Counter-terrorism and Security Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 1, 2, 9, 21 and 32. If the House agrees with them, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1

Seizure of passports etc from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 to 39.

[Mrs May]

On the day the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill was last considered by this House, news of the appalling events in Paris and the brutal murders at the office of Charlie Hebdo were still unfolding. What followed was a two-day manhunt for those responsible, a horrific attack on a Jewish supermarket and further murders of innocent people. Those attacks were yet another reminder of the very grave threat we face from terrorism, a threat that we have discussed in this House on many occasions. I am certain that everyone in this House is committed to ensuring that the police, MI5 and others have the powers and capabilities they need to keep the public safe. That is why we brought forward the Bill and sought its swift progress through Parliament.

Since the Bill was sent to another place, it has been the subject of robust scrutiny. A number of substantial amendments have been made to ensure that these new powers will deliver the optimum capability for our agencies, and to reassure the public that they will be used appropriately and proportionately. They were all Government amendments, which were broadly welcomed by their lordships, and I hope and expect that they will find similar favour in this House. I will now turn to the amendments themselves.

Two amendments were tabled by the Government to part 1 chapter 1 of the Bill, which concerns the temporary seizure of travel documents from individuals reasonably suspected of wishing to travel overseas to engage in terrorism-related activity. Amendments 1 and 2 make provision for civil legal aid to be made available where appropriate at the hearings of applications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to extend the 14-day time period in which an individual’s travel documents may be retained. This is an issue in which the Joint Committee on Human Rights took considerable interest. Legal aid is already available for judicial review proceedings in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, subject to individuals’ meeting the statutory means and merits tests.

Turning to temporary exclusion, as I have made clear to this House at earlier stages, the Government are absolutely committed to the appropriate and proportionate use of this power. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration indicated on Report, we carefully considered the constructive suggestions from David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, on the matter of judicial oversight, and following that consideration, we tabled amendments to introduce oversight of the power in line with his recommendations. Specifically, the amendments propose the creation of a permission stage, before the imposition of a temporary exclusion order, and a statutory judicial review mechanism to consider the imposition of the order and any specific in-country requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

May I just say to Members that we do not have much time, but if we can be brief, we will get every Member in?

[Mr Heath]

As I said on Report, it is extraordinarily difficult to get the balance exactly right between the security of the citizen and of the realm and the accretion of powers by the state. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary and her colleagues in the Department for listening carefully to the things said about this Bill by Members on both sides of the House. All the amendments we have received from the other place, many of them stimulated by our discussions in this House and now back before us, improve the Bill rather than make it worse. That is not to say that there are not areas where I might have gone a little further than the Government amendments in the Lords, but let us recognise that it has been improved.

I particularly welcome—this was the deal breaker—the introduction of judicial oversight of the temporary exclusion orders. I honestly do not understand why the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) believes it would be better for the House to have supported an Opposition amendment that was inadequate to the task rather than the Home Office’s own amendment, which we were promised on Report and which has now been produced in the Lords.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I beg to move amendment 13, page 47, line 10, at end insert—

“A person carrying out a function of an authority mentioned in section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1999 by virtue of a direction made under section 15 of that Act.”

This amendment would add the authority specified to those subject to the duty contained in clause 21 and would make the relevant entry consistent with the corresponding entry in Schedule 4.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 14 to 17.

[Karen Bradley]

In respect of the duty to have due regard to preventing people from being drawn into terrorism in clause 21, the Government have tabled a number of corrective amendments to the list in schedule 3, which specifies the authorities subject to the duty. The amendments will ensure that the intended specified authorities are subject to the duty.

Amendment 13 would add:

“A person carrying out a function of an authority mentioned in section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1999 by virtue of a direction made under section 15 of that Act.”

This appears in schedule 4, as regards Channel, and should also appear in schedule 3. The effect will be to ensure that where local authority functions are transferred, for example to commissioners if an authority is failing, the duty will apply to them too.

Amendment 14 will add the principal of a secure college to the criminal justice section of schedule 3. That will ensure consistency with schedule 4. Amendment 15 will remove an unnecessary entry. An institution

“within the higher education sector within the meaning of section 91(5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992”

will also be a qualifying institution within the meaning of section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004, which has its own entry.

