Criminal Finances Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I rise to address the new clauses that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) spoke about and new clause 6. I will begin by speaking to the new clauses tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend and the measures tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who co-chairs the all-party group on anti-corruption, on the failure to prevent economic crime.

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) knows far more about such things than I do, and he made his argument well, but I reinforce the point that there is a strong feeling among the public, because if large companies are seen to be part of some very serious criminal activity, people are confused about why those companies and the senior people within them have not been prosecuted for those serious offences. If people look across the Atlantic, they see that America does manage to prosecute senior bankers for such offences, so they think, “We see all our banks being fined in America for being guilty of rigging various markets, yet why are no senior directors of those companies being prosecuted here? Why are those banks not being prosecuted?” That exposes the fact that our law, as the hon. Gentleman explained, has become out of date. It seems horribly unfair that the Serious Fraud Office finds it comparatively easy to prosecute very small companies and their directors, when it is clear who the controlling minds are, but that when we see far more serious offences being committed by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of much larger companies, we cannot quite find enough evidence to prosecute those companies or their very senior directors.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

In the US context, does my hon. Friend accept that there is often a political element there, despite the division of power? The prosecutor is often looking to make a name for himself by taking on a big bank—often, it has to be said, a big non-US bank. It is a particular concern—not just in the banking world but beyond—that overseas companies tend to be fair game as far as prosecutions are concerned. There is actually a rather different regime there, and it might not necessarily point to a desire and a need for a change in UK law.

[Nigel Mills]

I agree with my right hon. Friend’s point. It is interesting that the United States seems to favour prosecuting large banks and large companies that are internationally owned rather than US-owned. I am sure that the Foreign Office is trying to work out whether that is an unfair, anti-competitive move by the US. He is right that we should not try to read too much across from the US system into ours, but I was trying to make the point that people are confused about why people are prosecuted in the US but not over here.

That takes me back to the point that it seems unfair that while we can prosecute directors of small businesses, we cannot prosecute when we see much more serious offences in large businesses. That is why I support extending the model of the failure to prevent that we already have in place for bribery and that we are adding for tax evasion. We are talking about other very serious economic crimes, and it is hard to make a distinction as to why we would rank some of these offences as less important or serious such that we do not take the power to prosecute so that we prevent serious fraud, for instance.

I welcome the Government’s consultation on those issues, and it is right that it would be somewhat premature to legislate before we get the outcome of the consultation, as that might make a mockery of the idea of consulting. It is a real pity that although this Bill is the ideal vehicle in which to act, we cannot, because of the timing, make the change that we want. We will be relying on another relevant Bill being introduced later in this Parliament so that we can finally make the change. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, it would be helpful if the Minister would make some encouraging noises about how seriously the Government take such matters and when we might expect to see some progress following the consultation, if the Government were minded to proceed with legislation.

I will take a bit of a leap from that topic to the subject of new clause 6—our grouping is interesting. For quite a long while, I thought that I was supporting Government policy by encouraging our overseas territories and Crown dependencies to adopt the same transparency regarding beneficial ownership that we are putting in place for the UK through the Bill. The previous Prime Minister was absolutely right to make efforts to get those territories and dependencies to agree to having transparent registers. I think that we all welcome the fact that the territories have moved a fair way in agreeing to have registers and reliable information on the beneficial owners of companies operating there. We all congratulate them on that, and look forward to that being in place; we all recognise that it will be a great step forward for various law enforcement authorities to be able to get that information relatively speedily to help prosecutions here. However, that does not go far enough, and we recognise that by saying in new clause 6 that we want a transparent register.

--- Later in debate ---

I feel strongly about this because we are affected when there are stories about money being hidden in these territories. I was in Tajikistan on a parliamentary visit, where a very effective toll road has been built between the two main cities. The only problem is that the revenue from the tolls end up in a British Virgin Islands company. Nobody quite knows who owns it, but let us just say that it is owned in such a way that it is unlikely that the Tajik authorities will be scrutinising it too hard. People say, “It’s you; the UK is allowing our toll money, which we pay, to be stolen and siphoned off to one of these strange territories.” That may or may not be true.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend makes a strong and powerful case, but does he not recognise the distinction between privacy and secrecy? No one wants an entirely secret element, but most people who indulge in banking, whether in an overseas territory or anywhere else, expect a certain amount of privacy. There is no question but that we would expect law enforcement, the police and the tax authorities to have access to these registers. My hon. Friend has been fair in making the point that ultimately a lot of these issues should be constitutional questions for the territories; these measures should not be imposed on them by the UK. On the notion that anyone should have access to that information beyond the authorities I mentioned, as they would in his Tajikistan example, surely he can understand the reluctance for that to happen, particularly in the globalised financial world in which we live, and particularly if the same does not apply elsewhere.

[Nigel Mills]

I accept that we hear the privacy argument a lot—I am sure that it is made in the UK context as well—but we have taken the decision to have transparent registers so that we know who the ultimate beneficial owners of these entities are. If I think through the scenarios in which people would have a right to privacy, I can perhaps see that there might be a good reason not to publish if there is a real issue of individual safety, but I struggle to find many other situations for which there is a good argument for people being able to establish entities or other bodies in the overseas territories without being clear about who the ultimate owner is. If someone owns a company here or is a shareholder, that has to be public. That transparency exists for any kind of entity here, so I am not sure why a different argument ought to apply for our dependencies. In weighing the right to privacy against the right to ensure that we are not letting dirty, corrupt, criminal money into the system, we have to err on the latter side of the equation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I rise to support new clause 6, to which I added my name in the full confidence that I was merely endorsing what I understood to be Government policy on ensuring transparency on these matters in the overseas territories, that policy having been announced by the previous Prime Minister. I find myself genuinely puzzled, therefore, about why that is apparently no longer Government policy, and I wish to raise some issues and put some questions that I hope the Minister can answer so as to reassure me and other hon. Members who have supported the new clause in good faith that there are good reasons why it should not go forward.

First, I thought that the argument about transparency had been established. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) suggested that transparency would, in itself, be an undesirable thing for the overseas territories to have to undertake, but it seems to me that we might well have applied that argument to the position in the UK. Had we accepted that argument, we would not have taken action here in the UK to require transparency.

[Mark Field]

It is fair enough that I be allowed to defend myself. I was making the point that while I favoured full transparency towards law enforcement agencies and the tax authorities, I did not support there being a full, open and public register at this stage, because I supported the idea of banking privacy.

[Nick Herbert]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying what he said, but my point still stands, which is that we have taken action in the UK to require such publication. Why is it right in the UK but wrong in the overseas territories? That was the point I was seeking to make. Perhaps the Minister can explain.

Secondly, I understand that constitutional objections have been raised to the new clause. The argument is that it would be wrong to insist that the overseas territories take action. If so, why did we propose it in the first place? As a result, hon. Members like me now find themselves on the wrong side of the Government’s opinion, when we thought we were supporting a policy in our manifesto. If there is a constitutional objection, was it not surprising that the previous Prime Minister announced the policy of transparency for the overseas territories?

Is it even right that the British Government never impose policies on our overseas territories? In 2000, the Government, by Order in Council, decriminalised homosexuality in the overseas territories. I doubt that many Members would oppose that policy, although I suspect it was opposed in many of the overseas territories. Do hon. Members say that the British Government were wrong to do that? Murder might still be a capital offence in some of the overseas territories had the Government not insisted on the abolition of such capital crimes in 1991. The principle is established that the Government are constitutionally entitled and have in practice, where there is an overriding public policy justification, legislated in relation to the overseas territories.

The third argument advanced against this measure is that the overseas territories are doing it anyway. We are told that it is not necessary to back new clause 6 because the overseas territories are well on their way to doing the right thing, but that takes us back to the question of what it is that they are doing. If they are producing registers, that is welcome, but my question still stands: why did we think transparency was a good thing, but now no longer believe that it is a good thing? We have reset that bar. We are now saying that the overseas territories are on their way to doing the right thing, but the right thing is now defined merely as the register, and it is no longer transparency.

I think the reason this has happened has been revealed by some of my hon. Friends for entirely honourable reasons, and it is that some of these overseas territories and therefore some of my hon. Friends fear that there will be a competitive disadvantage for the overseas territories if they are required to produce a public register as the new clause suggests, in the way they will eventually be required to do, and as the Government suggested at one point that they should.

However, let me say simply that if we accept the argument that being at a competitive disadvantage is an obstacle to taking measures against tax evasion or corruption, this House would do very little on those issues. It can always be argued that we could be putting our own banking arrangements or those of other countries at risk by taking steps deemed to be in the public interest on the grounds that they could produce corruption. To turn that around, if we accept the argument on competitive disadvantage, there would be no reason why the House should not reverse all the measures taken on banking transparency and establish some sort of regime that used to pertain in countries like as Switzerland where there would be wholesale banking secrecy, because that would be good for business and it would place us at a competitive advantage by comparison with other countries. It could be argued that such a thing would be entirely acceptable.

