Intelligence and Security Committee
Mark Field Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Although we accept that some radical change is clearly overdue, which will, we hope, be put in place, and accept that the change will be fluid because of the fluid international world in which we live, will my right hon. and learned Friend reiterate the importance of remembering that there will always be a need for certain information to remain secret? We do not want to throw everything out with the bathwater. There will always be a need for certain things to remain secret, even within this transparent 24/7 media world.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
Yes, there are crucial requirements and anyone will understand why that is the case. The identity of intelligence officers can never be revealed. If it were, not only would they not be able to carry out their proper responsibilities but their very physical safety would be in danger. Intelligence operations and the ways in which intelligence is obtained, processed and dealt with should not become public knowledge. If they were, they would be available to our enemies and would cease to be available in that way in future. There would be no benefit in having intelligence agencies unless that fundamental secrecy applied—that covers all the areas that are relevant to the operational work they do and the benefits they provide for our society.
In the years since the end of the cold war, we have had the 7/7 bombings in London, which were very traumatic. Those terrible actions led to some deep soul-searching within the security and intelligence agencies. The perpetrators were British citizens who had been born in this country, but the agencies had not anticipated that event. In addition, there are problems with nuclear proliferation and cyber attacks, which might be aimed at Governments but cover a wide range of economic intelligence that is sought by foreign Governments and industrial interests. That is a matter of great significance.
Those new demands led the intelligence agencies to operate rather differently, which is a welcome development. The most significant point is that the intelligence agencies now work together far more than ever before. If one went to GCHQ on any day of the week one would probably find officials from the Secret Intelligence Service who had been seconded there for a significant period. The same would apply to the SIS and to each of the agencies in reverse. That is happening not because of some doctrinal view but because of the practical requirements of getting the best use of intelligence in this modern world and ensuring maximum public benefit. It is not too dissimilar to the way in which the Navy, Army and Air Force have increasingly realised that operations will involve all those services, or two of the three services, with joint activity becoming the norm rather than the exception.
The other big change, which I very much welcome, as does the Committee, has been the creation of the National Security Council. Not only does it provide an opportunity in general terms for strategic thinking, strategic planning and proper consideration under the Prime Minister, but for the first time the heads of the intelligence agencies attend meetings as of right and are able to ensure not only that they hear what is being said but that the intelligence they are providing is much more easily fitted into the requirements of Government so that the practical benefits of the intelligence is of much greater value.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I certainly agree that serious issues came to prominence during those years, some of which were the responsibility of the agencies and some of which were more the responsibility of government. However, I think we should get this into perspective. So far as I am aware, not a single British intelligence officer has ever been accused of personally being involved in water-boarding, torture or maltreatment of an individual. The issue—and it is a very serious issue—is whether they were aware of those matters and whether they might indirectly have colluded in such activity. I do not wish to diminish the seriousness of these matters but it is very important to make that point and get things into perspective because the same is not true of many other countries around the world. That is an important point that has to be made.
I want to speak briefly about four points in the report and then say something about the issues in the Green Paper, particularly about what is called the control principle, with regard to the handling of intelligence. Finally, I shall address the reform of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I shall try not to detain the House too long. The first of the four points in the report I want to address concerns the single intelligence account—the £2 billion that goes to the intelligence agencies. They have had a very large increase over the past few years but a cut is now being imposed—and understandably so—of 11% if one takes account of inflation over the next four years. The Committee has said:
“It is essential—given the fundamental importance to our national security of the Agencies’ work—that the settlement is kept under review and that there is scope to adjust it if there is a significant change in the threat.”
I know that every single recipient of Government funding would like to be able to say that, but I hope there is no dispute that when we are dealing with the fundamental issues of national security, if the threat were to change in a material way, it would not be acceptable to say that those resources could not be reviewed by a Government because that might in some way contradict public expenditure decisions. I have no reason to believe that the Government would take that view, but it is important to make that point, and that is what the Committee would like to stress.
The second point is the security that will be needed for the Olympics. The director general of the Security Service—again, I quote from our report—
“told us that he considers the Service to be well placed to manage the risks that the Olympics will bring.”
However, he added that
“the effort required to cover the Olympics will inevitably divert resources from the Service’s other work.”
The Committee would like to emphasise that the National Security Council must take such steps as are necessary to minimise that risk. Although we understand that the Security Service is not at present making representations and feels that the task can be handled effectively, it is too early to be certain that that will remain the case and it must be kept under consideration.
The third point relates to cyber security. In its reports of 2008 and 2009, the Committee drew attention to the increasing risks this country faces from cyber attacks. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Government have said that cyber is now a tier 1 interest in our national security strategy and have provided more than £600 million in new resources for that purpose.
The Committee’s concern is not those sums but the potential over-interest within Government in cyber matters. We note in our report that there are 18 units with responsibilities in this field across the three agencies— two law enforcement bodies and five Government Departments—and express our concern, which the Government share, about the risk of duplication. It is extremely important that these matters are looked at to ensure that, with such large sums and so many elements of Government involved, we do not do mischief to our own objectives.
Mark Field
I entirely endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend says. We feel strongly that there is a risk of duplication, with 18 bodies having some say in cyber security. We are grateful for the Government’s commitment and provision of certainty of financing over a four-year period—the £600 million to which he referred. However, if in 2007 we had asked about the importance of cyber, it would have been largely off the radar. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we must be aware that if this becomes a much bigger problem not just in governmental and military terms, but in commercial terms, by the end of that four-year period considerably larger sums might be required, along the lines of the provision for the Olympics?
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to the work of the Committee. He and I visited GCHQ and saw at first hand the increasing threat from cyber that this country faces from a number of sources. I therefore very much endorse his comments.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Mark Field Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
Wherever possible, we should clearly proceed down the criminal justice system route. If that is available in the irreducible minimum number of cases that we have, it should be pursued. I expect the police and responsible prosecutors to ensure that prosecutions take place wherever possible. I think that all Members on both sides of the House share the view that it is far better that individuals involved in terrorism-related activity are prosecuted, convicted and banged up. However, there are cases where it is not possible to convert the evidence that we have, which is intelligence based, into evidence that would be admissible in a court of law. For those cases, it is necessary to have a different system to deal with the risk. If we could avoid being in that position, of course we would, but it is just not possible because of the nature of the evidence and the intelligence sources that it relies on. I am afraid to say that it will not always be possible to resort to the criminal justice system and that a different kind of system for dealing with this risk is therefore necessary.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I have immense sympathy with the views that have just been expressed by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Equally, I have some sympathy with the notion that we should look at this legislation on a more regular basis. However, the hon. Lady has not addressed the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) a moment ago. The reality is that with Northern Ireland terrorism before 2005, the annual reviews were entirely a fiction and the powers went through on the nod. I have some sympathy with the Minister’s view that a five-yearly review allows for a proper review, provided that the safeguards are in place. Although an annual review might sound like better protection on the face of it, it becomes largely a fiction.
Shabana Mahmood
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would describe parliamentary debate and holding the Government to account as a fiction. I do not think that having an annual debate is a fiction. It is important that we give right hon. and hon. Members the chance to hold the Government to account, to review how the powers have been used throughout a particular year, and to take a view on whether the risk is such that we still need an exceptional system of rules outside the criminal justice system. I do not believe that those debates are a fiction.
