Act 2006.

Perhaps the Minister could shed some light on the Government’s response to those questions, because it is important that the House has placed before it the Government’s exact procedures and intentions in relation to proscription. Proscription should be a matter of last resort in order to safeguard our national security, and not the subject of off-the-cuff remarks or ill-thought-out pronouncements by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition.

As I have said, we will work with the Government to protect our national security, and in that spirit we will support the order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I hope not to detain the House for too long. I know this is a special day for you, Mr Speaker, and I would not like to keep you away from the birthday celebrations that are no doubt being planned for you in the Speaker’s house once you vacate the Chair.

This is a very important debate, and it is right that there is a full House to hear what the Minister has to say. In previous debates of this kind, the House has been almost empty; there is an assumption that such orders will go through automatically. That is why I am grateful for the way in which the Minister put the Government’s case, and for the way in which the Opposition said—I think—that they will support the Government.

[Shabana Mahmood]

indicated assent.

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend nods. It is right that the questions that she put forward should be answered at some stage—not necessarily this evening, but as soon as possible. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who raised issues that have to be addressed.

I sat through a number of debates on such orders on the Government Benches, when the Labour party was in power, in which Ministers came to the Dispatch Box and made the case for proscription. It is difficult for the House, because it cannot really challenge Ministers when they make such a case, because they come in good faith and they are in possession of all the information, much of it confidential and much of it given to them by the security services. We therefore accept what the Minister says in good faith.

Just the name of the organisation, the Pakistan Taliban, makes one want to ban it immediately because of the word Taliban. It is obviously not a friendly organisation. Although I know nothing about the organisation—I have heard as much as I know about it from the Minister tonight—I am happy to support what the Government are doing.

However, I caution the Minister and the Opposition—a number of Members raised this point when the Labour party was in government—to look again at the process that should be adopted when organisations want to challenge the decision. I was in the House when Mujaheddin-e-Khalq managed to get its proscription lifted. As the Minister knows, it was proscribed in March 2001, it challenged the decision in June 2001, and it was deproscribed seven years later. It took the organisation seven years to make its legal case against proscription. Therefore, from the point of view of the public, as opposed to that of the organisations, it is important at this time in the life of the Terrorism Act 2000, which has been with us for 10 years, to review the processes. I would offer a review by the Home Affairs Committee—I see that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is here—but because the Government’s agenda on home affairs is so exhausting and plentiful, it is difficult to find the time to look at this issue. I am sure that we will do so, and certainly in the life of this Parliament.

It is important to consider the process. I will use the example put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), which involves a constituency interest for myself and others, of the previous Government’s decision to ban the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. As you know from visiting the island of Sri Lanka, Mr Speaker, the war is over. The LTTE has been defeated, its leaders have all been killed, including Prabhakaran, who was killed as part of the conflict, and the Sri Lankan Government have said that the LTTE no longer exists. However, members of the community who wish to support charitable causes in Sri Lanka are still sometimes questioned about their involvement, including those who take part in the annual ceremony that takes place on 26 November each year to celebrate the lives of those who have been killed.

Although this is, of course, a narrow order and the proscription applies to those who support the Pakistan Taliban, it is possible that other members of the community who are completely unassociated with this terrible organisation will in some way be caught up in the problem. I think that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) was trying to allude to when she put her questions to the Minister.

I do not expect the answers tonight. After all, the Minister present is the Minister for Immigration, not counter-terrorism. I therefore do not expect the answers, although he is obviously very well briefed, a highly intelligent Member of this House, a hard-working Minister and all the other nice things I could say about him. I have mentioned your birthday, Mr Speaker, but it was also the Minister’s birthday on Monday, so we have to be nice to him. The questions that I have asked must be considered, and I hope that if the Minister cannot give me the information that I want today, the Minister with responsibility for counter-terrorism, perhaps in a letter to my Committee, or the Home Secretary next time she addresses the issue, will be able to put my mind at rest.

I fully support the order and hope that the whole House will. We look forward to ensuring that these matters, which by their nature have the possibility of affecting the civil liberties of citizens of this country, are kept under review as closely as possible.