Clearly, that would not be acceptable. We have taken the opposite view: there is a reason to demand transparency and that transparency is essential in order to tackle corruption. We are talking about measures that are necessary to protect not just the UK taxpayer but the poorest countries in the world, which are disadvantaged and penalised because people are able to siphon off funds unlawfully and immorally and shelter them in various regimes. We are apparently saying that we are willing to accept that, because if we take action against it, some other regime will perform that immoral task. That seems to me to be a wrong position for the House of Commons to take, and if it were accepted, we would not have a Bill such as this one or any transparency measures at all.

I therefore hope that the Government will reconsider their position. New clause 6 is entirely reasonable, providing a period of time for the overseas territories to comply with the transparency requirement. I, for one, will take a great deal of convincing that something that was held by the Government to be desirable and that we hold to be desirable and right in our own country is wrong for the overseas territories.

[Mark Field]

I have spent the last 16 years as the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, and six of those years as an adviser to an international law firm with a substantial Isle of Man presence—Cains. Over the last two years, I have been the vice-chairman for international affairs for my party and have therefore had many dealings with and much knowledge of these sorts of issues.

I fervently agree with the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) that there has been a significant journey—indeed, a massive change—with respect to the mentality around beneficial ownership, getting registers together and having a certain openness about those registers. It is a journey that is ongoing.

I think it realistic to believe—my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) presented some powerful arguments in this regard—that there is a real risk of competitive disadvantage applying to a number of the overseas territories. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out, and as was recognised by the right hon. Member for Don Valley, the Crown dependencies are in a different legal and constitutional position. They are not part of the United Kingdom. They have their own legitimate and democratic Governments, and I think it would be quite wrong for the Government to railroad them, whether by means of Orders in Council or through the Bill.

My instinct is that we shall return to these issues. I support the Government: I do not think that the time is ripe for a provision such as new clause 6. It would, however, be wrong to assume that a huge amount of work has not been done quietly behind the scenes. I know from my own experience, and the experience of many other people, that in recent years there has been a sea change in the attitudes of a number of the overseas territories, and certainly in those of the Crown dependencies, many of which are ahead of the game when it comes to elements of the transparency agenda. I think there is a real risk—which was very well described by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk—that if we were to impose this provision on the overseas territories in such short order, a huge amount of business would leave those shores. Some would say, perhaps with some legitimacy, “We do not want to have this business here.”

I believe that we should continue the work of recent years, and consider global protocols that would prevent competitive disadvantage from coming into play. Surely that would be a better regime. I think it entirely wrong to perceive all our overseas territories as terrible tax havens where illicit work goes on. They have an astonishing amount of technology, which I have seen at first hand in, among others, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands, to enable them to co-operate instantaneously with law enforcement and tax authorities in the event of any suspicious transactions.

I hope that new clause 6 will not be pressed to a vote, or that the Government will win if it is. However, I also hope that the Minister will give us some idea of how he sees the future, given the ongoing conversations about a global protocol that we could all support.

[Richard Arkless]

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). His homeward commutes on Thursday evenings fill me with the utmost envy. Perhaps he would enjoy my regular seven-hour journeys up and down. However, he made a very interesting speech. Indeed, the contributions from Members on both sides of the House have been very informed and enlightening.

I do not want to take up too much time, but I want to touch briefly on some of the new clauses before I hand over to the other Front Benchers. New clauses 2, 3, 14, 15 and 4 extend the principle of corporate economic crime, which has been discussed at length today. The Bill incorporates a failure to prevent such crime, but only in relation to tax evasion. As others have said, it would appear sensible, given the current climate and the public mood, to extend that provision so that the liability reaches the tops of organisations.

I have mentioned this in the House before, but, as a lawyer who had some in-house experience working for a large retail bank, I can say with the utmost certainty that sticking one’s head above the parapet and telling the bank that it is wrong is not the course of action that is most conducive to one’s career. I did not fall foul of that myself—I avoided that particular pitfall—but I think that I probably would have done so at some future time.

I think the public would demand that the concept of corporate economic crime be extended beyond tax evasion. I think they would be surprised to learn that the bank would not be held liable for LIBOR-rigging, for instance. Of course, the individuals concerned were prosecuted under different laws, but there was no corporate criminal liability for the boards of directors or for the banks themselves. I do not think the public would thank us for a corporate economic offence that extended only to tax evasion. It is tax evasion, for goodness’ sake. I think the public would expect companies such as banks and other large organisations to be held criminally liable for something as obvious as tax evasion. It is a great shame that the Bill has not grasped the nettle. The Minister may, of course, have something miraculous to say. I suspect, however, that we are not going to have an extension of corporate economic crime, which is a real shame.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government seem a bit confused about whether they do or do not want to play their part in creating a fair, ethical and transparent finance system. As for the suggestion that the UK lacks the constitutional power to legislate for the Crown dependencies, we have heard examples from both sides of the House of when such powers have been used.

[Mark Field]

The specific problem is about legislating for the overseas territories rather than the Crown dependencies. I think it is understood across the board that this does not apply to the Crown dependencies. We all recognise that significant progress has been made in recent years, so will the hon. Lady pledge at this juncture not to press new clause 6 to a Division? Let us see further progress in the months and years to come that will hopefully ensure that we move towards a global protocol that keeps everyone happy.

[Dr Huq]

First, I would like to finish what I was trying to say. I was coming to the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, which I realise are two different things. I would also like to hear what the Minister has to say, because at earlier stages of the Bill he was conciliatory and we backed down on some things.

We are dealing with not just new clause 6 but new clause 17. We are looking at both overseas territories and Crown dependencies because, internationally, the UK will be able to lecture and persuade others to adopt transparent finance practices only if its overseas territories and Crown dependencies stop engaging in—

Investigatory Powers Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The Investigatory Powers Bill will provide a world-leading framework for the use of investigatory powers by law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies. It will strengthen the safeguards for the use of those powers, including through the introduction of a double lock for the most intrusive powers, and it will create a powerful new body responsible for oversight of them. This is the most important piece of legislation this Government will bring before the House.

I will turn first to the amendments tabled in the other place by Baroness Hollins. As we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Government will hold a landmark public consultation relating to the governance of the press and its relationship with the public, police and politicians. This consultation will give everyone with an interest in these matters an opportunity to have their say on this vital issue, which affects each and every one of us in the country. I hope the whole House will welcome the announcement, which shows the Government’s commitment to addressing the issues and recommendations set out in the Leveson report in the most appropriate way.

This is an emotive subject for Members, in both this House and the other place, where Earl Howe set out the Government’s position in relation to this issue during the debate on Report. I hope the House will indulge me while I set out the key points. As I said at the start of my remarks, the Investigatory Powers Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation the Government will bring forward. It will provide a world-leading framework for the use of investigatory powers by law enforcement and security agencies and, in doing so, protect this nation from some of the most serious crimes and threats. We should not forget that the Bill will also strengthen the safeguards for the use of those powers, and it will create a powerful new body responsible for that oversight.

We heard yesterday in the Lords from peers on all sides about the importance of the Bill and the careful cross-party scrutiny that has got it into the very good shape that it comes back to the House in today. The Bill will provide vital tools for our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies. It is not, and never was, intended to provide for the regulation of the press.

Whatever the merits of the provisions introduced by Baroness Hollins, this is not the place for them. Their inclusion is a distraction from the very important aims of the Bill. Moreover, they threaten to undermine an important provision in the Bill.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

While I entirely accept that this is not the place to deal with those matters, I hope the Minister will recognise that there is very strong feeling on these Benches that the issues in relation to Leveson do need to be dealt with as a matter of some urgency. While I agree that we should not, therefore, accept the amendment, I very much hope that he and other Ministers will ensure that these matters are brought to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, so that they can be fully and properly dealt with.

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I do, of course, recognise the strength of feeling about press regulation, but I also recognise the strength of feeling about making sure we give our security services and our police forces the tools to tackle the paedophiles, the serious and organised criminals and the terrorists who threaten the state and my constituents.

Criminal Finances Bill

Mark Field Excerpts

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

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for this informed and valuable debate. We have heard strong and important contributions, and there has been support from both sides of the House for the principles behind the Bill. We will have interesting and strong discussions in Committee.

As my hon. Friend the Minister for Security emphasised at the start of the debate, there can be no doubt about the seriousness of the threats of terrorism and organised crime, or about the scale of the challenge that we face in combating them. As of July last year, about 5,800 organised crime groups were operating in the UK. Fraud due to organised crime is thought to cost this country about £9 billion, and the social and economic costs of illegal drug supplies are estimated to be some £10.7 billion a year. As has been said, these are not faceless, victimless crimes; they have an impact on people we know and those who live in our constituencies.

As we have heard, the UK is a fantastic place to do business, and the Government want to maintain that. We want to send out a clear message across the country that we are open for business, but if we are to maintain our position, we must ensure that this is one of the cleanest and safest places to invest. We need to send a message to those who would seek to corrupt legitimate trade.

I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and I particularly welcome the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) to her Front-Bench role. I also welcome the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) to their roles. I was pleased to hear that the Minister for Security has had the opportunity to discuss the Bill with the official Opposition and Scottish National party Members prior to the debate—indeed, some of the paperwork was shared some two months ago—and I know that we will continue that conversation during the passage of the Bill.