Shabana Mahmood
I entirely endorse my right hon. Friend’s comments. The House needs much more detail, given that there now seems to be a big difference between what Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osborne told us in Committee and what the Minister is telling the House today. A written explanation needs to be put before the House when we are working out whether we buy this new line that the resources will, in fact, be ready. If that information is forthcoming, it is important that it should be about not just the human resources, but the hardware, software and other assets, as well as the money. I appreciate that some of that information might be constrained, but surely it would not be too difficult to allay any fears that the House might have about the time that it takes for such resources to be either trained up or procured and developed.
Mr Mark Field
The hon. Lady is making a fair case, but in view of the fact that we are now 11 months in advance of the Olympic games, which is clearly the big cloud in the sky when it comes to these issues, is she really suggesting that we should keep to the control order regime until the Olympics are behind us and only then change, or does she think that there is any chance of the procurement that she is looking for taking place within that time frame, such that the process will be “online”, as she puts it, before July next year?
Shabana Mahmood
The short answer is yes. We have retained the control order regime until the end of this year, which was a decision that the coalition Government took to give themselves a chance to bring forward their legislation. I do not think that an amendment that seeks to make that legislation better—or at least allay concerns that the public might have about the dangers that it poses—should somehow mean that we dump control orders and just have a gap. We could quite easily carry on with control orders until the new resources were ready to be deployed, which is exactly what the amendment envisages.
Dr Huppert
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent question. My short answer is yes; my longer answer is: by a bit. This is not the solution that I would most like to see, but it is a step in the right direction. I wish that we could go further, and perhaps the other place will be more able to achieve that than we are here. Perhaps the more enlightened Labour peers will take the hon. Gentleman’s perspective on this matter, rather than that taken by those on his Front Bench.
I move now to the subject of this group of amendments, which deal with sunset clauses. I argued in Committee that there were four reasons for having such clauses. One relates to debating the issue in question every year; another is about having a vote every year. As we have said, that method has not turned out to be very effective. It has been very much a token gesture. Although it is nice to see it in place, it has not really delivered. We still have the ability to debate this matter at any time, if some other change takes place. particularly in the light of the Government’s new approach to Back-Bench debates, Similarly, the Government could get rid of TPIMs at any time, as could any future Government. Five years is a maximum, not a minimum. The annual review has simply not been an effective tool, which is a great shame. It does not work very well, and Parliament should look at how effective it is at doing things like that.
The Government think that the review provisions are a really good thing. I would like to see them happening seriously and in detail, but the level of review that has happened under this Government cannot happen every year. It did not do so in the past, to that level. There was a quick look, and a quick renewal. That is not what we want. We want to look underneath what is happening, rather than simply taking the easy option.
I have asked the Minister and the shadow Minister whether, if either of them is in the next Government, they will ensure that a proper review is carried out. If I am in the next Government, I will do my very best to ensure that that happens—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am delighted to hear that that has support on both sides of the House; we will have to see what happens. I would do my best to ensure that there was a review that moved us closer to the position that I would like—namely, a lower-risk solution that was also better for civil liberties.
Mr Mark Field
Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that this gets to the nub of the problem—that there is a distinction between would-be or former members of the Executive, whose view is almost “If only you knew what I know now”, and many other parliamentarians and indeed the public outside? That disconnect is one of the most dangerous elements of the entire debate.
Human Trafficking
Mark Field Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It was only four short years ago that the United Kingdom reflected on the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807. At the time, among all the self-congratulatory celebration, I suggested that our renewed focus should be on refreshing our resolve to tackle the modern equivalent of slavery—human trafficking. Human trafficking involves the recruitment, transfer and harbouring of men, and particularly women and children, so that they can be exploited for forced labour, sexual services or domestic servitude. It is the most unpleasant by-product of globalisation in the labour market and now scars each and every constituency.
The modern-day slaves that human trafficking has created are voiceless and vulnerable. They are stowed in the untouched shadows of our communities. They exist not just in the seedier corners of my central London constituency or of Manchester, because the backdrop to their exploitation can equally be the sprawl of suburbia, the fields of our countryside or even the beaches that line our shores. The means of their subjugation are varied. Sometimes, there is violence, but traffickers might equally threaten to harm a victim’s family; they might enslave people through debt; they might reduce them through shame; or they might manipulate them through deception.
As illicit ways to make money go, trafficking can be perceived as comparatively low risk. A busy brothel with five to 10 girls in central London, for example, can make £20,000 a week, without the violence and risk associated with the illicit drugs trade. As for those with even baser motives, trafficked victims working outside the established sex trade are attractively difficult to detect.
In putting my speech together, I was aware of the imminent publication of the Home Office strategy on human trafficking, which was promised in the spring, but which may now be released in June, owing in part to pre-local election purdah. I hope that the debate will prove timely and will, along with the strategy, help to create momentum by raising public interest and reigniting the will to tackle trafficking more robustly. I also hope that it will serve to clarify what progress the Home Office has made since October, when a number of Members, including some in the Chamber, raised legitimate questions about the Government’s strategy in the debates marking anti-slavery week.
A debate that took place as recently as last Monday helped to raise the issues before us, and I hope that the Minister will not find this morning’s proceedings too repetitious. I put in for this debate some weeks ago, but, alas, the unquenchable enthusiasm of the 2010 intake makes securing a Westminster Hall debate these days far trickier than it was in the past. Nevertheless, last week’s debate focused primarily on the European directive on human trafficking, so I hope that we can cover some new ground today.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I apologise, Mr Crausby, for not being able to stay until the end of the debate. In last week’s debate, a point was raised about there being an independent voice for children. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that there is an independent voice to support children in legally challenging the UK Border Agency, the police and other statutory or voluntary agencies, when the actions being taken are not in a child’s best interests?
Mr Field
I have particular sympathy with that point, not only because children are particularly vulnerable, but because having people acting in loco parentis in the way in which my hon. Friend has described is a well-known legal process.
It is important that we do not simply use the debate as an opportunity to produce an hysterical portrayal of the problem or to condemn Governments, past or present, for a lack of progress. I accept that this is an immensely complicated issue; it obviously has legal bearings, as my hon. Friend has suggested, and it touches on many parts of our system from policing to immigration, justice, housing and social services. I wish, however, to encourage a measured debate about how we can best create an environment that is hostile to traffickers. I also want to send out a clear message that we are firmly on the side of the victims.
In discussing human trafficking, I want to pay tribute to parliamentarians past. The erstwhile Member for Totnes, Anthony Steen, has probably done more than anyone to raise the profile of trafficking at the parliamentary level. He founded the first all-party group on the issue in 2006, and he continues to work as the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which is based at Blackfriars in my constituency. I played a small part in bringing Anthony together with the City of London corporation to ensure that the foundation was based in a high-profile place in central London. I cannot hope to emulate Anthony’s incredible passion for, and knowledge of, this subject, which he displayed in an extremely detailed debate that he led in the dying embers of the previous Parliament, but I hope that our discussion pays homage to some of his work.
Whenever we approach a subject such as trafficking, people inevitably demand numbers, so that they can grasp the scale of the problem. Unfortunately, as we all know, reliable statistics are difficult to come by. Some people contend that the number of trafficked victims is very low, while others contend that the figures are grossly underestimated. As a covert crime, trafficking is inevitably incredibly tricky to measure.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on this important debate, and we have had numerous debates on this issue in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Government strategy that will soon be published, and I do not condemn the Government for having a strategy, but it is action that we need. Children in the United Kingdom are being sold on the streets at £15,000 or £16,000 a time, which is an utter disgrace. We surely need action and some serious penalties for these crimes.
Mr Field
I entirely agree. In fairness to the Government, it is important that we have a framework in place, but, as the hon. Gentleman has said, any framework is pointless if action does not follow. One hopes that the robust measures that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will form an integral part of what the Government propose shortly.