Amendment 16 ensures that the privately funded higher education providers are listed in schedule 3 as intended. They are covered in schedule 4, as regards Channel, but are at present missing from schedule 3. The draft guidance published for consultation has been drafted as though they are included in schedule 3. Amendment 17 corrects an inadvertent error by removing reference in schedule 3 to police authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

I beg to move amendment 3,  page 22, line 14, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a body to—

(a) provide advice and assistance to the persons appointed under—

(i) section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006;

(ii) section 31(1) of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing &c. Act 2010; and

(iii) section 20(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.

in the discharge of their statutory functions.

(b) review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, [this Act] and any other law or prerogative power to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism;

(c) consider whether such legislation contains appropriate safeguards, is proportionate and remains necessary;

(d) review intelligence-sharing guidance and practice to the extent that it relates to counter-terrorism and the functions of the Board;

(e) make recommendations to any public authority about the exercise of its statutory functions relating to the prevention of terrorism;

(f) undertake inquiries relating to counter-terrorism when invited to do so by the Home Secretary, the Treasury or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or on the initiative of the Board;

(g) encourage good practice in the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of terrorism;

(h) provide advice and assistance to Government on the development and implementation of policy relating to the prevention of terrorism.”.

This expands the remit of the body to match that which is described in the Government’s Terms of Reference for this body.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2,  page 22, line 22, leave out

“Privacy and Civil Liberties Board”

and insert “Counter Terrorism Oversight Panel”.

This would rename the body created by clause 36.

Amendment 4,  page 22, line 25, at end insert

“in accordance with the Code of Public Appointments”.

Amendment 5,  page 22, line 32, at end insert—

“(i) the information-gathering powers of the board;

(j) reporting requirements, and the formulation of and consultation on an annual work plan; and

(k) the access to such relevant classified material as may be required in order for the board to undertake its functions under subsection (1);”.

This increases the points that have to be included in regulations brought forward by the Secretary of State to include information gathering powers, formulation of an annual work plan and relevant to classified material.

[Diana Johnson]

These amendments relate to part 7, which confers powers on the Secretary of State to establish a body to be known as the privacy and civil liberties board. While most of the Bill introduces new powers, part 7 introduces checks on those powers. It is worth mentioning at this stage that no level of general oversight will ever negate the need for proper judicial oversight of the specific use of these powers, which until yesterday the Government unfortunately were fiercely resisting.

Labour has always said that strong powers need strong checks, which is why we support the principle of a new oversight body. It is also why we tabled amendments to the Justice and Security Bill when it went through Parliament to increase the powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee and why we have consistently called for a bigger role to be given to the intelligence and surveillance commissioners.

Although the creation of a new body is good in principle, what is actually set out in the Bill does not match the name “privacy and civil liberties board” or what the Government set out in their terms of reference, and it does not introduce what we think is needed. That is why we have tabled amendments 2 to 5. The problem is that the Bill determines nothing other than the name of the body. The name evokes the idea of a body with a wide remit to work on privacy and civil liberties issues in the UK, a body to safeguard human rights, a body similar to the Joint Committee on Human Rights created by the Labour Government, but that is not actually what is provided for in the Bill.

The terms of reference published by the Government suggest a body that will support the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in providing oversight of counter-terrorism legislation in the UK and investigating its operations. Broadly, we think that what is contained in the terms of reference is very sensible and that it would provide both capacity and openness to the oversight of counter-terrorism policy. It would also address some of the issues relating to the capacity of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation that the current incumbent, David Anderson QC, identified earlier this year—I went through some of that in detail in Committee.

However, what we see in the terms of reference does not match what we see in the Bill. The third version of the board is the one provided for by clause 36, a body that the Home Secretary may create in future if she wishes. In future she may decide on the body’s procedures, membership, work plan and the publishing of its reports. If the body is created, it will have very limited statutory remit and powers. We do not think that is good enough, so amendments 2 to 5 address what we see as the Bill’s shortcomings as currently drafted.