It is clear that Members on both sides of the House want to contribute to make sure that we end up with a robust, strong system of which this country will be proud. Almost without exception, hon. Members who have spoken have understood the importance of these powers and been supportive of the Bill. Of course, it is right that on such issues as money laundering and terrorist finance, the House should present a united front, as it is doing on the principle behind the Bill. I welcome the fact that in our consultation on the Bill, a diverse group of stakeholders—ranging from the major banks, which have been mentioned today, to law enforcement investigators, prosecutors and civil society groups—have given an overwhelmingly positive response to its provisions.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I apologise that I was not able to contribute to the debate itself. I am afraid that I am a veteran of the consideration of the Bill that became the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Although I accept that there is a great deal of unity regarding some of this Bill’s provisions, the real issue is how enforceable those provisions are. It is important that the Bill is scrutinised very carefully in Committee because there is a danger that although we will put on to the statute book a lot of new laws, some of which might be regarded as rather draconian, they will not be properly enforced by the police, or will be ruled out by the judiciary when matters come to court. That is the one caveat I would set out, although it is right to say that these powers are important, especially the new ones in relation to counter-terrorism, which were not envisaged at the time of the 2002 Act.

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, particularly by outlining the importance of the Bill’s Committee stage to ensure that Members have a chance to have an input into the debate, as indeed they have had this afternoon. He should have great faith in my hon. Friend the Minister for Security, who is determined to work with colleagues to ensure that the Bill is robust. The Bill gives a clear message to those who want to try to usurp our system that that will not continue—we will not allow it. Although we are a country that is open for business, we are also a country that believes in fairness and that will ensure that fairness prevails.

A couple of core issues have been raised by a number of Members, particularly about the overseas territories. We heard speeches from the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), and the former Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). We have agreed that UK law enforcement and tax authorities will have, in real time, unrestricted and secure access to things such as the beneficial ownership initiative, and information about corporate and legal entities incorporated in the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies.

The right hon. Lady outlined the excellent work of David Cameron and the strong message that he gave when he was Prime Minister. This is something that the current Prime Minister is determined to continue. We will ensure that there is an end to people usurping the law. It is important that we work closely with our colleagues around the world to ensure that we have a strong and robust system. We have taken a lead on this. Those territories have agreed that they must commit to new global standards in tax transparency so that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can investigate any untoward activity. As a result, later this year, HMRC will have new data on billions of pounds of accounts held in the overseas territories by UK taxpayers. This is a big step forward. I know that we as a Government are determined to ensure that we stamp out that kind of behaviour.

Funding was mentioned by a number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Leicester East. The NCA’s funding has increased from £448 million to nearly £478 million over the past year and police budgets have been protected. Funding for HMRC has also increased—up to £3.6 billion, with the £241 million input that was mentioned earlier.

I can be clear that we are determined to ensure that the police and the NCA have the resources that they need to be able to look at all this in the round, including IT issues. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I use the debate to discuss the police funding formula, but he will have to excuse me for resisting that temptation for now. Over the past few weeks, I have written to all chief constables and police and crime commissioners to ask them to come to talk to me as we seek to deliver our election manifesto commitment of a fair funding formula for police, which we will do.

In response to comments about the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, I am pleased to announce that the British Virgin Islands and the Turks and Caicos Islands have just—conveniently, as I am here at the Dispatch Box this afternoon—committed themselves to the initiative on beneficial ownership, which many hon. Members have spoken about today. All the overseas territories have now agreed to have central registries, which will be accessible to law enforcement authorities. We will continue to push for all countries to introduce public registers. This is good news, and we will continue to work on it.

Persecution of Religious Minorities: Middle East

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

That is absolutely right. In fairness, the Government have made some movement towards doing that. The Minister might be able to respond on that point. I think there are steps afoot to ensure that some of the monuments can be restored and some money sent that way to make it happen.

I would like to put on the record thanks to many organisations—I hope I do not leave any of them out. They are the churches from my area that support the middle east physically, practically and prayerfully, Release International, which does great work with Christians, Open Doors, which works in Christian solidarity worldwide, the Barnabas Fund, and the Elim charities that work on behalf of Christians across the whole middle east.

I mentioned other ethnic minority groups. The Baha’is in Iraq and Iran are subjected to unbelievable discrimination and hatred by those in positions of power. Let us look across the cauldron of the middle east and think of all the countries that are there. Indeed, eight of the 12 worst countries for persecution of Christians listed in a report by Open Doors are in the middle east. That is a list that no one wants to be in, because those are the places where persecution is more rife, rampant and deliberate. The right to freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right that nearly all the countries across the middle east have ratified and have made a commitment to uphold, but the reality is very different, with lots of lip service being paid.

When one group of individuals is discriminated against or persecuted on the basis of its religion or belief, that often signals conditions in which all but the deemed orthodox are oppressed and persecuted for their beliefs by the Government and/or non-state actors. Clearly, we must focus on those countries in the middle east that have ratified the fundamental human rights—referred to by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—but where we do not see much evidence of that ratification. Let us have evidence from those countries that have committed themselves to human rights freedoms—unfortunately, they do not always follow through.

Plurality of religion and belief is a crucial ingredient for a stable society, and the Foreign Office recognises that in its pledges for UN Human Rights Council membership from 2017 and in its current human rights structure, where the freedom of religion or belief team is housed under the human rights for a stable world stream. Last year the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief participated in a conference in New York, which almost 100 delegates from some 65 countries across the world attended. That was an opportunity for all those people to come together. In this House we come together as groups, and we encouraged similar groups from other countries across the world to come together, including from Canada, the United States, south America, Africa, the middle east, the far east and some of the eastern countries of Europe.

In countries where freedom of religion or belief is systematically violated, societal tension and violence frequently follow, leading to a more polarised society, with individuals retreating into their dogmas. Let us focus, again, on the group of which I am chair. The group had the chance to carry out an inquiry and produce a booklet on Pakistan and on how freedom of religious belief is looked upon there. The more we look at Pakistan, the more we feel for our Christian brothers and sisters and for other ethnic and religious minorities there. I know that the Minister has read the report, and I appreciate the time he has taken to do so in preparation for the debate. From a job and an education point of view, those who adhere to a religion outside the norm are the lowest of all the castes there are in Pakistan. The booklet, which we produced just last year, is another indication of why we need to look more deeply at Pakistan, Iran and Iraq.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously right to focus on the middle east—indeed, he is talking about Pakistan and Iran. Is it also worth remembering, however, that a significant number of religious minorities who come to Europe—to this country—continue some of those battles here on home soil, and that we also need to keep an eye on that? I was struck by something that happened when I was in a school classroom in Marylebone five or six years ago. I was already being told that Shi’a and Sunni Muslim schoolchildren were ganging up against each other in the playground. We have to recognise that a lot of the problems may be transported closer to home.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman brings a salient point into the debate. Yes, we need to be aware of that. We need to be aware of integration into society and of how we can do it well. We also need to be aware of the problems that come off the back of that.

When working with partners in the middle east, it is crucial that we discuss means for individuals to be free within their own nation’s context to manifest their religion or belief and that we build and implement action plans for each context. Although traditionally less of a focus in political and diplomatic discussion, long-term strategies that integrate lessons from the past must be encouraged and supported in Iraq and Syria and across the whole region. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that. To truly secure human rights and restore long-term peace, not just emergency responses but a long game and a considered perspective are necessary.

As chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, I encourage DFID—the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) referred to this as well—to be sensitive to the complexities that religion brings, particularly to political action, which in many cases is contradictory to international law, that people use religion to justify. Even in the recent Turkish coup, we saw turmoil used as an opportunity to target and attack churches in Trabzon and Malatya. Using that and countless other incidents across the middle east to dismiss religion as too tricky and to determine that it is the main cause of violence and wrongdoing is simplistic. The underlying political motives must be recognised and tackled.

Let us just look at the coup in Turkey. The coup is over, but many, looking from the outside in, will say, “Is this a chance to suppress human rights in Turkey?” Many of us feel that it could well be a chance to clamp down on all opposition. Is that what we want? Is it what should be happening? No, it is not. Is Turkey a safe place for religious groups at this moment in time? The evidence says that it is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

If things have changed, that is good, but the evidence so far indicates that perhaps they have not. I am being respectful. We have asked for a meeting about this issue, and I hope we will have it with the appropriate Minister. I think that is the Minister who is here today, now he is in place. We look forward to having the opportunity to develop the 10 points we raised with our inquiry. They indicate that some things need to be put right.

[Mark Field]

We all have a great passion for the idea that there is terrible religious persecution across the world, but it is legitimate for any immigration authority, which is the Home Office here, to recognise that a minority of people—a small minority, but none the less a minority—will try to use persecution as a means of getting in when that is not justified. To have a process in place is entirely legitimate from a Home Office point of view.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that there needs to be a process. We are not saying that there should not be a process; we are saying that it needs to be effective and to take into account the trauma of those who have been persecuted. It needs to reflect an understanding of the circumstances and why they are here. It is about how we do that in a compassionate way that gets the answers to the necessary questions and enables that person, whoever they may be, to apply for asylum and be granted it.