There is no uniform story for those who have been trafficked. Some of the markets in which they circulate are closed to outsiders. Victims are often disconnected from mainstream society, so they find it incredibly difficult to seek help. Others may fear the consequences of coming forward, whether that is punishment by their oppressor or, indeed, the UK authorities—many victims are illegal immigrants and fear deportation, for example. Migrants do not always understand that they have been trafficked, or they may be reluctant to reveal to strangers the full picture of their ordeal. Of course, some also embellish their experiences in the hope that their case will be looked on more kindly by the British authorities.
The most recent study of the number of women trafficked into off-street prostitution, Project Acumen, released its findings last August. Conducted by the Association of Chief Police Officers, it aimed to improve our understanding of the nature and scale of the trafficking of migrant women for sexual exploitation. It estimated—as I have said, we must always include a caveat with any figures—that 30,000 women are currently involved in off-street prostitution. Of those women, 17,000, or more than 50%, are migrants, with 2,600 believed to have been trafficked. Most were not found to have been subject to violence, but many were debt-bonded and strictly controlled. A further 9,600 women were considered vulnerable, but fell short of what police officers regarded as the trafficking threshold.
Acumen examined off-street prostitution in part because it is relatively easy to identify. Its organisers have to balance subtlety with the need to advertise their “product” in a competitive marketplace. Nevertheless, criticism has been levelled at the study from some quarters. As a result, I do not intend to use it as an unimpeachable benchmark, but rather as the best, and probably the most recent, research we have in what, as I have said, is a shadowy sphere.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as me about other statistics, which estimate that 80% of the 8,000 women who work in off-street prostitution in London alone are foreign nationals, many of whom started to work as prostitutes, or were indeed forced into prostitution, when they were still children?
Mr Field
I am very concerned about that issue, and I will come to it a little later. As the hon. Lady will understand, my speech focuses on my constituency, and I have become aware of the extent of this problem through my dealings with local councillors and local police in central London.
As I have said, the figures are pretty sketchy, and the grim reality of the experience tends to smack us in the face only when a case comes before the courts or because a raid has taken place in our constituencies. A recent example here in London is the grizzly ongoing case of a five-year-old Nigerian boy, who was identified only in March, 10 years after his murder. We believe that that tiny child was trafficked from Germany before being drugged and sacrificed in a ritual killing, his torso dumped in the Thames. Lucy Adeniji, a Church pastor, has been recently sentenced for trafficking two children and a 21-year-old woman to work for her as domestic slaves, locking them up and regularly beating them.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I apologise for being able to stay for only half the debate. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that with the various policing reforms we will lose some of the more targeted approaches to prosecution and the identification of victims, such as Pentameter 1 and 2 and Operation Golf, which were very effective in these difficult and complex areas of prosecution?
Mr Field
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which bears witness to what I said earlier about this not simply being a policing matter but one with a focus on justice and social services, housing and the work of local authorities. The most important thing to learn is that solving the problem needs a multidisciplinary approach.
A pernicious trend emerged in my constituency of vans depositing women and children by Knightsbridge tube station in the morning to be picked up in the evening after a lucrative day’s begging. A couple of years ago, police raided properties in the constituency of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) to crack down on Romanian and Bulgarian gangs who had trafficked children to pick the pockets of Londoners in my constituency and beyond.
Tackling adult trafficking is co-ordinated, as the Minister knows, by the UK Human Trafficking Centre, which was set up five years ago to bring together a range of stakeholders—police forces, the UK Border Agency, non-governmental organisations and so on. It acts alongside UKBA as one of the competent authorities for the national referral mechanism.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Government have signed up to the directive on human trafficking, which is good news, but they have refused to appoint an independent rapporteur who would have overseen it and ensured that they fulfilled their obligations. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that should be done as a matter of urgency?
Mr Field
I confess that I do. It is important, and I hope that the Minister will specifically pick up that point, because in this shadowy world beyond what one might regard as the normal scrutiny of the political process, it is all the more important that the voiceless are given a distinct voice of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has described.
The national referral mechanism is a framework for identifying victims of human trafficking and ensuring that they receive appropriate care. It essentially means that if the police, social services or NGOs believe that they have encountered a trafficking victim, a referral is made for a decision on whether they qualify for a place in a Ministry of Justice safe house for 45 days. The 45-day period is designed to allow the referred person to recover and reflect on whether they wish to co-operate with police inquiries, return to their country of origin or take other action to get their life back on track.
The situation with child trafficking victims is slightly different in having its focal point with the trafficking unit of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. Its work is assisted in the London area by Paladin, a dedicated team of Metropolitan police officers and UKBA staff based at Heathrow, who are tasked with stopping child trafficking through the entry points into London. Profiled compellingly by Bridget Freer in April in The Sunday Times magazine, Paladin is an absolutely tiny team with an enormous remit.
There are many deep concerns about the effectiveness of the approach being taken. UKHTC has been absorbed into the Serious Organised Crime Agency, a move criticised on the basis that the sheer size of SOCA dilutes the sense of purpose in dealing with human trafficking. With SOCA due to be replaced by a national crime agency, where do we anticipate UKHTC being placed?
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and I, too, must apologise that I have to leave before its end. Does he agree that the reorganisation has exacerbated the problem of the re-trafficking of victims, which needs to be urgently addressed? So many victims, who are initially secured in a safe house, are returned and re-trafficked by the very people from whom they were saved.
Mr Field
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. One difficulty, even with the 45-day cooling-off period, is that a probably tragically high proportion of those who go through that process become known to the authorities later for other human trafficking matters.
The NRM has been rightly condemned for the quality of the decisions, the poor impression given to victims, the lack of an appeals process and the failure to gather comprehensive data on the scale of the problem. There is concern, too, that insufficient resources are directed at policing teams. In April 2009, for example, the Home Office decided to discontinue funding for the Met’s human trafficking unit—the only specialist police human trafficking unit in the country. The Met has since allocated a portion of its own budget to continue its trafficking work and to set up specialist crime directorate 9, which is the human exploitation and organised crime unit. I recently met Detective Superintendent Mick Duthie to discuss his work. There are now 38 people in his team, but their remit takes in not only trafficking, but a range of other street problems, vice, kerb crawling, casino fraud, money laundering and obscene publications, which, as one might imagine, are massive problems in their own right in the mere 6 square miles of my constituency. One wonders whether the other problems are crowding out trafficking.
We all appreciate that these are times of great financial austerity, and there is no realistic expectation of huge additional funding any time soon. The SCD team tries to be creative by setting up joint investigation teams and applying for EU funding streams, for example, but there are huge budgetary pressures, not least as trafficking investigations tend to be complex and lengthy, with overseas elements adding substantially to the costs.
Detective Superintendent Duthie is convinced that more must be done to educate police officers, local authorities and health workers to spot the signs of trafficking. Sometimes, the different teams that come into contact with victims do not get the right information from them or pick up the trafficking indicators.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend has referred to local authorities, and one local authority department that has an eagle eye on what is going on in property is the planning or development control department. Perhaps we have missed a trick in not involving them in the partnership working of locating properties in which such activity is happening.
Mr Field
My hon. Friend is right. She has a background as a lawyer, and I am sure that she dealt with such problems on a day-to-day basis in her former career. As I see in my constituency, the reality is that agencies are generally only alerted to these issues when there is a tip-off from local residents—for example, we have all been contacted by people who live next door or very near to a brothel. I suspect that a significant number of safe houses—safe from the perspective of traffickers—operate for months or years without being detected.