Amendment 3 would ensure that the panel or board will have a remit that includes all the key counter-terrorism issues. Specifically, it includes the terrorism statutes, which the independent reviewer is currently precluded from investigating. Unlike the independent reviewer, we do not envisage a remit that is overly prescriptive or requires annual reviews of certain pieces of legislation. Amendment 3 would also give the board a role in undertaking specific inquiries in certain circumstances, to make recommendations to public authorities, to review intelligence-sharing guidance and to encourage good practice in the prevention and investigation of terrorism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I beg to move amendment 12, page 23, line 24, at end insert—

“( ) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must—

(a) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if included in an Act of that Parliament, consult the Scottish Ministers;

(b) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales if included in an Act of that Assembly, consult the Welsh Ministers;

(c) if the regulations contain provision that would fall within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if included in an Act of that Assembly, consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the relevant devolved administration before making consequential provision by regulations under clause 38 if any of that provision would fall within devolved competence.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 1, page 23, line 31, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must consult with Welsh Ministers before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating to any Measure or Act of the National Assembly of Wales.

(4B) The Secretary of State must consult with Scottish Ministers before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating any Act or instrument of the Scottish Parliament.

(4C) The Secretary of State must consult with the Northern Ireland Executive before making provisions under subsection (1) so far as relating to any Act or instrument of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”

This would ensure that the Secretary of State could not amend legislation from the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly without first consulting with the Scottish or Welsh Governments or the Northern Ireland Executive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there are differences. They may just be nuances to him, but we take them particularly seriously in Scotland. For example, we work with key sectors in Scotland, such as the NHS, further education, the Prison Service and local authorities. Prevent also benefits from input from Police Scotland’s model of community engagement and from the strength of the relationship between various arms of the community and all the public services in Scotland. The key point is that we perhaps look at the cultural context differently.

What we are keen to do in Scotland—and we have had a great deal of success—is ensure that a sense of Scottish citizenship is given as quickly as possible to new immigrants, particularly from south Asian communities. That has been incredibly successful. We talk about the “bhangra and bagpipe” culture in some of our larger communities, especially in Glasgow, and we are particularly proud of that. Believe it or not, most Scottish Asians supported Scottish independence because they saw from their historical experience, and from being a colonial power or being part of the empire, that independence was not a scary issue. They were able to join us to ensure that such transformative change—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman quite a bit of leeway, but now we have got on to independence. This debate is about consultation, but I think it has stretched a little further than that. As we know, Third Reading is coming up, but at the moment we are dealing just with the amendment.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. We need consent, rather than consultation, because things are so different in Scotland, and we have responsibility for those bodies. Such issues must surely be up to the Scottish Parliament, and not just through consultation. Consultation is great and there is nothing wrong with it, but this is about ensuring that we have consent. We will not oppose the measure today—it is great that we will get that consultation. We enjoy debating with the Home Secretary. She is always welcome in Scotland, and we enjoy making sure that her views are known. Consent is fine, but we need to ensure that such matters are the responsibility of the Scottish Government and that we make those decision: not consultation, consent.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Perhaps I could help a little. Obviously we want to get to the new clauses and amendments rather than discussing who has turned up and who has not.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Unfortunately I missed the beginning of this debate on temporary exclusion orders. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), because I wanted to welcome the Labour party out of the anti-civil liberties wilderness. These are actually worthy amendments. I do not think I have congratulated the Labour party on any measure it has taken on civil liberties and security in the course of the past 15 years. This is the Labour party of 90 days’ detention, of ID cards, of control orders, of national databases—

[Pete Wishart]

That is what I am doing. I am congratulating the Labour party. This evening, for probably the first time in 15 years, I will be rushing through the Lobby to support the Labour party. Come on board! Re-establish the Labour party with its civil liberties—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We need to get to the new clauses and amendments. I understand that you want to try to make this into a political broadcast, but I am not into that at the moment. I am into hearing your views on the new clauses and amendments, not on the history of the Labour party for the past 15 years.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We have these amendments today because there has been an intervention from David Anderson, the anti-terrorism supremo. We all have to listen very carefully to what David Anderson says about this. He is absolutely spot on, of course. With measures such as this, we need judicial oversight. A number of us could possibly trust the Home Secretary to carry out her function in approaching this with a reasonable degree of professionalism, as one would expect from a Home Secretary as upstanding as the current one. David Anderson gets to the heart of all this: the burden of proof, being able to test matters in court, and the rights of the individual who has been subject to these charges and has no recourse to justice to be able to test them in court and try to determine their innocence. That is not possible as things currently stand, and that is why I very much support what is on offer today.