Wilson Doctrine

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Before I start on the substantive argument, which is fairly simple, I will say one thing to the House. Those who are interested in this matter should look not just at the judgment that was handed down by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, but at the transcript of the hearing.

I attended part of the public session. It was an illuminating process and did not necessarily give one much confidence. As the House will know, I have been involved in this subject for many years and am loth to criticise courts, but I was not impressed by the IPT’s understanding of the technology that is available to the agencies to enable them to sift and limit the damage that is done by their intrusion of privacy. To me, that seemed rather important.

Secondly, it is apparent that the ruling means something very specific. It means that the inquiry that was brought by Baroness Jones, George Galloway and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is very unlikely to receive an answer because if something is not illegal, they will not be told about it. That is the rule. The hon. Lady will not be told whether something has happened. She will be told only if something illegal has been done. One of the outcomes of this situation is that it will prevent her or any of the complainants getting an answer.

James Eadie, the very skilful lawyer who argued on behalf of the Government, made the point that the Wilson doctrine has no legal basis whatever, is not practical—that is why the tribunal’s lack of understanding was very important—and, therefore, is not binding on the agencies. That is a really serious finding. He spent the best part of two days in incredibly convoluted argument. The only inference that I can draw from the incredible effort he put into getting this outcome is that they had something to hide and that what was happening in secret was a statement that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion or one of the other two complainants had been intercepted.

In the course of the exchanges with the judges, James Eadie was very illuminating on the attitude to this matter. He said, in effect, that if the Prime Minister had come to the House and explained the truth of the matter, post-RIPA, he would have been committing an

“act of political hara-kiri, or something quite close to it.”

That was the attitude of the tribunal to the Wilson doctrine.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, but is not one concern that the Wilson doctrine is 50 years old? It was written in a very different world, before the internet. He has drawn various conclusions from what was said, such as that the Government had something to hide. It might simply have been that the Government recognised that the legislative process, which we are updating, was not fit for the purpose of a modern-day Wilson doctrine.

[Mr Davis]

I take my right hon. Friend’s point, but that is why I urged Members to read the transcript. What I said is very apparent from the transcript. He is, of course, right that there has been a huge transformation. Metadata, which I will come back to later, simply did not exist in their current form in Wilson’s day. Many of the things that are now available, including email, did not exist in his day. A whole series of things that we all assumed had been swept up in the Wilson doctrine have not been swept up in the Wilson doctrine. That is why the Home Secretary’s case that it is the same as what was enunciated by Harold Wilson all those years ago is simply not tenable. I will come back to that point, too.

Members will notice that the Press Gallery is nearly empty. Over the past week or so, the newspapers have been very derogatory about this case and the argument that we are putting. They say, “Why should MPs be treated any differently from anybody else?” Those, by the way, are the very same newspapers that were in an uproar of anger about the fact that somebody had checked out the metadata of one of their journalist’s telephones. Perhaps they were right in that, but it is an odd dichotomy.

Refugee Crisis in Europe

Mark Field Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

We are here today to debate the response of the UK Government. I have already said that the SNP accepts that the UK Government have been generous in aid terms, but that is only part of the picture. What we are here today to discuss is the adequacy of the UK Government’s approach overall.

I found it very worrying that yesterday the Prime Minister seemed to conflate issues regarding what is a humanitarian crisis with economic migration and, even more worryingly, security and terrorist issues. This seems to me to be a cynical attempt to distract people from the moral imperative presented to us by recent events. Going on the evidence of our mailbags and emails over the last few days, I do not think that cynicism is going to succeed in the face of the fundamental decency of the people of the UK.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

I should like to make a little more progress; then I might give way.

I do not believe that people in the United Kingdom will tolerate a situation in which the Government simply wash their hands, Pontius Pilate-like, and walk by on the other side of the street in the face of the desperate plight of those people who are now in Europe. The point has already been made that the UK has a proud history of taking in refugees, from the Kindertransport of the 1930s through to the Ugandan refugees in the late ’70s. Even Mrs Thatcher’s Government took in 10,000 Vietnamese boat people after a bit of pressure was applied. The people of the United Kingdom will be ashamed if this Government do not relent and take a fair share of the refugees who have come to Europe.

We should not use the fact that we are not part of the EU’s borderless Schengen agreement, or that we are not at present part of the relocation initiative, to distract from what is a moral imperative to reach out to those who are suffering and in need, and who are coming to our relatively wealthy continent of Europe seeking sanctuary. They are, of course, coming to the poorest part of Europe, the south, and the people in the south, particularly in Greece, need the support of the richer nations in the north if they are to cope with the crisis that is unfolding on their doorstep.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

I should like to make a little more progress.

At last week’s emergency humanitarian summit in Edinburgh, the First Minister made it clear that Scotland was willing to take its fair share of refugees, as agreed by the UK Government, to help some of the most vulnerable people in need. We welcome the Prime Minister’s shift in attitude, and his late recognition that the UK has a role to play, as an important first step. However, the 20,000 refugees over five years should not be seen as a cap or an upper limit and, crucially, we must also play our part in responding to the crisis on the southern European coastline.

We believe that the UK should opt into the EU relocation scheme. The Prime Minister has made it clear that one-year resettlement will be funded from the UK’s international aid budget, but we are seeking urgent clarification on the impact that that will have on the work of existing aid projects. The refugee situation is now at crisis point, and stretching UK support and refugee intake over the next five years will mean that a number of people who could be helped immediately will be left without the vital help they need.

The Scottish Government want to work constructively with the UK Government, and the First Minister has written to the Prime Minister outlining the proceedings of Friday’s summit in Scotland, which focused on some of the practical issues involved in integrating those who come here seeking protection. Today, the first meeting took place of a taskforce that will bring together stakeholders from across Scotland in the areas of local government, housing, health services, language support and social services. The taskforce will try to co-ordinate Scotland’s humanitarian and practical response. These are reserved matters, however, and we cannot act until the UK Government act.

The UK is increasingly isolated in the international community over these issues, and the international community is stepping up to the job of sheltering refugees. Over the past 24 hours we have heard that the following places will increase their share of refugees: France to 24,000, Germany to more than 31,000, Quebec to 3,650, Venezuela to 2,000 and New Zealand to 600. His Holiness Pope Francis said at the weekend that every Catholic parish in Europe should take a family of refugees, as should every religious community in Europe.

[Mark Field]

Does the hon. and learned Lady not recognise that deeply seared in the collective German psyche is the memory of the 9 million or so displaced German civilians as the second world war came to a close, and so to make a comparison between this country and Germany is wrong? I do not say that in an unkind way, because when my own late mother was a five-year-old girl she was one of that number. She was forced to leave a village outside Breslau, as it was at the time—it is now called Wroclaw—where my forefathers had lived since the 1720s. To make that comparison between the German psyche on these sorts of issues and the UK is very unfair.

[Joanna Cherry]

I do not think it is unfair to draw an unfavourable comparison with the generous response of the Germans. I accept that they have a rather different history from us—there are many reasons for that. We have benefited in the past—

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins]

I am afraid that I have very little time left. I just want to make a couple more remarks.

The Home Secretary was absolutely right to focus on the efforts that have been made by the Government in conjunction with the French Government in Calais. This is very important. Although the death of a three-year-old boy touched the heartstrings of everyone all around the world, it has not been the only death this summer. I represent the constituency where the channel tunnel enters this country. Migrants have died seeking to access the channel tunnel to get into this country. That cannot be allowed to continue. We have an obligation to protect our borders and to safeguard the lives of people seeking to enter this country. We need to ensure that the border and the frontier are secure. The Government have provided millions of pounds for proper security fencing, which has safeguarded the channel tunnel site and led to a massive reduction in the disruption of services, which has been a terrible blight on the people in the south-east of England and Kent throughout the summer. The fencing has also prevented people from breaking into the tunnel where they can not only lose their lives but endanger the lives of other people as well. That support, in conjunction with the extra policing effort from the British and French police forces, has been a huge step towards securing the site at Calais.

We all want to see proper humanitarian intervention in the camps as well. No one is advocating that we should let everyone who is at Calais into this country without any checks. If we did so, we would encourage greater numbers of people to make that treacherous journey to get to those camps, believing that simply arriving there is enough to provide them with instant access to the UK. That is not what should be done. There has to be proper processing of people on the sites to determine who are the genuine refugees and asylum seekers. Decisions can then be made about where they should go to seek asylum. That is the next necessary step.

[Mark Field]

I regretted the rather cynical approach of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I fear that it is not entirely fanciful to suggest that some ISIS sympathisers might well be infiltrating this massive flow of refugees with a view to obtaining asylum and becoming sleepers ready to agitate and foment terrorist activities in the west in the years ahead. That is not a fanciful or cynical idea that the Prime Minister has put into our minds. It is something that we should take very seriously, especially given the large numbers that will be coming onto these shores.