Fiona Bruce
Those properties are often residential properties in which a business is being run, and if that happened with many other types of business, the local authority would take immediate action due to the contravention of planning legislation. More initiative and activity from planning officers in that respect would greatly assist us.
Mr Field
My hon. Friend’s point is well made, although, without wishing to defend the planning officer fraternity too much, I suspect that the phenomenal financial constraints that most local authorities find themselves under mean that they are not necessarily prioritising this area, but it is important that we put those concerns on the record.
Tom Brake
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He has discussed different organisations needing to be educated about the problem, so that they can tackle it more effectively. Does he agree that when the elected police and crime commissioners take responsibility for policing, it will be essential for them also to understand the importance that people place on tackling human trafficking? That should not be neglected.
Mr Field
I am not sure that I want to go too deeply into concerns about precisely where that legislation goes, not least given yesterday’s comments by the Deputy Prime Minister, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. If one considers the populist element of electing police commissioners, I hope that everyone—not only MPs, but interested residents, constituents and citizens—will make it plain that the problem needs to be tackled; indeed, it might be part and parcel of the manifestos of would-be candidates for such a role.
The Government have declared human trafficking to be a coalition priority; I mentioned earlier that we await a new strategy that will shortly step up our efforts in that regard. We recently put our name to the EU directive on trafficking, so the UK has signed up to various obligations. Nevertheless, and without wishing to pre-empt the strategy, I want to put some of my thoughts to the Minister.
It is quite clear from my work on the subject that the current disparate, multi-agency approach has a multitude of fundamental flaws. I have alluded to some of those flaws, which others also recognise. Some are the result of the inherent difficulty in dealing with such a complex and varied problem. However, the Government should consider making a few reasonably small improvements.
The notion of a one-stop shop was put to me by Detective Superintendent Duthie as a means of improving the treatment of trafficked victims and the collection of intelligence. Victims tend to have a variety of needs, and at the moment they are dealt with by a huge range of organisations based in different places. A one-stop shop—a human trafficking centre, as it were—might assist in dealing with health, housing, legal aid, counselling, immigration, repatriation, family reunification and more. I wonder whether the Minister would let us know his thoughts on that idea.
When researching the subject in advance of this debate, I was struck by the poor information available on the internet of all places. If I were a trafficked victim, the first resource that I would use to find a way out of my situation would be the internet. Although a one-stop shop might be seen as too expensive, has the Home Office or any other body considered setting up a presence on the internet that would provide easy, comprehensive and readily available advice to trafficked victims on how to report their experience and, more importantly, how to escape? As things stand, information is dotted across a range of sites, which is incredibly confusing.
Earlier, I mentioned Paladin, the police unit tasked with identifying trafficked children at London’s ports. Concern has been raised by the recently ennobled Baroness Doocey about alternative trafficking routes. Her fear is that Paladin’s vigilance at Heathrow and other points of entry might persuade traffickers to use other routes; in particular, she is concerned that there are no specialist child protection officers working full time at St Pancras, even though that station is within Paladin’s remit.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He has touched on routes into the UK. Does he agree that we also need to establish the source from which many of the unfortunate victims of trafficking come? If it includes the small number of nations that have recently joined the EU, we need comprehensive discussions and negotiations with those member states to ensure that the tap is switched off at source.
Mr Field
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It would be wrong to suggest that the entirety of the problem is caused by the 10 nations that joined the EU over the past seven years, particularly Romania and Bulgaria, to which I referred earlier. However, it is clearly a substantial problem, and the relatively open borders in much of the EU play a part.
I was discussing St Pancras. Eurostar has relatively lax controls, and children under the age of 12 can travel unaccompanied from Brussels and Paris, so long as they have a letter from the parents or guardians. Have the Government considered making points of entry more robust, not only at St Pancras but in those parts of the country not covered by Paladin?
Turning to the EU directive, one of its key requirements is to provide every trafficked child with a court-appointed guardian to look after their interests. That idea, which was championed by Anthony Steen, was referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. I note from last Monday’s debate that the Minister is not convinced of that route, believing that local authorities are best placed to fulfil the guardianship role. With local authorities under the most enormous budgetary pressure, how will the Minister ensure that that duty is being fulfilled, and can he convince all stakeholders that the Government are not merely absolving themselves of responsibility?
I am reminded of the problems encountered by my local authority, Westminster city council, where there was a marked increase in homelessness following EU enlargement in 2004 and 2008. It had terrible difficulty extracting additional funds from the Home Office to deal with the localised effects of a national policy. As a quick aside, I secured a debate here some four years ago and the Home Office—at that juncture we had a Labour Government—mysteriously arrived an hour before the debate with cheque in hand. I accept that these things can happen—
Mr Field
That is wishful thinking. It would probably have to be the right hon. Gentleman making the speech.
In a similar way, the matter of trafficked children is probably bearing more heavily on certain local authorities. For example, I imagine that the London boroughs of Hillingdon and Hounslow take a great number of the children that come through Heathrow. If the guardianship role is to be taken on by local authorities, will the Minister assure hon. Members that, if there is evidence of certain areas being badly affected, those local authorities will be adequately funded and not be forced to choose which of the competing aspects of child protection to fund?
I have referred to the Government’s commitment to making human trafficking a coalition priority, but there is concern that the slipping time scale for producing a robust anti-trafficking strategy is pushing some of the best experts away. The Minister may have seen a report by Mark Townsend in The Guardian this weekend on the loss of key UK staff in this area—it is an excellent piece. A former police officer, one of the most senior figures involved in investigating trafficking, reportedly stated that one of his greatest concerns is the lack of continuity in the Home Office team. Mr Townsend also highlighted concerns that the inter-ministerial group on trafficking has met only once. I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s response to these specific criticisms.
Does the Minister believe that an independent rapporteur to track our progress on tackling trafficking—such an appointment was suggested last Monday by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—might prove useful in reassuring those who criticise the Government by introducing a genuine sense of accountability?
In last October’s Westminster Hall debate, it was suggested that we should have a Pentameter 3, Pentameters 1 and 2 being two police operations to raid brothels, massage parlous and private homes where trafficking was suspected. The idea is that Pentameter 3 would send out the message that we are and continue to be tough on traffickers. The fact has been highlighted that precious few operational police units specifically target trafficking. I appreciate that those matters are essentially operational police matters, but I wonder whether the Home Office has had discussions with the police teams.
Yet more issues could be covered today, such as the role of the Crown Prosecution Service, the responsibilities of local authorities and details of how the UKHTC operates. Unfortunately I do not have time to touch on them, as others wish to speak.
Without being able to assess accurately the extent of the problem, I accept that it is difficult for any Government to be sure of the level and type of resources that are best suited to tackling it. It is all too easy to ignore trafficking. In short, if we do not go looking for the victims, we can too easily pretend that they are not there. When money is tight, the problem can only get worse. I sincerely hope that today’s debate will give some small voice to that forgotten group of the most vulnerable in our midst, and that it will provide the Government with an opportunity to reassert their commitment to rooting out this most despicable ill.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
Like others, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) on securing this debate, which, interestingly, follows a previous debate on this issue. I should point out that it was not an accident that the Government called that previous debate, because I made a commitment that we should have proper scrutiny when we decided to opt in to the European directive.