We have to give people the opportunity to respond to particular charges laid against them. The idea that suspicion that they are involved in a certain activity is enough to stain their reputation and means that they have no opportunity of recourse to justice or to put their case is not good enough. These perfectly good amendments would be a very useful intervention. The Labour party has given us an opportunity to re-examine the issue.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

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

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. An intervention is meant to be short. It is not meant to be a speech. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to speak, he could have done so earlier. Please, let us shorten these interventions.

[Mr Clarke]

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

Modern Slavery Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 5—Duty on large UK companies to report efforts to eradicate modern slavery and forced labour—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, not later than 5 October 2015,—

(a) make regulations under section 416(4) of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46) requiring the directors’ report of a company to contain such information as may be specified in the regulations about modern slavery and forced labour in the supply chain for which the company is responsible, or

(b) lay before Parliament a report explaining why no such regulations have been made.

(2) Regulations made under section (1)(a) must be in force in relation to quoted companies by 6 January 2016 and in relation to large private companies as the Secretary of State believes to be appropriate by 2 January 2018.

(3) Subsection (1)(a) is complied with if regulations are made containing provision in relation to the company’s reporting of work in the following areas—

(a) accountability for tackling modern slavery and forced labour, including policy commitments, resourcing and actions to exercise due diligence;

(b) investigation, monitoring and auditing of modern slavery and forced labour risks in the UK and throughout their global supply chains;

(c) support and access to remedy for victims of forced labour and modern slavery; and

(d) training of staff and suppliers, access to expertise and advice.

(4) No regulations made under this section shall apply to small companies as defined by section 381 of the Companies Act 2006 (c. 46).”

New clause 15—Legal liability for the beneficiaries of slavery—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of this Act coming into force bring forward regulations to ensure that a person benefiting from an offence under section 1 or 2 of this Act committed by a third party shall have committed an offence where—

(a) the third party acted for that person’s benefit; and

(b) their lack of supervision or control made possible for committing of the offence by the third party.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.”

This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward measures along the lines set out in EU Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing trafficking in human beings.

New clause 14—Ban on importation of goods produced by slavery or forced labour—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall have the power to prohibit the import at any point of entry to the United Kingdom of any good, ware, article, or product mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part in any foreign country that can be demonstrably shown to have been produced by slavery, forced labour, child labour or with the involvement of human trafficking.

(2) The Secretary of State shall—

(a) prescribe such regulations as may be necessary for the enforcement of this provision;

(b) co-ordinate with and issue guidance to the Treasury, HMRC, devolved authorities and any other relevant public authority in relation to the exercise by them of their powers and responsibilities under this Clause; and

(c) have a duty to publish and maintain information on banned goods including a publicly available list of products which there is a reasonable basis to believe might have been mined, produced, or manufactured in the circumstances described in section (1).

(3) The Secretary of State shall establish a process whereby a petition can be made by any person, public authority or organisation who has reason to believe that goods produced in the circumstances in section (1) are being or are likely to be imported into the UK to communicate theses concerns to the relevant authority. Every such communication shall contain—

(a) a full statement of reasons for the claim;

(b) a detailed description or example of the product; and

(c) all relevant information regarding the production of the good.”

This would allow for the banning of the import of any product produced by slavery, convict, forced or indentured labour, including child labour.

Government amendment 62.

[Karen Bradley]

It is a pleasure to open this important debate. Modern slavery in supply chains is an issue that this Government take extremely seriously and have been considering very closely for some time. Tackling modern slavery is not only about catching the perpetrators; it is about making sure that we as consumers and businesses do not inadvertently fuel the demand for slave labour. We do not want businesses in the UK to have any connection to these abhorrent crimes, and UK consumers should not be put in the position where they inadvertently buy goods that could have been produced by individuals who are abused and enslaved.