[Damian Collins]

I agree that we cannot ignore the security situation, which is why the Prime Minister was right yesterday to address the two things together. We cannot ignore the debate about what is causing this massive migration crisis. This refugee crisis has been caused by an out-of-control war and civil war in Syria and Iraq, which is displacing millions of people. There must be an international solution to stabilise the region and provide safe havens, but we must also consider what other tools we have at our disposal to limit the murder gangs and the genocide being committed by ISIL forces in the region.

We would be doing a massive disservice to the refugees and the people living in these countries if we refuse to consider whether using our armed forces and airstrikes in Syria as we have in Iraq is the only appropriate step to prevent likely murder, the likely displacement of even more people and even more misery. We must consider that alongside our efforts in the region, to provide safe haven in this country and to protect our borders. That is the broad strategy that the Government have set out and they are correct to have done so. I do not think that there is too much of a difference between the positions of those on both sides of the House, but we must consider seriously the efforts to provide more safe havens and ultimately, if necessary, the use of our armed forces if we are to provide a decent service and decent hope for the people living in these countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary on securing this very important debate. The International Development Committee met this morning and agreed to undertake an urgent inquiry into DFID aspects of the refugee crisis. As other Members have said this afternoon, the very strong public response throughout our country surely shows our country at its very best.

Both yesterday and today, we have seen the Government’s response with the new figure of 20,000. I support those who have said that there is urgency about granting access to as many of those 20,000 as possible. With the onset of winter, this is an immediate crisis. I particularly highlight the point made by Save the Children about the need to give the 3,000 unaccompanied children safe haven.

Part of the announcement concerns what the Chancellor said on Sunday about the use of the DFID budget to accept more refugees. That will require very careful scrutiny. The rules on official development assistance are clear: they allow for domestic expenditure to fund refugees for the first 12 months. However, I urge the Government to proceed with caution, for the reasons that Members have set out in this debate. Surely the focus of effective development policy must be to prevent crises from happening in the first place.

There is a balance to be struck. The Home Secretary spoke about the 0.7% commitment and about how, with the growing economy, the amount of cash available will increase. I seek a commitment from the Government that if the costs associated with refugee resettlement exceed the increase in the cash available, they will look elsewhere for the money, including to the contingency reserve.

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, because his Committee should scrutinise such issues very closely. Does he accept that community cohesion should be one of the goals of DFID expenditure? It is right that a safe haven for people who will come to this country—I hope, temporarily—should be done under the DFID budget, rather than through the Department for Communities and Local Government or other Departments.

[Stephen Twigg]

We will certainly examine that matter as part of our inquiry. My instinct is that the current provision for 12 months goes as far as we should. If the Government proposed going beyond that, we would want to look at it in real detail.

The hon. Gentleman brings me to my next point. I am delighted that in my own city of Liverpool, our mayor, Joe Anderson, has responded to the shadow Home Secretary’s call to take 10 refugee families by saying that Liverpool City Council will take 100 refugees. As Joe Anderson put it:

“In Liverpool, a city famous for our warm welcomes and as a safe port in the storm of global conflict, we are prepared to play our part.”

Like other cities, however, Liverpool faces very large cuts in its funding from central Government. It is important that central Government provide support to enable communities across the country to take the refugees.

One of the central themes of this debate is the prevention of and the response to conflict. There is no doubt that we can be proud as a country of reaching the 0.7% target, about which the Home Secretary was right to remind us. We are second only to the United States in what we have contributed in bilateral aid to Syria, and we should be very proud of that. We need to say to our European partners who are nowhere near achieving 0.7% that they should rise to the challenge and match what we have done.

However, I do not believe that this is an either/or situation in which we either fulfil our obligation to 0.7% or take more refugees. In the crisis that we face, we have to do both. We need to say to our European partners that they need to rise to the 0.7% aid challenge, but we need to rise to the challenge of accepting more refugees. The figure of 20,000 is a very important development, but as others have said, the need is immediate, the crisis is now and we should seek to accept refugees as quickly as possible both from the camps in Syria and from among those in Europe. It is only right that we share that burden with our European partners.

Immigration

Mark Field Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Keith Vaz]

Perhaps I am being unkind to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know his position on the EU. I have never believed that enlargement was wrong. That is partly because, of course, I was Minister for Europe at the time. I do not believe that we should constantly say “mea culpa”, and I signed some of the documents that allowed people from Poland, Hungary and other countries in. I think that the arrival of the eastern Europeans helped our economy. It boosted it enormously. It was different from migration from south Asia, because people from eastern Europe tend not to stay. They tend to want to go back—it is only two hours to Warsaw—but people from the subcontinent wanted to stay longer and put down roots. That does not apply to the eastern Europeans.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I do not disagree that the Polish, Hungarian and Lithuanian migrants from 2004 made a tremendous contribution to the British economy, but we were lulled into a false sense of security and have not ensured that the indigenous population are sufficiently skilled to claim the wages that they desire and that are needed in a globally competitive economy. Much of the debate about that is now being conducted in the context of child tax credits and the Budget. What happened was not an entirely unalloyed good, but I am not blaming either the Government or the employers who lulled themselves into that false sense of security.

[Keith Vaz]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. How many times have we heard that we should deal with shortages of chefs in high street restaurants by opening a training school for them, so that people do not need to go to Dhaka or Sylhet to bring in chefs? We just did not do it, and that is a challenge to our education system. To be fair, that is what he has said all along. If we had the skills here, we would not need to bring in people from abroad.

My final point—this is where I am in total agreement with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight—is on the management of the immigration service under the previous Labour Government and, indeed, the Conservative Government before that. There has been a long period of mismanagement. In my very first campaign, under the last but one Conservative Government, bags of unopened mail were discovered in Lunar House in Croydon. He may remember that. We found that there were about half a million unopened letters from solicitors, MPs and others, and the people at Lunar House just did not bother to open them. That was the first real crisis.

Things have improved in the past five years. They are moving in the right direction with regard to the standard of officials, whether at the old UK Border Agency, at UK Visas and Immigration—particularly the international section—or at Border Force. Things are also moving in the right direction with the structural changes of the past four or five years. Perhaps I may mention that all of those were recommended by the Home Affairs Committee, which had called for the abolition of the UKBA for many years. That is why every three months in the previous Parliament—and we will do this again—we published indicators of how the Home Office has been doing on immigration. How big is the backlog? How long does it take to decide on asylum cases? How many people have been removed? Only 3% of people reported to be working and acting illegally have been removed from the country.

The answer is not to send round vans telling people to leave the country. The answer is to ensure that we have an efficient system in which letters from MPs are replied to quickly and decisions are reached. That is the best thing that the Government and the coalition have done in the past five years. They did it much better than the Labour Government, who did not put enough pressure in Parliament on officials and Ministers. The work is bearing fruit. I say to the Minister—the Committee has already said this in our reports—that if the system is managed better, sometimes it is necessary to say no.

I am also fed up with constituents who come in and say, “I’ve been waiting for a reply from the Home Office.” I ask, “How long have you been waiting?” and they say, “Oh, five years.” I say, “Okay. How long have you been in the country?” They say, “10 years.” I ask, “Why did you come to this country?” They say, “I came on a visit.” I then ask, “Why are you still here?” Maybe it is the fact that I am getting older that I am getting grumpier, but what I am really grumpy about is when people do not reply to letters. If they do not reply to solicitors’ letters, people come to see MPs. We have to write and we expect a reply.

The Minister was very helpful in a case I brought to him just two days ago—he rang me up very late at night and I was very grateful that he did. You, Sir Alan, will remember the days when MPs used to be able to go to Immigration Ministers about particular cases and say, “Look, this is really a genuine case. Look at it again and I think you will find that this person ought to be allowed in the country or ought to be allowed to stay here.” Unfortunately, those days are gone, because we regularly ask Immigration Ministers how many times they meet MPs to discuss cases and we do not really get replies. I am afraid that that applies to Immigration Ministers in the last Government as well as in this one. Of course, I shall ask the Minister for more meetings with him. As I said, to give him his due when I ring him up and ask him about a problem, he answers or rings back, and that has not happened very often in the past.

Let us look at the management of the system as well. Let us allow people to stay who genuinely should stay, and people who are working the system should be asked to leave. However, let us do so in a reasonably decent time frame. That would give the best possible impression that the Home Office is acting in a proper way.

These are important issues. The Committee will return to them regularly and we will ensure that we produce reports that will be of value to Parliament. Regarding almost all the reports we have produced on immigration, I say to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that, if he looks at the personalities of those who sit on the Home Affairs Committee, he will see that those Members have almost always been unanimous, because we want common sense and truth on immigration. That is what we really want.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on securing this debate. As the Minister will be well aware, and as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has pointed out, I have long campaigned for a more nuanced message on immigration, which stresses that the reform of the system is too complex to be judged on our delivery, or otherwise, of headline targets for net migration.