This is a matter of undeniable significance to both Houses. Many thoughtful points have been raised today, along with one or two slightly less thoughtful ones. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to Anthony Steen—it has become almost compulsory and certainly de rigueur to pay tribute to him in debates such as these—for all his work. I also thank the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who speaks for the Labour party, for her extremely constructive and thoughtful contribution. She and I disagree about individual details, but what she said at the end of her speech is exactly right. We all need to be—indeed, we all are—fundamentally on the same side on this issue. We are discussing how best to eradicate trafficking as much as possible. My hon. Friend said in his introductory remarks that it is much better to conduct this debate in terms that are not hysterical, which, as we progress, will be important not only for our debates in this House, bur for debates among wider groups that are concerned about the issue.
A wide range of issues have been raised this morning. Members have reflected on the complex nature of tackling human trafficking. Many have acknowledged the challenges inherent in tackling this appalling crime. Britain has a good record, under Governments of all hues, of tackling it, and this Government intend for that to continue. I am, however, happy to acknowledge that we can always improve. Indeed, it is striking that, while many Members have paid tribute, as do I, to the work of the POPPY Project, the hon. Member for Slough produced a report that says that Britain is doing worse on victim care than Albania. I think that that point was designed to gain an effect rather than to offer a truthful analysis of what is going on, but it illustrates the complexities and difficulties.
The Government are rising to the challenge of developing more sophisticated ways of tackling traffickers in the changing landscape of organised crime, while continuing, of course, to care for the victims of this trade in human misery. I listened eagerly to many of the contributions. It is clear that the subject of trafficking is close to the hearts of many Members. I acknowledge the point that our work should be transparent and responsive to criticism, when that criticism is well founded.
Mr Field
Does the Minister accept that one of the key problems that we all face in our efforts to raise the profile of this issue is that, to be brutally frank, there are no votes in it? All too often, some of the people who suffer most are regarded by many of our constituents as a troublesome problem. It is, therefore, all the more important that we utilise this opportunity. I hope that the Minister does not see politics as a platform for his views and that he can try to do something fairly constructive. I hope that he will keep that in mind as he continues his speech.
Damian Green
My hon. Friend has made a good point. This is not an issue that tends to gain huge headlines or create partisan politics, and nor should it. This is, therefore, an opportunity for Ministers and Governments simply to seek to do the right thing by some very vulnerable people.
Let me move on rapidly to address all the individual points that have been made by my hon. Friend and others. I reassure him that the work that was done by the UK Human Trafficking Centre will continue unaffected. The UKHTC plays an important role in our overall efforts to combat trafficking, and the Government are committed to ensuring its continued success. When it became part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, much work was done to ensure that the UKHTC retained its unique role, character and identity. That includes its focus on victim care and its competent authority role in identifying victims as part of the national referral mechanism. Merging the UKHTC into the national crime agency will not affect its important work or change its focus in any way. Specifically, as part of the NCA, the UKHTC will benefit from being able to draw on the resources and intelligence of the wider organisation, while retaining its focus.
During the debate, it struck me that two contradictory demands were often made in the same speech: first, that we need to work much better across different parts of the police, between police forces and between the police and different agencies; and, secondly, that specialist units should be set up. There is clearly a tension between those two entirely legitimate demands. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties recognise that.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Mark Field Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
There was a worrying consequence of one of those cases—I think Winston got eaten, as a form of capital punishment introduced as a result of what happened. However, a range of protests have taken place in Parliament square unhindered by Brian Haw and the other protestors. If there were a specific harm caused, and one protestor or group of protestors was preventing others from protesting, we should legislate on that specifically rather than have the blanket approach in the Bill.
The amendments are fairly extensive and are in three basic batches. The first begins with amendment 162, and suggests scrapping the previous scheme and preventing the new scheme from being introduced. The proposal is based on the commitments that both coalition parties made before the election, and the argument is the same: this Government’s proposals disproportionately target protests and protesters, just as the previous Government’s measures did. The amendments would remove the powers to harass peaceful protesters. It is very straightforward: there is enough legislation on the books already to prevent protests in Parliament square that we feel impede the operation of Parliament or in any way cause disorder. In effect, the amendments would remove the restriction on protests in Parliament square overall.
The second of three batches of amendments begins with amendment 171. They propose a reasonable, and a more appropriate and proportionate, alternative. Basically, amendment 171 would introduce an injunction process, whereby people concerned about prohibited activity within the square could apply to the High Court for an injunction. It defines “prohibited activity” not as tents or the use of loudhailers, but specifically as something that
“may result in serious public disorder or serious damage to property; or…where the purpose of the activity is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act that they have a right not to do.”
Existing public order legislation can already deal with security concerns and violence within the square, but if hon. Members want specific powers, the amendment would give people the opportunity to seek an injunction, which would be imposed by the High Court if it reasonably believed that a prohibited activity or serious disorder was being planned or had taken place. Basically, that would introduce due process into the act of preventing people from undertaking protests within the square when that could result in public harm. The harm on the basis of which someone’s human rights can be restrained and constrained is thereby defined. Amendment 174 would in addition reduce the overall penalty to level 3, which attracts a £1,000 penalty, rather than the current £5,000 penalty.
Our next batch of amendments—the batch of last resort—addresses who will implement the legislation. As I said, at the moment, the existing legislation and the Bill put an unmanageable burden on police officers. At the same time, the Bill introduces local authority officers into what could be very difficult and dangerous waters.
I propose that if a police officer is to take such decisions, it should be a senior police officer rather than a constable. We should remember that the decision will be to direct someone that they cannot protest in a certain way, and that they must give over their loudhailers, sleeping equipment or whatever. The officer will also have the ability to use force to take such things and arrest people, which is an extensive power that could cause unnecessary conflict. That should be done by a senior officer.
Amendment 185 would mean that if an officer is to arrest someone, that officer should at least be a police constable—I do not believe that that should be the role of a local authority officer. The Bill introduces a vulnerability to local authority officers, who are not trained to undertake such work, and who are not capable of exercising the judgment that police officers exercise. Police officers are trained to make judgments instantaneously on whether someone is committing an offence, and on balancing human rights and an individual’s behaviour. A series of linked amendments would mean that a court could prohibit someone for only seven days rather than 90, although I can understand why certain Labour Whips do not want that for some of us.
As I said, amendment 174, which is in this batch, seeks to reduce the scale of the fine from £5,000 to £1,000—from level 5 to level 3. It is a matter of judgment, but I feel that the fine of £5,000 is so heavy that it will intimidate anyone seeking to organise a protest on the square or even thinking of applying for a licence, because something could go wrong and they would then be held liable. Rather than risk people thinking twice and therefore not coming along to protest legitimately, we should err on the side of caution before deterring people from such activity.
The amendments would define the powers on court conviction much more clearly to avoid the individual summary offence. They also address issues involving the forfeiture of any items. There is a danger that, under the wide and vague power given to police officers at the moment, police officers can take goods from people in a summary way without there being recourse to the courts.
I have rattled through the amendments, because I know that a lot of Members want to speak. [Interruption.] Well, I think they do. Certainly, members of the Committee will want to speak. However, the issue before us sets a test for individual Governments. It relates not only to major issues, but to smaller ones such as this. It is a test of whether Governments are, as they say they are, truly liberal and committed to human rights, and whether they really want to be reforming Governments. This might seem like a minor issue for the House to be addressing—I do not think that we should be wasting our time, and we should not be introducing this sort of legislation—but it is an important test on which the Government will be judged.
In opposition, the Conservative party agreed that this legislation was outrageous and illiberal, and it promised before the election that it would scrap it and support the right of peaceful protest, which I supported as well. Now the Government have introduced proposals that vary very little from the existing regime. In fact, they will become equally contradictory. As a result of this small matter, I believe judgments will be made on the illiberality of the coalition Government, and on their competence too. If this measure is implemented, and individual officers seek to enforce it, it will produce conflict. It will demonstrate an illiberality of mind and the oppressive nature of the Government’s approach.