The Government have been listening carefully to the views of NGOs, businesses and parliamentarians on this issue. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members here today have been campaigning on it for a long time, and their contributions and insight have been invaluable in developing our thinking. I would particularly like to thank the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill, who collected such valuable evidence, and the chair of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), for his leadership. I would also like to thank the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who have both tabled private Members’ Bills on this topic and have campaigned so tirelessly.

The Government have always been committed to encouraging businesses to take action on modern slavery, but I and the Home Secretary wanted to make sure that any further legislative changes were of real value and would not confuse existing arrangements. Having considered carefully the evidence and calls for change, I believe that we can improve the legislative framework further to encourage business to take action. That is why I am extremely pleased that we have brought forward new clause 11, which will require organisations carrying on a business in the UK above a certain size threshold to disclose each year what they have done to ensure that there is no modern slavery in their supply chains or their organisation. Once businesses are required to disclose what they are doing to tackle modern slavery, consumers, shareholders and campaigners will have a better understanding of what action each business is taking, and can call for more action if they think more is needed.

UK Drugs Policy

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the current—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady has been speaking for 15 minutes, so I am sure that we are nearing the end of the opening speech. [Interruption.] I assure her that we are nearing the end of the speech.

[Caroline Lucas]

Of course I am getting near the end, Mr Deputy Speaker. With that in mind, I shall simply agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton).

The current policy is essentially putting users at greater risk by driving the creation of yet more ways to stay one step ahead of the law and by making research into the harms associated with new substances much more difficult.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

That was going to be my second point. I have a feeling that Liberal Democrat Members have a copy of my speech.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is impossible. You were not going to speak.

[Keith Vaz]

Exactly. The Liberal Democrats have an incredible mind. They are able to predict exactly what hon. Members are going to say.

Correctly, the hon. Gentleman referred to prescription drugs, which had not been mentioned. The Committee was extremely concerned by the increase in the use of prescription drugs. Indeed, when the Committee was in Miami, as hon. Members would expect it to be, en route for Colombia to look at where 70% of the cocaine in our country comes from—we have done our homework—we heard of the first case of an American doctor being prosecuted for prescribing drugs. As we know, drugs become currency in prisons and outside. That is why there is a responsibility on the medical profession to ensure that doctors prescribe effectively and understand what is happening to prescription drugs if certain patients keep coming in and asking for them. It is important to ensure that we consider the availability of those drugs, which are perfectly legal.

I have not seen the Government statement on psychoactive substances so I cannot comment on it—I believe it was a written statement, and they never send the Committee advance copies. I just remind the House that the Committee was clear that the onus ought to be on the retailers who sell psychoactive substances. I did not realise that the Government were calling for a complete ban, but where psychoactive substances are sold, we should prosecute retailers for selling them. There is no point waiting for someone to die. It is essential we do something at the beginning by getting those who sell the drugs in the first place.

My final point is on money laundering and the weakness of successive Governments’ regimes to deal with criminality. As we have heard, the drugs trade is the second most profitable illegal activity in the world. It is worth some $380 billion a year, most of which enters the financial system, some through offshore areas such as Gibraltar and other areas of that kind. We need to ensure that authorities co-operate. I am not singling Gibraltar out because you are in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Just for correctness, I am not the chair of the Gibraltar group, but I was in the past. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman needs to take this up with the new chair.

[Keith Vaz]

There is no criticism of you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar or of anyone in Gibraltar, but we have discovered that some areas of the world are being used to launder money from drugs. Our financial authorities are not strong enough to deal with the way in which money goes through the system. That is why the Committee believes that bankers at the very senior level should be held criminally responsible if they know or are aware of laundering, or if they did not take action to prevent it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Can I suggest everybody works on keeping their speeches to around the 10-minute mark?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should like to suggest that speeches should last for no more than eight minutes. We are struggling with time, and quite a few people wish to speak in the next debate. There is more than one debate today, and we must think of the others who want to speak.

National Crime Agency

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

I am sorry, but that is not the same as—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is up to the Minister to give way before the hon. Gentleman can come in. Let us leave it that way; we are not changing the rules today.

