Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Doughty

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, an issue to which I will return in a moment, but what he is actually referring to is one of the instances where the Government have tried to argue that the Human Rights Act did not apply. It is precisely for that reason, and because such arguments were raised in the past, that I am raising the point that I am.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I understand that one of the filings that the Government put to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal said that

“the state, in tasking the CHIS…is not the instigator of that activity and cannot be treated as somehow responsible for it…it would be unreal to hold the state responsible.”

Does he share my concern about the various get-out clauses for the Government in these powers, and does he agree that it is better to have a public limit and safeguards, as they do in Canada for example, on a number of such activities?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, both on the Canada model and on the point, which I put to the Government, that we cannot have a situation in future where there is any doubt about what was meant on the face of this Bill. We cannot have the Government having put forward on their behalf the argument that the Human Rights Act somehow does not apply.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Doughty

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 2nd sitting
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman giving credit to past Labour Governments and their achievements, and he is absolutely right in what he says about the national minimum wage. We can go back even further and talk about the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which was another fine achievement by a UK Labour Government. However, there are also rights whose genesis has been in European law, as we know if we talk to agency workers and think about the working time directive. We should be praising these things. Labour Members say they should be not only preserved but enhanced in future years, and that is what this new clause is all about.

I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government’s record on workers’ rights is concerning to say the least. Let us consider the previous incarnation of this Bill, which was in October 2019. Schedule 4 to that Bill outlined that, first, a Minister would have to consult businesses and unions on the impact on workers’ rights of any new proposed legislation and then state formally how that would happen, and that, secondly, the Government would have to report regularly on any new EU directives. At the time, those proposals were described by the TUC general secretary as “meaningless procedural tricks”, which is why Labour Members tabled a similar amendment to the one before us today so that stronger protections would be in place. The position of the Government in October 2019 was weak on workers’ rights and now it is even weaker. If the Prime Minister cared so much, he would not have moved the provisions on this from the legally binding withdrawal agreement to the non-binding political declaration. Why bother to make that change if not to prepare the ground to make changes in the future? It was no surprise that the Government started off this Parliament indicating that they want to attack the right to strike in the transport sector.

None of those are the actions of a Government who want, as they claim, to

“protect and enhance workers’ rights as the UK leaves the EU”.

They are not the actions of a Government who want to make Britain the

“best place in the world to work.”

Let us not forget that the Conservative party is the party of employment tribunal fees, which were a barrier to those whose rights at work had been infringed and were seeking justice. The Government now ask for trust on workers’ rights, but their record on this bears no reasonable scrutiny. The Home Secretary, in the EU referendum campaign, talked of the

“burdens of the EU social and employment legislation”.

Another member of the Government said:

“The weight of employment regulation is now back-breaking: the collective redundancies directive, the atypical workers directive, the working time directive and a thousand more”.

Who said that? It was the man who now claims to be the workers’ friend, the Prime Minister himself. This Government cannot and will not be trusted on workers’ rights—rights that have been hard won over generations by the labour movement. That is why this new clause is needed in the Bill, in order to safeguard the millions of workers in this country who deserve our continuous protections of their rights. That is why the Opposition will press that new clause to a vote when the time comes.

New clause 3 sets out details about our future relationship, putting the protection of jobs and livelihoods at the very top of our priorities as we depart the EU. It sets out the arguments that have been made by the Opposition for some years now, arguments for a UK-wide customs union, with a say in external trade deals, for strong, high-quality single market access, and for ensuring that rights and protections—for workers, as I have mentioned, but in other areas too—in the UK never fall behind those across Europe. I also think of our manufacturing sector, where our exporters are currently benefiting from tariff-free access to the single market. In all our constituencies, whether through direct employment or the many supply chains that exist, workers and businesses will rightly look to this House to protect their interests going forward, and that is what we should do.

In the course of this Parliament, we will hold the Government to account on their record on jobs and investment. The basis upon which they secure the new relationship with the EU will have consequences for now and for decades to come. Parliament has lost its right to set a negotiating mandate, so that task now falls squarely on the shoulders of the Government. They will be judged on what they do and the impact it has on employment prospects up and down the land.