The optimist in me takes it as a partial victory for my managed migration campaign that my party’s immigration target in the manifesto has been downgraded from “pledge” to mere “ambition”, or perhaps—I do not know— it is just the narcissist in me who thinks that way. However, this nation’s economic future depends on our taking the right approach towards those who wish to work, study and contribute here, and a rigid cap has created too many perverse outcomes, while also proving ultimately undeliverable.

I will not go over that ground again. Instead, I will talk about two constituency perspectives—quite differing perspectives, it has to be said—on immigration. First, there is the perspective of the square mile, or the City of London. City business entirely accepts that even skilled immigration cannot be unlimited. There are valid concerns about the displacement of skilled workers from the domestic market, although highly skilled immigrants tend to generate economic activity, which encourages further growth and hence creates employment. Attracting highly skilled people here to the UK, even for very short periods, generates a wider footprint through expenditure on hotels, catering, transport, retail and the like.

I am pleased to note that, after a number of worries were raised about specific visa types for skilled professionals, there is recognition among City firms that substantive changes have been made as a result and that, as has been pointed out, Home Office officials are happy to engage constructively. For instance, the list of business visitors doing permissible activities now includes internal auditors and people entering the UK to receive corporate training from a third party. The Schengen pilot scheme for Chinese visitors, which was announced by the Chancellor in October 2013, allows selected Chinese travel agents to apply for UK visas by submitting the Schengen visa form, rather than having to make two separate, costly and time-consuming applications. I give credit to the Home Secretary and the Home Office for their work in that regard. Inevitably, that sort of initiative will ensure that the work for agents is reduced, which will lead to more talented and wealthy tourists coming here to the UK and the rest of the Schengen area.

Meanwhile, the electronic visa waiver system for applicants from Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates will facilitate the entry of high-spending Arab nationals, who have the potential to be investors in infrastructure and other areas. I know that that is close to the hearts of the members of the Home Affairs Committee. The prospect of a new category of entrepreneurial visas for graduates and the development of a tech visa has been welcomed by businesses, particularly in the high-tech sector in the City.

The users of the current system—not only in the financial and professional services sector but across all other areas of business and among those who advise them—remain concerned about its operation. It is vital that this Government are seen to be supporting innovation in IT, animation and filming, life sciences and other areas. Specialists who cannot work here will simply go to other global centres. Projects may follow talent offshore if the talent cannot come to the UK to work on those projects. Efforts should be made to encourage students to remain in the UK post-graduation if they have the technical skills and entrepreneurial talent.

Above all, policy makers need to appreciate that talent, capital and spending power are highly mobile, and will only become more mobile as the 21st century progresses. There is a perception in some quarters that the UK is not open for business. Bad experiences, even if they affect only a very small number of people, become news and established perceptions. The right hon. Member for Leicester East, the Chairman of the Select Committee, rightly pointed out that in India, bad experience is now progressing from students to other would-be visa holders. I am afraid the current perception of the UK in many areas is not as positive as it should be if the UK is to be seen as an outward-looking global trading nation.

My second constituency issue shows just how varied my constituency is. I know that it is perhaps the perception of many colleagues, particularly in Labour and the Scottish National party, that the streets of my constituency —the Cities of London and Westminster—are entirely paved with gold. Nothing could be further from the truth. My constituency is much more mixed than one might imagine, and I implore the Minister to give special attention, if possible, to what I am about to say.

Many right hon. and hon. Friends here in Westminster Hall today will know that, a week before the service to commemorate the 10-year anniversary of the 7/7 bombings, the Hyde Park memorial to the 52 victims, which is within a mile of where we are today, was being used as a makeshift camp by a group of Roma migrants who had arrived in London. They were here legally but had come to engage in yet another summer of illegal street activity.

Unfortunately, that was merely the most high-profile example of a pretty miserable phenomenon that has plagued my central London constituency for the past few years as a result of the current EU rules on freedom of movement. Under those rules, EU nationals are permitted to enter the UK and remain here for 90 days before exercising what are regarded as their treaty rights. In that time, they can broadly do as they wish, because police have to build up a detailed case against them if they are to be successfully deported. Of course, that is time-consuming for officers, and also potentially difficult when homelessness, littering and antisocial behaviour do not always cross the threshold into outright illegality, and when any criminality that is engaged in, such as aggressive begging and pick-pocketing, is considered low level comparison with other central London problems.

Of course, that places the burden upon Westminster City Council and the local policing teams, who therefore have rather fewer tools at their disposal than they need to tackle the real problem that those migrants create. It is not only a problem for my residential constituents but for the terrific number of people who work in or visit London.

Throughout the year but, I am afraid to say, particularly during the summer months, my constituents send me literally daily reports of such migrants aggressively begging, littering, defecating and urinating in public, and sleeping rough on the streets of our capital city. That is undoubtedly the case, as many people will already know. The tunnels around Hyde Park tube station and the fountains of Marble Arch are particular problem areas, with the result that those prime tourist sites are being turned into disgusting eyesores and public health hazards. The problems are not confined to those sites. Local primary schools, churches and many quiet residential streets are regularly plagued by them.

I am sure the Minister will accept that that situation is entirely unacceptable and that residents and visitors alike have every right to question the competence and the authority of local and central Government when they are seemingly unable to find a lasting solution to such problems. Frankly, it is embarrassing to have to advise my own constituents that there is a limit to what the local authority, police and central Government can do. Tourists are left with an impression that our country is leaving the vulnerable to fend for themselves on the streets and that we have a chaotic approach to maintaining order.

As we all know locally, that is not the case. Those groups of people are often in London as part of deliberate, lucrative organised criminal gangs from eastern Europe. I am a great supporter of our continued membership of the European Union—one area where I may disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight—and I am also liberally minded on immigration policy towards skilled, non-EU migrants who come here. None the less, I believe the problem I have just mentioned requires tough action at European level and should be formally incorporated into the ongoing renegotiation of Britain’s membership of the EU. There should be a particular focus on the current inability of authorities to deal with those people who come to the UK, or those who leave and go to another member state, intent only on committing persistent, low-level crime, with no intent to make any economic contribution to the country to which they go.

One powerful way of addressing the problem would be to reduce or eliminate entirely the 90-day window of opportunity for such people to exercise their so-called treaty rights, within which they are able to commit crime or anti-social behaviour without any significant redress. It would also be helpful if individuals who were previously administratively removed but sought to re-enter the UK were able to prove that they would be exercising their treaty rights—for instance, by showing either an offer of employment or evidence of residence.

On the domestic level, I should like to see the “deport first, appeal later” principle in the Immigration Act 2014 built upon by broadening the scope for administrative removal or deportation, with cumulative impact of behaviour to be considered in relation to all convictions for low-level criminality or antisocial behaviour. That could incentivise police to take more proactive action against repeat offenders who make the lives of others such a misery. Meanwhile, we could also make improvements to our border control by ensuring that those entering the UK legally, but who intend to engage in the sort of negative activity I mentioned, can be properly held to account by the authorities.

Regarding the 90-day window, the clock does not start running until someone’s first interaction with a UK authority or agency, such as a policing team checking the papers of those sleeping in Hyde Park. The clock should instead start at the point of entry into the UK. During that border interaction, those migrants could be provided with information on the new employment enforcement agency and the implications of not securing legitimate employment here in the UK.

The plague of aggressive begging, littering, antisocial behaviour and rough sleeping that we are witnessing in my constituency from eastern European migrants—I am afraid it has to be said that it is predominantly Romanian Roma migrants—highlights the impotence of sovereign Governments and becomes the kind of problem that alienates citizens who might otherwise be supportive, not just of continued membership of the EU, but of the co-operation that EU membership should rightly bring with it. This is deeply regrettable, not just for that reason, but because it is unfair to all those hard-working EU migrants living in the UK—and there are many in my constituency—whose reputation is, bit by bit, damaged by that deeply negative activity.

I reiterate that the great majority of Romanians and Bulgarians who come to this country are doing so for the right reasons. They are working hard. Many are working incredibly long hours in the sorts of jobs that many indigenous British people would not wish to undertake. We should congratulate them on trying to make the best life for themselves and their children. Many may stay in this country in the long term and many will therefore be a great credit to us. It is important to state that I should like to see this additional power clamping down only on this significant, high-profile minority.

The problems need sustained attention at the highest level of Government. I ask both that potential restrictions on the 90-day rule are incorporated into our renegotiations, and that in a domestic context we look more closely and imminently at ensuring that police and local authorities have the right toolkit for properly tackling those matters on the ground.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed. The point was made this morning that in my constituency in north Wales, and in the north-west, the north-east, the west midlands and Scotland, there is a lower level of general income than in the south-east. People might have more disposable income than in the south, because it can be argued that living costs are lower, so the income limit of £18,600 has a different impact in different parts of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Lady says, it has a particular impact on women and on young people who might not earn sufficient money at the start of their careers, but who may be in love with someone outside the United Kingdom. I will return at a future date to how we can review the £18,600 limit. I am not asking for a snap decision now. I simply want to plant in the Minister’s mind the idea that we need to look at that as part of a wider migration strategy.