[Karen Bradley]

I want to be clear: I am talking about trivial examples of how we respect devolution in order to show the many ways in which devolution is respected across the United Kingdom, whether in the devolved Administrations, with the powers and competences devolved to them, or our local councils. We must all respect that, and recognise that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I cannot, I am afraid; I have been given strict warnings by the Deputy Speaker. The—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am not being dragged into this. If the Minister wants to give way, she can. It is not for the Chair to decide, I can assure you.

[Karen Bradley]

I should have been clear: it was Madam Deputy Speaker who gave me very strict warnings.

[Dr McCrea]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to hide behind stating that you had instructed her not to give way because she had little time, leaving us in a potentially devastating position?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Dr McCrea, we both know that that is not a point of order. The bottom line is that I clarified the position: it is exactly in the Minister’s hands and quite rightly; she will choose whether she wishes to give way or not. She has given way already, and it is the choice of the Minister.

[Karen Bradley]

Returning to covert techniques, NCA officers will be required by the Justice Secretary of Northern Ireland to have an appropriate level of training, including on ethical issues and human rights, through the general authorisation.

The question was asked whether the NCA’s being subject to the police ombudsman will be put on a statutory footing. Yes: an order under schedule 24 to the Crime and Courts Act can substitute the reference to SOCA in section 60ZA of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 with a reference to the NCA. That would make the NCA subject to the police ombudsman.

One final point on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: the National Crime Agency is bound by the RIPA codes of practice, and existing accountability mechanisms under RIPA and the Police Act 1997 would apply, including oversight by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners and the ability of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to try to determine human rights claims about the unlawful use of covert techniques regulated by RIPA.

The threat from serious and organised crime is national and international, but its devastating impacts are felt locally. Northern Ireland is not exempt from that. The National Crime Agency is committed to assisting the Police Service of Northern Ireland in tackling serious and organised crime in Northern Ireland as far as the restrictions on its powers permit, but those powers are limited at the moment.

The Government fully support the discussions being led by the Northern Ireland Justice Minister. He has listened to people’s concerns and worked closely with the Home Secretary, with me and with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as well as with the National Crime Agency and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to address them. The package of proposals that he has developed is a good one; it provides the accountability that people want. We hope that the Northern Ireland Justice Minister’s discussions will lead to agreement of all parties on the terms under which the NCA could take on its full role in Northern Ireland. This would strengthen the fight against serious and organised crime and better protect the people of Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House condemns the increasing number of illegal activities being carried out by organised criminal gangs in Northern Ireland; notes police assessments that more than 140 such gangs operate in Northern Ireland; and calls for the implementation, in full, of proposals for the National Crime Agency to help deal with this problem, which is particularly prevalent in border areas.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the motion in the name of Mr William Hague relating to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The Ayes were 384 and the Noes were 18, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

[Lady Hermon]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are five Sinn Fein Members of this House who do not take their seats. What constitutional authority do they have? They do not speak in this Chamber and have not spoken in this debate, yet they have an effective veto over national legislation being extended to Northern Ireland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting question, but it is not a matter for the Chair.

[Dr McCrea]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When I spoke to Madam Deputy Speaker earlier, she said that the first debate was to finish at 4.45, yet the Minister would not take an intervention even though she had four minutes left. I think there was a suggestion that she was hiding; she certainly was.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We have discussed this matter already and I have ruled on it. It is not a point of order and, in fairness, it is up to the Minister to decide what to do with the time allowed, and that was absolutely correct. We have now allowed extra time for the next debate, which is well subscribed.

Communications Data and Interception

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I must move on. We have to get everybody in. I think the Home Secretary has enough to go on.

[Mrs May]

In the interests of brevity, let me say that I disagree with the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Communications data in particular are an absolutely vital tool in investigations and in bringing criminals to justice. They have been a particularly important tool in recent cases of child abuse, and they are also important with regard to the serious crimes I mentioned earlier, including murder. It is vital that we have access to this tool, in order to be able to keep people safe and bring perpetrators of those crimes to justice.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, the hon. and gallant Gentleman Bob Stewart.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe we have a duty to pass this fast-track legislation quickly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless we do so, the police and the security services will not have the powers that may stop innocent citizens of this country dying?