Subsection (1)(d) refers to participation in EU agencies, many of which have been debated in the course of our deliberations on Brexit in recent years. I wish to focus on and make some remarks about the issue of security, because in a digital age, when crime knows no borders, there are extraordinary new challenges in the task of keeping the public safe. Nobody can doubt the value of working together, and continuing to work together, on security with the EU and other international partners, but the Government have not yet produced a credible plan on how the current advantages we have—the current set of tools—will continue in the post-Brexit age.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a crucial point. Although I agree with the other parts of the new clause on the customs union and the single market, security is an aspect that was largely lost in many of the debates that we had in the House, yet we members of the Home Affairs Committee regularly heard evidence from experts—from law enforcement agencies, the Metropolitan police and others—of the risks to our security of not getting a comprehensive security arrangement in place. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should listen to those experts and the Government should listen to them, too?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall develop that point, because one issue is that the non-binding political declaration contains an aim for a broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership, but that is currently just words on a piece of paper. We urgently need a plan. When the former Prime Minister spoke at the Munich security conference in February 2018, she spoke about a security treaty with the EU27, but we are still waiting for the planned architecture of that co-operation.

Let me give some specific examples. Things such as the European arrest warrant, Eurojust and Europol are critical to the successful investigation and extradition of wanted suspects or criminals. National Crime Agency statistics show how important this is. In the period from 2010 to 2016, the UK made 1,773 requests to member states for extradition under the European arrest warrant and received 48,776 requests from member states for extradition. Not only can the UK currently bring people to these shores to face justice, but we can send dangerous people to other countries to face legal proceedings.

It seems the Government have accepted the importance of the European arrest warrant. Their July 2018 White Paper said that

“the UK has arrested more than 12,000 individuals, and for every person arrested on an EAW issued by the UK, the UK arrests eight on EAWs issued by other Member States”.

That White Paper also showed the challenge that the Government face. It said:

“Existing extradition arrangements between the EU and third countries do not provide the same level of capability as the EAW.”

We cannot allow our capability to be diminished.

GWR and Network Performance

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Great Western Rail (GWR) delays and performance across the network.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for generously accepting my application for this urgently needed debate on the Great Western rail franchise, and the many colleagues from across the House who supported it. It is good to see so many colleagues from across the network in the Chamber; they will represent the concerns of passengers from across the network and the difficulties that they face. It is clear that the deteriorating GWR service affects many hon. Members and their constituents.

I also thank those who shared their stories and frustrations about GWR’s failures on the RailUK Forums and the Great Western passengers forum, and my constituents who did so on Facebook and Twitter. I thank the Parliamentary Digital Service for its outreach work in support of this debate, and the House of Commons Library and my office for helping to compile a list of some of those concerns.

Carmel, who commented on one of the forums, summed up the situation:

“Terrible customer experience with travel and website use. Cannot rely on the train service to get me to work on time despite my rail fare going up year on year. Cancelled trains, delayed trains, high cost...Hopeless and frustrating journeys day after day. Poor Wifi, ridiculous paper filling out to get a refund on tickets. Makes life very stressful for commuters.”

Those are some of the issues that I will touch on.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way he is leading this very important debate. On that point, my constituents who have contacted me say they want to use the train service more often and not drive to work, but they cannot, due to the issues that my hon. Friend identifies—particularly those relating to reliability. Does he agree that that is simply not acceptable any more?

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely. I concur with that point. It is a great tragedy that the service problems are turning many potential rail users on to the roads. We do not want that to happen, particularly in the south Wales corridor.

As the Library helpfully summarised for Members in the debate briefing, Great Western Railway is currently run by FirstGroup under a direct award that is due to expire in March 2019. The Department for Transport decided to exercise its option to extend the direct award until April 2020, and we understand that it plans to negotiate another direct award for two years until April 2022. It took that questionable decision despite the fact that, as the Library outlined, Great Western’s performance has seriously deteriorated of late. That is reflected in the declining levels of passenger satisfaction on its part of the network. The autumn 2018 national rail passenger survey revealed that passenger satisfaction was just 78%, and had declined from 84% when the survey was conducted three years earlier. Even more shockingly, only two thirds of GWR passengers were satisfied with the reliability of trains, and only 40% were satisfied with the way GWR handled delays.