On that basis, it would be wrong to legislate in this way. I appeal to the traditions not only of my own side but of the Liberals in respect of the right to protest and to freedom of speech, and those of the Conservative party in respect of individualism. I think Disraeli said that man is great when he is motivated by his passions. Those people out there are motivated by a passion for peace and against war. We should not do anything to impede the expression of their views, but that is what this legislation does, and that is why I urge the Government either to withdraw the provisions or support at least elements of my amendments.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Unlike the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—and, I suspect, every other Member in the House at the moment—I did not have the privilege of being on the Bill Committee. As he will appreciate, however, Parliament square stands in my constituency.
I have quite a lot of sympathy with a number of the things the hon. Gentleman said in speaking to his amendments. Above all, there is nothing worse than the sheer powerlessness of this place in the public’s eye. He was right about the indeterminate number of hours spent on this small matter over the past 10 years. We need only consider the incidents and terrible disturbances last weekend on Piccadilly circus and Oxford street. There is a sense of powerlessness. Many constituents—they would not necessarily blame the police, and neither would I—think, “These events are allowed to go ahead, yet we have absolutely no say in the matter.”
In many ways, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the sense in which Parliament is weak and almost entirely marginalised when such debates take place. A decision can be taken by Executive order to go to war and then be rubber-stamped 48 hours later in a parliamentary debate. I know that he and I take very different views about the rightness of what has happened, but I would agree with him in this regard: we spend endless hours debating such matters to no avail and end up with unworkable legislation. We have had some unworkable legislation in the past, so I share some of the hon. Gentleman’s fears that we might be going down that route again.
John McDonnell
Can the hon. Gentleman update us and clarify whether it is true that the local authority and the Mayor have now secured sufficient legal judgments in the courts to remove the peace camp in due course anyway?
Paul Flynn
Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that we have to trample on the precious freedom to demonstrate in order to tidy the background for the royal snapshots?
Mr Field
The hon. Gentleman might not be quite as much of a royalist and a monarchist as I am, but he will appreciate that that is not what I am saying. However, there was a focus on trying for this thing, although the wheels of the law take a while to turn—there are a number of lawyers in the House, including, either side of me in the Chamber, some rather more distinguished lawyers than I ever was in my brief legal career. I understand that there will be no further legal proceedings on the matter until considerably after 29 April.
Jeremy Corbyn
It occurs to me that the people in Parliament square might actually be awaiting the royal wedding and have got themselves a good place from which to see it. They have got there early. We should commend them for their enterprise in being there so far ahead of the date.
John McDonnell
But it is a valid point, which was also addressed in Committee. We get ourselves into a ludicrous position in which someone turning up with a sleeping bag to wait for the wedding—as the Prime Minister did, when, as he told us, he turned up with his sleeping bag for a previous royal wedding—could be arrested under the legislation in the same way.
Mr Field
Ad absurdum, the hon. Gentleman’s argument is right. However, that is also precisely the distinction that we have to face: the distinction between a one-off arrangement for the one, exciting night before a major public event, and having a permanent encampment around Parliament square. It is to the latter that most sensible people—not those only in this House, but many millions of our constituents—would turn their minds. It is not acceptable that a UNESCO world heritage site—Parliament square, the parliamentary buildings and Westminster abbey—is blighted by having a large permanent encampment. That is an issue, in part, of aesthetics. However, millions of tourists come to Parliament and they must be dismayed by what they see, week after week, month after month. It cannot make much sense for us to allow it to continue.
To an extent, I had sympathy with elements of what the erstwhile Government were trying to do, such as their idea of having a licensed system covering demonstrations when major debates were taking place. In my view, it would have been entirely legitimate, for example, on the day we had our debate on Libya, for those who felt strongly about the issue, on either side, to have held a large, peaceful demonstration. But the notion that encampments can exist day after day, week after week, is another matter. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Tamil encampment that was in Parliament square in the autumn of 2009, which reached a ludicrous stage. There was a lot of noise and disturbance. There were old-fashioned local authority health and safety issues, as well as the whole question of toilet provision, and the area became something of a health hazard as the Tamil group camped there for six weeks before finally leaving.
Many of our constituents are bemused by our sheer powerlessness, and by the fact that we have not been able to get our act together to get the necessary workable legislation in place to ensure that we can achieve our goal.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
One of the reasons that the previous Administration were on such a sticky wicket in regard to the legislation was that it simply did not work. This provision seeks to create a legal regime within which legitimate demonstrations can take place and be adequately controlled in accordance with the UNESCO status of Parliament square.
Mr Field
Indeed, one has heard those words before. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) is a relative newcomer to the House, but I fear that we have been having this debate for many years. As we all know, the workability, or otherwise, of legislation often does not become apparent until well after an Act has been placed on the statute book.
It is essential that we do our best, and we must protect the right to protest. I appreciate that Parliament square is a special place for protest, and I would be very loth to see the perhaps spurious ground of security being used to prevent legitimate, high-profile protest on days when debates were taking place in the House of Commons on high-profile legislation. This encampment, however, does disturb some local residents. That certainly happened when the Tamils were here in great numbers in 2009, and many residents wrote to me to say that their sleep was being disturbed.
We need to strike a balance. Either we have to solve this problem or we have to move on, because there is now a sense that we are powerless. Parliament and all the authorities are becoming a laughing stock. This should be a tremendous site for millions of tourists to visit from across the globe. Parliament is the most iconic building in the United Kingdom, and having that eyesore here is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the very valid comments that have been made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, but I also hope that we will move hastily towards getting a workable provision on to the statute book to ensure that that eyesore becomes a thing of the past.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am sorry that I missed the earlier part of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) for the measured way in which he has represented his constituents in the debate. He is fortunate to represent this constituency, but he also recognises that this area is a centre of national life and that there are bound to be demonstrations here. One should thank him for that.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for tabling the amendment and for his consistency in standing up for civil liberties and the right to protest. We have debated Parliament square on many occasions. Indeed, a Select Committee once took it upon itself to examine the issue, and the former Member for Macclesfield, Sir Nicholas Winterton, invited me to give evidence. The Committee sat in due deliberation for several weeks discussing Parliament square. I gave my evidence, and the former Member for Macclesfield questioned me at some length. I think the House is beginning to get the flavour of the occasion. A report was duly prepared and legislation was duly proposed. That legislation was duly carried, and duly challenged in the courts.
The Herculean parliamentary effort to remove Brian Haw and non-existent protestors from Parliament square succeeded in being passed into law—and the only person unaffected by it was Brian Haw, because he successfully challenged the legislation on the basis that he was a pre-existing resident of Parliament square. One has to pay tribute to Brian Haw for making legal history by doing nothing more than taking up residence in Parliament square. Parliament made itself look a total ass during the whole process, sitting in all due majesty, but having no effect whatever on what Parliament wanted to achieve. We should thank Brian Haw for that. I know he has not been well recently, and I am sure all Members will join me in wishing him well in his recovery. He has shown courage, principle and determination. Not everybody agrees with him, but I think we have to respect it when somebody is prepared to give up such a long period of their life for a cause. Let us all respect it and admire it.