Modern Slavery Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

It has been a pleasure to sit here listening to the debate, not just for the quality of the speeches, though one would expect the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) to give a commanding performance. The real pleasure for me has been looking at the Government Whip, who has had to take refuge, quite understandably. As the debate has gone on, the Government Whip has become greyer and greyer. I thought that, while we would put up a good fight in this House to amend and strengthen the Bill, the main changes would happen in the other place. After listening to the unprompted interventions and speeches, it has become clear that the Government will be hard pressed to hold the line they have drawn in the Bill that they have submitted for Second Reading. There will be a clear choice for the Home Secretary to make. Does she wish the Bill to remain her Bill, or will it become a Bill that the House begins to fashion in its own likeness? I will come back to that.

I see a Whip leaving the Chamber now. I hope that she is off to one of the places where this message needs to go—No. 10. It will be hard pressed to resist the changes the Home Secretary wants the House to make to the Bill before it leaves us and goes to the other place. I wish her well taking that message. I know that, in her own style, she will make the case we are making here.

Like others, I want to put on record the basis for my interest in this topic. It is the person who is sitting in the Box below the Gallery, Anthony Steen. I would not have been committed—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We should not mention people in the Box, as much as we are tempted, and as great as the man that he mentioned may be.

[Mr Field]

I accept that I cannot mention the great man in the Box, at whom we are now all looking. Convention prevents me from drawing attention to his presence there or even to the fact that elsewhere, outside the Box, he is known as Anthony Steen. For it is he who ignited my interest in this area. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), made that point very effectively. In many ways, when he left this House he took out to the wider world the candle that he lit in this Chamber. To all intents and purposes, it is his Bill that we are debating today: no Anthony Steen, no Bill.

However, Anthony Steen is not the only person who ought to be thanked on the record. The hon. Member for Central Devon drew attention to how quickly the debate has progressed here. It has done so because of three women, the first of whom is Philippa Stroud. I can mention her because she is not in the Box, Mr Deputy Speaker. When she was at the Centre for Social Justice she decided that this topic ought to be investigated and initiated the inquiry that led to the report “It Happens Here”. She is a parent of the Bill. She convinced Fiona Cunningham, who was then the Home Secretary’s political adviser, that this was an important topic in its own right and one for which the Home Secretary ought to win time from her colleagues for a new Bill. Anybody who knows how Parliaments progress knows that, as a Parliament reaches its conclusion, parliamentary time becomes not easier but more difficult to command. We therefore naturally applaud the Home Secretary’s decision —for she is of course the third person. Philippa’s work, Fiona’s work, the work of the all-party group and the work of the person we cannot mention in this Chamber would have come to naught had the Home Secretary not made the crucial decision that there should be a Modern Slavery Bill. Although she has had to go to other meetings, she will take great heart from the fact that in two areas on which she has not been totally happy with the Bill as introduced—I think it is reasonable to say that—she will probably get her way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I saw the report in the paper to which she referred and thought, like her, that a three-year sentence for the serious criminal behind those abuses was too light. Hardly a day goes by when we do not have yet another report in the paper of different forms of modern day slavery. I commend the Home Secretary, as previous speakers said, on having the determination to bring in a Bill on modern day slavery in the final Session of Parliament before a general election. I commend her also on the way in which she has built the consensus about which we have heard over the last four hours or so in the Chamber. She has built consensus with all parties to make sure that we get the Bill on to the statute book.

My right hon. Friend had the foresight to appoint the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) to chair the Joint Committee of both Houses, a decision for which I respect her. I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to serve on that Committee. It is probably true to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you really would not have known from which political party the Members of both Houses hailed as they sat on the Committee due to their absolute determination to do their best in that pre-legislative scrutiny exercise.

If this Bill is to be world class, it must tackle the issue of modern day slavery on a global scale. When we as a country are implicated, it is no good turning our backs to where the majority of the slavery occurs. I shall, therefore, focus on the issue of the supply chain.

There are various estimates of the number of slaves globally—as high a figure as 30 million has been given, yet that is probably an underestimate. It is appalling to think just how profitable this despicable trade in human beings is, generating an estimated $150 billion each year. We must use the Bill to send a clear signal, not just at home but abroad, that criminals who perpetrate these crimes will not prosper in our country. We do not want them to prosper through any intervention of ours either inside or outside this country. The Bill will become the first Act of its kind in Europe, and tougher sentences for this human piracy will help send that strong signal. The Bill undertakes an important exercise in streamlining existing legislation and ensuring that there are no gaps in the law through which criminals can evade prosecution.