It is also important to revisit the Government’s net migration target, which was set in 2010. They have missed that target every year and have missed it massively in the past year. I wonder whether the target is a useful tool. If everybody in this Chamber today left the United Kingdom, we would be contributing to the Government’s process of meeting their net migration target. The target is evidently out of the Government’s control, given the situation in Europe and the free movement of individuals who are UK citizens outside Europe.

If the Minister wants to keep a target, will he look again at the issue of students, which hon. Members have talked about? Students provide fees, good will, and economic spending. A student living in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and working at the University of Edinburgh will be putting money into the Edinburgh economy. They will go away from the United Kingdom with great thoughts of Edinburgh for ever and ever. They will want to return to Edinburgh, and one day may end up president of a country or chief executive of a company, and then they might come back and invest in Edinburgh or the City of London.

[Mark Field]

I have spent the past 10 years on the advisory board of a private college called the London School of Commerce. It is evident that in our elite universities, such as the ones in my constituency—Imperial, King’s College London and the London School of Economics—certain postgraduate courses would simply not be sustainable without overseas students. Our indigenous postgraduates get the benefit of overseas students putting money into certain courses that otherwise would not exist.

[Mr Hanson]

I simply say that overseas students’ good will, spending and fees are vital to our university economy. The inclusion of students in the net migration target shows that we are not willing to accept as many students as we could. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

There is a wide-ranging debate to be had about how we work in Europe, and we need to address economic issues such as benefit entitlement and working conditions. There is a need to strengthen our borders and track those who come to our country, but we need to ensure that we do not lose economic opportunities and dissuade students from coming. We need to play a full role in the global economy to ensure that we remain central in the world and maintain the UK’s historical role of being open and tolerant towards people coming to the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and welcome her contribution to the debate. The Scottish Government have raised the issue of post-study work, which is the point that she is making. I have a number of observations about that. Student numbers continue to increase, notwithstanding the assertion that they might go down because of the changes we have introduced, and the UK remains open for study at our world-leading academic institutions.

As for post-study work, it is available through the tier 2 route. Students who find graduate employment may take up that route, in which case they are not counted against the cap. One of my challenges to many firms and businesses is, “What are you doing to harness that? What are you doing about working with universities and using the existing tier 2 provisions to make the most of graduates coming out of our universities?” There are ongoing discussions between my officials and the Scottish Government, and the Home Secretary will consider some advice and meet the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice to discuss that and other shared matters of interest.

As for a separate arrangement for post-study work in Scotland, under the Fresh Talent scheme that operated until 2008, one of the issues that arose was that many international students granted entry under that route then chose to move to London and the south-east, rather than staying in Scotland. The issue needs to be considered with care, given the practical impact of some of the schemes.

[Mark Field]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way briefly to my right hon. Friend, because this is a particular interest of his.

[Mark Field]

The Minister has summed up some of the difficulties that we face in getting a policy that works as intended for all parts of the United Kingdom. He came up with some robust statistics, but I have two small observations to make. First, he referred to the percentage increase in applications, which is not necessarily the number of students coming here. Secondly, we are lucky in many ways that we are seeing a phenomenal increase, an explosion, in the number of middle-class Chinese, Indians and the like, so we should expect a significant percentage increase in the number of students. However, the worry is that we are getting less of the percentage increase, while rather larger percentages are going to universities in Canada, Australia and the United States, for example.

[James Brokenshire]

I have only a couple of minutes left, but I am sure that we will return to the subject on another day. We have seen increases in the number of Chinese students, but I look forward to continuing the debate another time.

We will introduce a new immigration Bill to clamp down on illegal immigration and to protect our public services, ensuring that we have the right emphasis. The Bill will tighten up access to public services and protect them against abuse by people who are here illegally. It will build on the provisions in the Immigration Act 2014. The reforms will, for example, speed up the removal process by extending the power to require individuals to leave the UK before bringing an appeal against a decision in all human rights cases, unless there is a real risk of serious, irreversible harm as a result of the overseas appeal. As I have indicated, that power is already making a significant difference.

Separately from that Bill, as the Prime Minister has said, we are going to get better at training our own people. To support that, we will consult on helping to fund businesses that use foreign labour through a new visa levy. That will address the skills issue, which a number of Members have touched on today. By improving the training of British workers, we should be able to lower the number of skilled workers we bring in from elsewhere. We have touched on the shortage occupation list, for example, which is set by the Migration Advisory Committee. I emphasise that a separate list applies in Scotland, reflecting some of the different circumstances. However, I draw Members’ attention to the fact that we have asked the committee to advise on significantly reducing economic migration from outside the EU—should an occupation always stay on the list? How can we reskill? Do we have a long-term, sustainable approach to the policy?

Reports into Investigatory Powers

Mark Field Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It would be remiss of me not first to apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Home Secretary for my absence for the earliest part of this debate; I had a long-standing constituency engagement—an occupational hazard of representing a central London seat. Actually, I am having to miss my daughter’s end-of-term ballet show, so I suspect that I will have rather fewer brownie points in my household than the shadow Home Secretary will have in the Balls-Cooper household.

This is anything but routine and uncontroversial business. As someone who served throughout the previous Parliament on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I am fully aware of the intensive work that went into at least one of the reports that we are discussing today. Naturally, it was the Edward Snowden revelations in The Guardian that first led to allegations in the US—we have a close intelligence relationship—that UK Government agencies were engaged in blanket surveillance on the internet. The inherent tension between the individual’s right to privacy and the collective entitlement to security referred to by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) set the context for all these inquiries.

We looked first at interception. The agencies conduct two types of interception depending on the information they have and what GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 are charged with trying to achieve. The first type can be used as an investigative tool only where there is specific knowledge of a threat, allowing agencies to intercept a specific individual’s communications. That is known as targeted interception. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, the watchwords of necessity and proportionality lie very much at the heart of everything that our agencies wish to do. If the target is in the UK, the activity must be authorised by the Secretary of State under RIPA. Even the most ardent of privacy campaigners accept that principle of targeted interception.

The second sort of interception arises as a discovery or part of an intelligence-gathering tool. This allows the agencies to use targeted interception only after they have discovered that a threat exists. Such separate capabilities are required in order to uncover threats in the first place so that the agencies can determine patterns and associations that can generate the leads and obtain the information used to target individuals under suspicion. Bulk interception is primarily used as a discovery tool. This capability attracts the most controversy, as we have seen. It has helped to create an impression—misguided, in my view—that GCHQ is monitoring the communications of everyone in the UK. I should make it clear that, if that were the case, GCHQ’s actions would be illegal.

Our Committee rightly scrutinised in great detail the agencies’ capability to intercept internet communications, and we had a number of key findings. First and foremost, bulk interception involves three stages: filtering, targeting, and selection. The first of those involves choosing which communication links are to be accessed. It is worth pointing out that each and every minute the internet carries some 4.1 million Google searches, 6.9 million Facebook messages, 350,000 Twitter posts, and 204 million emails. Most of those communications are carried out through fibre-optic cables that carry bearers, of which there are only about 100,000. GCHQ can theoretically access only a tiny percentage of those bearers. It is therefore misleading to use the phrase “blanket surveillance” for what it does.

The second stage that GCHQ has in mind is to select which communications to collect from the very small number of bearers that it is accessing. A decision is then made on how it collects the communications to read. For communications collected under the first processing system, GCHQ undertakes a so-called triage process to determine which messages have the highest intelligence value. Even when GCHQ knows that communications relate to a known national security target, it does not have the capacity to read them all and must therefore, even within that context, prioritise. This all means that only a very small proportion of collected messages are ever read.

When we scrutinised those arrangements, we found that GCHQ will search for and select communications to examine only on the basis of a selector relating to an individual here in the UK, if—and only if—it first obtains a specific authorisation from a Secretary of State naming that individual. It is unlawful for our security services to search for and examine the communications of someone in the UK without a targeted additional authorisation. Our Committee found that the regulations and safeguards in place were, on the whole, pretty reassuring. That said, as Members will be aware, we made a number of recommendations in order to address concerns about transparency. This was very much mirrored in much of the Anderson report. Anderson was critical about some of the legal framework, of which I will say a little more later, but ultimately he gave the actions of GCHQ very much a clean bill of health.

We also examined the concerns that have been expressed over how the agencies use communications data—the “who, when and where” of a communication. This debate is increasingly complicated by widespread confusion about what information is classed as communications data and what is classed as content. There is a grey area involved. For example, looking at information that would not usually be classified as content, but has the potential to reveal a great deal about someone’s private life, should be placed in a special category where more scrutiny is placed on it than there ordinarily would be merely on the basis of its being communications data.

On the other rather intrusive capabilities potentially used by the agencies, the ISC report contains a number of detailed recommendations primarily in relation to specific statutory oversight and greater transparency, where that is possible without damaging national security; that must always be at the forefront of our minds in these matters. The most significant finding in our report, and in the Anderson report, relates, as other Members have rightly pointed out, to the legislative framework that governs the use of all these intrusive capabilities. At present, no single piece of legislation governs the powers and responsibilities of our intelligence and security agencies. The current framework is, as we have heard, complicated and unwieldy. Consolidation is now essential to maintain or sometimes—dare I say it?—to re-establish public confidence.