The Great Western route is unusual in that it is hugely wide geographically. It stretches right along the historical south Wales and west country main line, famously developed by Brunel, and serves the M4 corridor and the commuter lines into the Thames valley. Crucially, it also goes down to the south-west, Devon, Somerset and Wiltshire. It is a lifeline for many communities. People rely on it for commuting between those regions and travelling to and from London.

There have been substantial problems on the network for the past few years, a variety of which have hit the headlines. The bulk relate to the delayed and altered electrification programmes, the responsibility for which lies with the DFT and Network Rail, and to the introduction of the new trains. Surprisingly, the Department extended the franchise without adequate consultation or consideration. The problems include serious delays, poor service, delays in processing compensation claims and other concerns about performance include catering issues, failures relating to reservations and the management of rail replacement services at crucial periods.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Doughty

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

New clause 1 would make our continued participation in the European arrest warrant a negotiating objective of the Brexit negotiations. There can be little doubt about the value of the EAW to this country. The Security Minister will be aware, for example, that it was vital to apprehending the man who helped to organise and co-ordinate the London bombings of 7/7. According to the National Crime Agency, between 2010 and 2016, the UK issued 1,773 requests to member states for extradition under the EAW and received 78,776 from member states. Of those the UK issued, 11 related to terror offences, 71 to human trafficking, 206 to child sex offences and 255 to drug trafficking.

According to the Government’s own White Paper, more than 12,000 individuals have been arrested, and for every person arrested on an EAW issued by the UK, the UK arrests eight on EAWs issued by other states. Without the EAW, extraditions can cost four times as much and take three times as long. The Security Minister will of course be aware that in counter-terror investigations speed really is of the essence, and it is therefore vital that we set the objective of continuing to play a key role on the European security scene.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I completely agree with what my hon. Friend has said, and I support the new clause. Does he share my concern that the current Brexit Secretary has a track record of voting against home affairs and justice co-operation before taking up his current post, and does he believe that that is reconcilable with the Government’s stated objective of close security co-operation? This is no-brainer stuff. We should be co-operating to deal with terrorist suspects and serious organised crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am not aware of an area of law where there is currently a shortage of lawyers, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me of one—I say that based on many years’ experience of practising as a lawyer. As for the second question, I have no issue with vetting people before they can join a panel. Indeed, it is the case now that people are considered for their expertise in professional matters before they join a legal panel. I am just making a perfectly practical suggestion that would deal with the Minister’s worries while preserving that highly important principle of legal professional privilege which, as I said in my opening remarks, the Supreme Court has said in recent weeks is vital to the rule of law in this country. We should not abrogate that as we seek to tackle the real terror threat before us. I hope that the Minister will at least undertake to go away and consider whether that could realistically be looked at in the other place. It is an important principle, and I do not want to divide the House on it, but whether there is to be a concession is a matter for the Minister.

[Stephen Doughty]

I do not want to detain the House for long, but having served as a member of the Bill Committee I wanted to put on the record some of my concerns about the new clauses and amendments in this group.

I wholeheartedly support new clause 1, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). I cannot see any reason why the Government would want to reject it given that the Chequers agreement and the White Paper—I have read both carefully—point out the 40 different areas of justice and policing co-operation that are so essential to our security and our counter-terror efforts across European borders. The White Paper suggests that some of that co-operation could even be strengthened and deepened, so I cannot see any reason why setting out in the Bill the importance of seeking participation in the European arrest warrant, one of the most crucial of those 40 instruments, would be a problem.

Given the transnational nature of some of the terror plots and serious organised crime that we have seen not only in my constituency, but in some tragic events over the past year at a UK level, I cannot see why we would want to diminish our security co-operation through, for example, Europol and Eurojust. As we approach the Brexit deadline that was set when the Government triggered article 50, we are potentially leaving a great deal of uncertainty around such issues. We do not want criminal or counter-terror investigations that are ongoing at the end of March next year to be jeopardised by the failure to secure participation in the European arrest warrant going forward.