Through William Wilberforce, we have an important legacy to live up to; he had the courage and moral determination over years and years to ensure that this country got rid of terrible injustice perpetrated on poor people outside our shores. That is the spirit in which we need to look at supply chains and how they impact on people—abroad, but in ways in which we as a country are implicated.

Mindful of our reputation as one of the leading legal jurisdictions in the world—we have a proud history of the rule of law—we can do no less than pick up from where Wilberforce left off and continue his fight against this inhumanity, wherever it occurs. It can be a difficult issue for any Government. We obviously do not want to burden business unnecessarily, but I genuinely doubt whether British businesses out there would knowingly associate themselves with this blight on humanity. Despite our current efforts, however, businesses often do not have clear oversight of their complex supply chains. We saw that in the experience of Primark, caught up in the collapse of the factory in Rana Plaza. It might well have undergone due diligence on the seventh floor of that factory to establish that the working conditions were all right on the floor it had contracted for garment workers to work; it realised in hindsight, however, that it needed to go beyond that and to look at the floors above and below to see what was going on there.

As I say, not a day goes by without an example of modern day slavery taking place, and the problem with the supply chains should be properly exposed. I want to put a case study briefly before the House, and it is thanks to the Human Trafficking Foundation that I am able to do so. The person cannot be named, but is otherwise present.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I may be able to help. He can be named, but we cannot point out that the person is present—that is the difference.

[Mrs Spelman]

I think that the record will reveal to the wider world the true position. I am grateful to the Human Trafficking Foundation for bringing these cases to our attention.

One particular example shows why the supply chain issue must be tackled. It comes from the Islington law centre, and it concerns 10 Hungarian men who were trafficked to the UK. They were told that they would earn £250 a week with good accommodation and food, but they received only £10 a week and two packets of cigarettes. They were told nothing more until they had paid back the £400-worth of flight costs incurred in coming here. It was the equivalent of 40 weeks’ work just to pay that back. They worked first in a slaughterhouse, then a bed factory and then a tile factory. Interestingly enough, that bed factory was a supplier to the household name John Lewis, which terminated the contract when it found out, and the bed factory has now been closed. The labourers, the factory and John Lewis were all exploited by the traffickers, and in their own way they have all been victims.

Only one trafficker was arrested, because the others got away too quickly, and by the time that trafficker had been charged, all the assets had been transferred back to Hungary. That is a prime example of why we need the Bill. As for the issue of the supply chain, I doubt very much that a company such as John Lewis would want to find itself in the same position again—to find that its very high reputation had again been damaged by the discovery that products which were on sale in its stores, and which we could buy, had been produced by slave labour.

We need to balance the debate. Is the Bill a burden on business? Does business want it or not? All the businesses that gave evidence to the Joint Committee made clear that they wanted a level playing field—that they wanted the law to change so that we did not have to depend on best practice, because it would be crystal clear that companies must undertake due diligence to ensure that no part of their supply chain could be touched by modern-day slavery.

The answer to the problem lies with all of us: Governments, companies, employees, consumers and shareholders, all working together. We need to require Britain’s public companies to engage with their shareholders on their supply chains in their annual reports by amending the Companies Act 2006, which would create the level playing field that the businesses that have been harmed say they want to see. That was what the Joint Committee recommended to the Government. From now on, British corporate governance and social responsibility ought explicitly to include human rights in supply chains. How companies deal with the issue in detail, along with their shareholders, customers and employers, should be left to their good conscience, but the requirement in law would be there. I certainly have faith that British companies will do the right thing; they usually do.

In the end, the change requires just five words. That way, Britain will not turn its back on millions of suffering people around the world. We will be able to shine a light on those shadowy areas through the time-tested strength of our great legal system, and we will challenge all nations that respect the rule of law to follow suit, and join Britain in consigning this horrific crime to the history books once and for all.

Student Visas

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, I call John Glen.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

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