We should also recognise something about the importance of this building and this area of London. The previous Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, had a plan for reducing traffic in Trafalgar square. He succeeded by closing the north side to through traffic and wanted to carry out a similar plan for Parliament square. I am not sure which side of Parliament square was due to be closed, but we should think about this. I feel constantly sorry for the number of visitors arriving to see Parliament. Because of the size of the building, the difficulty of ensuring its security and so forth, the number of people who get in is much smaller than the number who would like to get in. I realise that we are slowly changing that, which is welcome, but most people have to spend most of their time fighting traffic lights and motor traffic simply to see the building. We should invite the Mayor to revisit the whole question of traffic planning, traffic layout, widening pavements and reducing traffic through the square so that everyone can see a very fine and very beautiful building, and enjoy the experience. It is possible to spend some time seeing other national assemblies and Parliaments around the world without having to dodge traffic—I am thinking of the United States, Sweden and a number of other places.
History often turns on itself on these occasions. This country is very good at the incorporatist view of history, as I put it. It is ironic, and many visitors do not always appreciate it, that Oliver Cromwell has a statue outside Parliament, while further up the road is a statue of Charles I and, indeed, not so far away, one of Charles II. They are all part of our history, and they should all be remembered and commemorated for what they did. Many people are vilified for their protests, yet commemorated later. Why do we have a plaque in St Stephen’s entrance to Marjory Hume, who chained herself to a statue there? The statue was damaged during the removal of her chains, when she was there demanding votes for women. Downstairs we have a plaque to Emily Wilding Davison, who locked herself in the broom cupboard to protest about the census of 1911 and in support of voting rights for women. Many other examples of people who have participated in protest outside this building and in this area have become part of our history and part of the road towards what one hopes will be a more democratic society.
Attitudes have changed quite a lot. The Sessional Orders used to be enforced extremely rigorously so that whenever the House was sitting no procession was allowed within a mile of Parliament. The police then relented slightly and changed their attitude. As I recall it, the first time they relented was when General Pinochet was in this country—detained in luxury in Virginia Water. “El Pikete”, as it was known, the Chilean picket that dogged him all the time, had a candle-lit event overnight in Parliament square. It was approved by the police and was an iconic and memorable event; it was part of our history that Pinochet was here. The Stop the War protest took over the square on 18 March 2003. When we debated Trident, the CND protest was here, and others have drawn attention to protests by Tamils, by pig farmers, by the Countryside Alliance and by the pro-hunting lobby—all kinds of people have demonstrated in Parliament square. We are a national Parliament. We are supposed to be the focus of political debate. I think that we make ourselves look more than a little ridiculous if we go to enormous lengths to stop people demonstrating outside Parliament. It is part of a democratic tradition, and it is part of our life.
Mr Field
May I clarify what I said? I did not say that there should be no protests, but the permanence of the encampment means that all the paraphernalia of the barricades is there permanently, which is clearly not compatible with a world heritage site under UNESCO rules. I was trying to draw a contrast between that and large-scale demonstrations on, perhaps, half a dozen days a year relating to debates that are taking place in the House.
Jeremy Corbyn
I was not trying to put words into the hon. Member’s mouth. The agreement of the police to the anti-Pinochet demonstration some years ago showed sensitivity, intelligence and involvement on their part. If we approach the issue in a co-operative way, recognising the right to protest, rather than immediately reaching for the law and the barricades and confiscating equipment, we may proceed a bit further down the road.
Dr Huppert
That is a very good point. A range of legislation applies, and in Committee we discussed some aspects that could or could not be used. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that point, but the question is whether the provisions before us are required.
I do not propose to detain the House by going through all the discussions we had in Committee, because I am sure that Members can read Hansard, if they have not already done so—I am sure that many Members have. Questions arise on the scale of activity. There is a spectrum and we need to consider: who should be allowed to do what; how often; and for how long? The worst of the Bill’s original proposals was the one to give council officials, or even non-council officials given authority by a council, the power to use reasonable force to try to deprive a protestor of an item of property. I was extremely alarmed by that. I am not comfortable with the idea that those people, who are not trained, should be allowed to use that power, and I was not alone. I thank the Minister for listening to me when I voiced my concerns early on and for having to endure our talking about it extensively in Committee.
In one of the Committee’s evidence sessions, I asked what our witnesses thought about that proposal. Shami Chakrabarti, from Liberty, made her position very clear:
“I am also very nervous about non-police personnel exercising those powers.”
None of us would be surprised about that. Metropolitan police Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens made the point that police officers receive a lot of training and operate within a legislative framework and a misconduct procedure, but she said:
“The provision on the use of force would make us nervous.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 113, Q32.]
Mr Mark Field
As the hon. Gentleman will have gathered from my contribution, I have considerable sympathy with what he is saying. However, how would he view the counter-argument, which is that there is a risk of upping the ante by having people in uniform—police officers—doing this work, rather than making this a local authority-related civil offence? Does he think there is a risk that bringing uniformed officers into the piece could turn a peaceable situation nasty?
Dr Huppert
There would be no requirement to bring the police in if one did not want to use “reasonable force” powers. I am very alarmed at the idea of a council official, who might not be particularly well trained, who might not be in uniform and who might not have any obvious form of authority, having the power to use reasonable force in such an instance. If I was involved in a situation like that, I would not expect that person to have such powers. If one did not wish to escalate the situation, one could simply not use reasonable force—one could use no force at all.
Dr Huppert
I think that that was indeed the intention, but “reasonable force” is not a beautifully defined phrase and it is tough to define it. It is particularly tough for people who are not experienced to work out what is and what is not “reasonable force”, particularly in a situation that may well be inflamed. I would not want to see council officials having to make those tough judgment calls.
Mr MacShane
Having enjoyed many happy meals with you in Strasbourg, Mr Deputy Speaker, I always thought we were sharing the same plate.
I will not enter into the question of reading out the names of those who have fallen in war, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) animadverted at great length, and the curious proposition that if one person falls his name should be mentioned, but if 20 or 100 fall there are too many names to read out.
We return, then, to a very important point—the centrality of Parliament and all democratic institutions to which all people should have easy and free access. In several democracies, there is, for good reason, the notion of the parliamentary mile, which means that for approximately 1 mile—a given space—around a Parliament, there should be no protests or demonstrations, and lawmakers should be able to go into their Parliament without being shouted at, as we were here for a number of years by the Iraq war protester with the very loud loudspeaker. We should certainly be able to confront citizens who are protesting or on their way to attend their protests in Trafalgar square, Speakers’ Corner in Hyde park, or wherever. One only has to walk up Whitehall to see a demonstration outside the Prime Minister’s house every day, but a Parliament is not a pressure cooker; it is a place for deliberation.
I recall being outside the White House a few years ago when there was a protest about President Clinton’s policy on Haitian refugees, and Arthur Ashe, the tennis player, was arrested and taken away. Those protestors were very brave. They went there, they knew they were going to be arrested, and they were making a profound point. However, American law says that when the President is in the White House—or when Congress is sitting—people cannot organise demonstrations directly under his nose.
That is a very important principle that dates back to the 19th century—
Mr MacShane
Let me just finish my sentence, and then of course I will give way.
This is a very important principle going back to earlier times when there were huge pressures on parliamentarians. For example, fascists in France tried to stop the French National Assembly meeting in the 1930s. That is why the same rules apply here. I am not saying that any one individual is going to stop any of us, but it is reasonable to say that around Parliament we do not have people permanently demonstrating, and when Parliament is sitting we do not have people permanently trying to break into it.
Mr Mark Field
But surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises that this flies in the face of many of the great traditions of democracy that we have in this country. Nothing could be worse, in the current environment, than having the political class divorced ever more from the public at large.