While we saw no direct evidence that the agencies were in any way seeking to circumvent the law—in truth, their constant watchwords are necessity and proportionality—I am afraid that the lack of clarity in the existing legislation has understandably fuelled suspicion that our security agencies are, on occasion, able to arbitrage the plethora of statutes to choose the easiest route in seeking authorisation. That cannot be a satisfactory situation. I therefore believe that the purposes, functions, capabilities and, importantly, obligations of our security agencies will need to be set out clearly in a single Act of Parliament. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, I have some sympathy for the plight that the Home Secretary will face in having to get such a Bill through Parliament. It will be essential, but it will be a complicated matter. It will have to include issues such as privacy constraints, transparency arrangements, targeting criteria, sharing arrangements, and other safeguards that apply to the use of the security agencies’ capabilities.

The single most profound impact of the Snowden revelations has been felt by the global communications service providers. Exposing the hitherto cosy—perhaps over-cosy—relationships that existed between many household-name internet giants and security services and Governments across the world has resulted in a furious insistence from the CSPs that such co-operation must in future be governed by a clear legal framework.

That has potentially very serious implications, especially if there is any demand by globally run CSPs that such protocols should also operate on a global basis. This is, not least, because we have in this country a different culture regarding the security services, with a different framework and understanding of the way in which they operate within our Government compared even with other members of the “Five Eyes”. There is a glaring difference between the average UK citizen’s acceptance of the work of the secret intelligence agencies and the cultural approach taken to such matters in the USA, where there is a great sense of the individual being up against an all-powerful state, and in much of continental Europe. That is understandable. One need only look to my mother’s homeland. For six years of her life, she was brought up in Nazi Germany under the rigours of the Gestapo, and then under the Stasi in East Germany between 1945 and 1954. That has had a very strong bearing on these cultural differences. There is a danger that we in this country, after Bletchley Park and the glamour of James Bond, could be a little complacent about the way in which we view how the security services operate. It is very different in other parts of the world. If there were to be a push towards such global protocols, it would be more difficult to make the case for our exceptionalism.

[Mr Grieve]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case. This is one of the factors that we will have to take into account when we consider whether there might be advantages to judicial warrant systems because they are likely to command more acceptance internationally even if they do not necessarily seem to be required in this country.

[Mark Field]

I do not entirely agree with that, but I will touch on it in my concluding comments, which I will move on to fairly shortly.

There are potentially serious implications for the operational capabilities of our security services in their counter-terrorism operations. I am struck, however, by the clear irony that the business models of most internet service providers hinge on the exploitation of knowledge from their own user customers, which can then be sold for profit to third party advertisers. The protection of privacy obviously has its limits.

Snowden’s impact has also revolutionised the demand for and the creation of ever-more effective encryption, which further and seriously depletes the capabilities of our security services. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 2001 and, more recently, the attacks that took place on the streets of London almost exactly 10 years ago, the conventional wisdom was that public safety could be protected only by ever more sophisticated targeted internet surveillance. The events of recent times mean that it would be unwise to neglect the future importance of developing more traditional security tradecraft. Our security services will need to invest extensively and prudently in agent expertise on the ground, rather than simply relying on ever-more sophisticated electronic surveillance expertise.

May I make a final observation on the highly contentious issue of the authorisation of warrants? As has been pointed out, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation contends that all warrants should be subject to judicial authorisation. I also accept that, in the interests of promoting public confidence, it is now probably necessary that the regime of judicial oversight applying after the event will need substantial bolstering.

We need to remember, however, that it is senior Foreign and Home Office Ministers who are answerable to this House and to Parliament in the event of a major terrorist incident, which invasive surveillance is, of course, designed to prevent. It will be elected politicians, not judges, who will ultimately be accountable to the court of public opinion. Ultimately, therefore, I stand by the ISC’s view that Ministers should authorise warrants. Nevertheless, it is important that senior judges will need to be given a more significant role in scrutinising the operation of the process.

Our intelligence agencies do a very important, and increasingly very challenging, job in what are very difficult times. I believe that the UK public have good cause to maintain confidence in what they do, but I also contend that only greater transparency and scrutiny of their work will improve public understanding and reinforce that sense of confidence.

Anderson Report

Mark Field Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. We have the deadline of December 2016, which was put in consciously by the previous Parliament because it believed that it was necessary to look again at the legislative framework and that that should be done within a limited timetable. So I hesitate to suggest that we should at this stage say that that timetable should be changed. We should do what we can to ensure that we meet the timetable. I fully recognise that these matters are complex, and they raise issues in relation not just to what David Anderson has put in his report, but to other circumstances. It always behoves Government to make sure there are no unintended adverse consequences of any decisions that are taken in relation to that, and we will try to ensure that the maximum amount of time is available. At this stage, we should retain that December 2016 deadline because Parliament set it for very good reason.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

This is a first-rate and comprehensive report, but I accept what the Home Secretary said; this should not be the last word on the matter. There are other reports and we will want to try to get this consolidated. Despite my involvement on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I am increasingly of the view that we need to get public trust to ensure that judicial involvement is not simply a matter of oversight in relation to warrants. I very much agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). We need to get this right. We need consolidating legislation. It will be difficult, but we need to get it right both in this House and in the other place. That may take a little longer than the very ambitious timetable that my right hon. Friend has put in place, and I am glad that she is turning her mind to it in this way. Above all, we need consolidating legislation that does not potentially lead to what we have had in the past—a sense that arbitrage has been used because one piece of legislation is easier than another for the security services.

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I thank him and the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for the contribution they made on the Intelligence and Security Committee, which produced its own report in relation to these matters. My right hon. Friend is right about ensuring that there is public confidence and public trust. Some interesting figures are quoted in the David Anderson report from a poll taken of the public, which shows the significant trust and confidence that they have in our agencies, and the belief of the overwhelming majority that the agencies should have the powers they need to keep us safe. It is a feature of the British public that they have a more sanguine approach to the necessity of powers being held by the authorities than we may see reported elsewhere. But he is right: we need to look at these issues very carefully and ensure that that confidence is there.

Counter-Terrorism (Statutory Instruments)

Mark Field Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that David Anderson, the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, is examining the RIPA issue very keenly. We await his report, which we expect to be completed before May and which I sincerely believe will help to inform further consideration of the Act during the next Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 has an end date of 31 December 2016, which means that Parliament will have to return to the issue—informed, I am sure, not only by the independent reviewer’s report, but by that of the Select Committee.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I appreciate that we have the commissioner’s report, that the independent reviewer’s report is imminent and that there is a time limit of December 2016. However, given the grave concern that exists about, in particular, the powers and constraints affecting journalists, will the Minister assure us that he will keep the matter under general review, and that, if a problem arose, even with these orders, by the end of the year—or, indeed, within a matter of months—he would be willing to come back to the House and look at it afresh?

[James Brokenshire]

I assure my right hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on becoming a member of the Privy Council, that the matter will be kept under close scrutiny and review. We have published draft clauses, which could be enacted quickly in the next Parliament, to regularise the position. We recognise that this is an interim measure, and we want it to be enshrined in primary legislation that the House would have a full opportunity to debate. I should add that the code of practice provides for requests to be flagged up to the commissioner, and thus allows additional scrutiny to take place. I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend.

The commissioner also recommended further changes to the guidance in the acquisition code, and we have sought to implement that recommendation. The code is now clear about the need to consider more than rights to privacy—in particular, the right to freedom of expression must be taken into account when that is appropriate—and it also contains new guidance on the considerations of necessity, proportionality and collateral intrusion, including unintended consequences.

The revised acquisition code enhances the operational independence of the authorising officer from the specific investigation for which communications data are required. It includes new, enhanced protections for those who may have professional duties of confidentiality or privilege. However, it is important to remember that we are debating communications data, not the content of communications.

The retention code sets out how the Government implement the requirements in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 and the Data Retention Regulations 2014. It covers the following issues: the review, variation and revocation of data retention notices; communications service providers’ ability to recover their costs; data security; oversight by the Information Commissioner and safeguards on the disclosure; and the use of retained data by communications service providers.

The House will be aware that both codes underwent public consultation. The Government received about 300 submissions from organisations and individuals suggesting amendments and providing comments on the codes. I am grateful to all who took part. We have published a summary of the submissions received and how the Government have responded to them. The Department considered all the responses to the consultation and many of the suggestions have been adopted in the final drafts.

I would like to address briefly the final instrument in this motion: the Authority to Carry (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015. They establish a penalty regime for breach of any requirement of the authority to carry scheme 2015, which this House approved on 10 March. A carrier may be liable to a penalty for breach of the following: a requirement to seek authority to carry a person; a requirement to provide specified information by a specified time; a requirement to provide information in a specified manner and form; a requirement to be able to receive communications in a specified manner and form; or a requirement not to carry a person when authority to carry has been refused—this is an important part of the code.

The scheme specifies that it is the requirements set out in detailed written notices issued to carriers under the Immigration Act 1971 or the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 that must be met under the scheme, rather than those requirements being specified in detail in the scheme itself.