Mr MacShane
I took part in Saturday’s demonstration, and that showed that the political class, at least those in it who care for public services, is not divorced—although part of it is, given that the Home Secretary said last week that the only march she had been on was to protect foxes, not to protect libraries and disabled people from cuts.
Our forefathers won the right to vote in the great demonstrations of the 1880s by shaking down the railings of Hyde park. Since my school and student days, I have marched, and marched again, in London, but I have not demanded to come and stay here permanently or to scream abuse at MPs coming into the House. I am happy to go up to Downing street to join protests that I associate myself with. That is right, fit and proper. This is not about the political class. Frankly, we have allowed a general degrading and devaluation of the role of MPs. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) is not disconnected. No hon. Member is disconnected: we go back to our constituencies and talk to far more people than any journalist, pontificator or other professional. I still say that we should protect the notion that Parliament is a special place and not just another venue for whatever protest people feel passionate about.
Mr MacShane
I will give way briefly to the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Cities of London and Westminster, and then I must finish.
Dr Huppert
I am having trouble following the logic of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. He is right to say that this is a place of deliberation, and I think we all share the belief that there should not be protests inside this Chamber, other than those made by Members of Parliament. However, we are not talking about that, we are not talking about protests in the Members’ Lobby or Central Lobby, and we are not even talking about allowing protests within the precincts of the Palace. We are talking only about protests outside the Palace of Westminster. That is outside of where the deliberation is happening. I would love him to explain why he thinks it is all right to protest outside Downing street, but not outside the Palace.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Being an apprentice Deputy Speaker, I should have reminded the right hon. Gentleman the first time he failed to do so that he must respond to the intervention that he has taken.
Mr MacShane
I am so sorry. I was just trying to put the interventions together to save time—your time, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I shall try to explain my point to the hon. Member for Cambridge. It is a concept common in many countries, and Britain can exclude itself from it, that the legislators of the democracy should be able to come to the area around the legislature—not around the Executive, not outside Downing street, not in the great centres where people gather such as Trafalgar square or Hyde park, and not anywhere else, such as outside embassies or town halls, but outside Parliament—without being told directly how or on what to vote at that moment. Anybody can come to my surgery on a Saturday or write to me to tell me how to vote. We have colluded in saying that Parliament needs to be protected from the people, which is why we have the absurd security systems that are now in place. If we do not re-establish the principle of parliamentarianism being something that requires reflection, debate and deliberation, with all of us voting in the Aye or the No Lobby to pass a law, and if we say that Parliament is simply an adjunct to a process of protest, it will weaken Parliament.
I will take the next intervention, but I will then sit down because other colleagues may want to speak.
Mr Field
I will be very brief. Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that many of us fear that this will be the thin end of the wedge? The moment we say that Parliament is special, people can say that every local government chamber is special, then that Downing street is special, then that all our courts are special. We have a passion and a love for living in an open, democratic society. I disagree profoundly with many of the protestors who have been in my constituency, and obviously with the violent disturbances, but peaceful protestors are the essence of the democracy that we all hold close to our heart.
Mr MacShane
I am happy to accept the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman’s point of view. Arguments have been held for 200 or 300 years about whether Parliament is different from the Executive, and whether elected representatives have something called privilege—not just privilege to speak in Parliament but privilege to come here and make up their minds on how to speak and vote as they think best.
We have been talking about an individual, and I admire his sacrifice over a number of years, but let us remember what happened not so long ago when passions were so high that the very security of this place was changed. As a result, the one, 100, 1,000 or 10,000 demonstrators who had filled Parliament square for their particular moment, expressing their right to protest directly to parliamentarians within the narrow area around Parliament, found that they had prevented many other citizens from being able to enter freely into the House of Commons to discuss matters with us calmly and peacefully.
There is a difference of opinion, and I respect everybody’s point of view. I am just dismayed that compared with when I came into the House, the level of security has changed, denying people access to MPs, as a result of protests that have gone too far and gone wrong. That has caused us some damage. I see quite good rules working in other democracies. If anybody wants to be arrested in Parliament square, or walk through it to make a protest and move on, so be it. However, the notion that there should be a permanent encampment or that Parliament square should be a place where anybody can come to protest at any time goes just a bit too far.
Student Visas
Mark Field Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is correct: I did not mention that in my statement; I referred to it in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady). Pathway courses for students without the correct level of English to enable them to study at university will continue, but the student will need to be sponsored by the university concerned—the highly trusted sponsor.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
In recent years I have been on the advisory board of the London School of Commerce.
I want to ask the Home Secretary about post-study work, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood). I have slight reservations. Given the excellence of our offering and the idea that we will get some phenomenally innovative students from across the globe who will go back as ambassadors for this country, has any research been done in the Home Office showing that we might lose some of those students to places such as the United States or Australia, or are we confident that the changes will have no such adverse impact?
Mrs May
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that there is no evidence that that will be the upshot. Our system is similar to those in operation elsewhere. It is wrong to say that the United States has a formal post-study work route; it does not. There are some abilities for people to stay and do some work in the United States, but they are different. Indeed, in some ways our requirements will continue to be less tough than those in countries such as Australia.
Quilliam Foundation
Mark Field Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hazel Blears
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, to which I hope the Minister will respond. The comparison between the funding of RICU and the funding that we are asking for in this debate would be illuminating. It is clear that there is a straightforward and simple al-Qaeda narrative, which is that the west is at war with Islam with a feeling of victimhood and grievance. That must be countered, and it is my understanding that that was a core part of RICU’s responsibilities. I would be grateful if the Minister let us know what its resources are, what the product is, what it has been working on and, indeed, whether it can fund other organisations.
Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is making an important speech, and I entirely agree with the broad thrust of what she is saying about Quilliam’s importance. Will she go into a little detail about the discussion she might have had with that organisation about where it sees its diverse sources of funding coming from if it does not come simply from the Home Office, and a time frame for when new sources would come into play if the Home Office were able to continue some of the funding that it is planning to take away?
Hazel Blears
I am grateful for that question. Until recently, Quilliam was in a position to become self-financing in a short time. It had offers of funding, but we then had the recession, which has unfortunately affected all of us, including charitable donations. We have also had the events in the middle east. I understand that some support was pledged from organisations with middle east connections, but that has not been possible because of recent events. It now has a number of applications with charitable foundations that are active in building capacity, resilience and counter-narratives. It has some applications with individuals who have a long track record of support in this area. It is optimistic about being able to obtain funding. It may not be at the same level as in the past, which is why it has made some redundancies—it wants to cut its cloth according to its resources—but it is optimistic about being able to continue with a core facility and to build from there. That will depend on its reputation and the worth of its product, and rightly so. It should be out there and showing it to people.
I would be grateful if the Minister told us what the RICU budget is, what the overall budget is this year for the Prevent strategy and—I know that there will be a review—what it is likely to be, what other organisations are active in developing the counter-narrative and the counter-extremism part, as opposed to some of the good community work that goes on, and how much funding is provided to external organisations. Much of the Prevent review will be about project funding, and Quilliam absolutely accepts that that is where it needs to be in future. Will the Minster confirm that applications for project funding from the Quilliam Foundation will be considered in exactly the same way as applications from any other body-on the strength of the project that it is putting forward?
We could make decisions on such issues that we may live to regret later. It is so much more difficult to recreate something than to help it to continue to exist. I entirely support my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East in his bid for £150,000 to enable the organisation to have an effective transition. Nothing is more important than keeping our country safe, and I believe that the Quilliam Foundation plays a major role in that objective.