As for my hon. Friend’s amendment 26, the Minister is aware of my concerns because we have discussed them both in person and in Committee. I fully support appropriate strengthening mechanisms to ensure that individuals can be detained at border points and that the police and security services have the appropriate powers to interdict those who might be trying to commit terror acts, serious organised crime or, indeed, espionage or other serious matters. However, it is important that that is balanced against ensuring that such powers are used carefully and effectively. Where problems exist, there should be appropriate appeal and oversight mechanisms to ensure that citizens feel that such matters are being used appropriately and securely and that individuals who are wrongly interdicted have appropriate restitution, which is important for confidence in the system as a whole.

My last point is an important one for the Bill as a whole. This part of the Bill includes many new powers and schedules, and there is cross-party agreement that our security services and the police need them to keep this country and other countries safe and to prevent us from experiencing terror attacks or the consequences of serious organised crime, but they can be applied only with appropriate resourcing.

We have seen what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has had to say today about the 2% pay rise for police being a “punch on the nose.” We have seen the National Audit Office’s reports on the concerns about cuts in policing, and we in the Home Affairs Committee have been conducting an inquiry into police funding. The frontline policing community policing and specialist counter-terrorism policing that will be required to apply the provisions of the Bill, on which there is cross-party agreement, cannot happen out of thin air or by magic; it only happens if it is properly resourced.

I urge the Minister to make a strong case in the Home Office in the coming months that the police need more resources. We cannot continue cutting in this area, otherwise we put our national security at risk.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Doughty

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I rise to support the clause. The Minister has already set out that extraterritorial jurisdiction is nothing new under our law. It most certainly is not, and the effect of this clause is to extend that extraterritorial jurisdiction to new offences, including under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which is about uniforms and flags associated with proscribed organisations; section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883, which is the making or possessing of explosives in suspicious circumstances; the dissemination offence under section 2 of the 2006 Act, which we referred to in our debate on clause 4; and finally to section 1 of the 2006 Act on encouraging terrorism.

I would press the Minister to elaborate a little more on the point made by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in his evidence to the Committee, expressing concern about the way in which extraterritorial jurisdiction is applied to UK citizens on the one hand and non-UK citizens on the other. The Minister referred to the Attorney General’s permission being given in certain circumstances, where we have British nationals on the one hand and on the other we do not. While the Opposition wholly support the clause, it would assist if the Minister at least addressed the concern that the independent reviewer raised about the clause in that regard.

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree with the comments the Minister and my hon. Friend have made on this clause 5, but I would be interested in the Minister’s remarks on this point: if an individual has committed these offences or any of the existing offences abroad, it is crucial to detain them at the border when they attempt to re-enter the UK. There have been some worrying reports in the last few weeks about stolen passports or identity documents being available, and being used by criminals and those who have potentially committed terrorist offences overseas. It is crucial that we co-operate with Europol and Interpol, through the databases on stolen documents, to stop individuals who are attempting to sneak back in, perhaps because they have committed the offences outlined in the clause—indeed, they are the most likely to be trying to avoid detection on entering the UK. Can the Minister say a little about what steps are being taken to enforce not only the existing measures, but the measures as outlined in clause 5?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Indeed. None the less, they are meant to achieve exactly the same thing.

I have little to add to what has already been set out. At the evidence session I asked Corey Stoughton of Liberty the question about this issue. It is, of course, an article 10 right, and I would not have thought that anybody on the Committee would wish to curtail the right to peaceful protest.

I support the underlying purpose of the clause. Anti-terror measures at events are extremely important, and I see no issue with that, but we have to strike a balance so that they do not restrict legitimate rights of protest. The right of assembly is rightly protected in the European convention on human rights and incorporated into our domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998. We should protect it, and protect article 10. On that basis, I commend both amendments to the Committee.

[Stephen Doughty]

I rise to support the amendments, but I wish to raise a separate point about obstructions. First, I want to understand fully from the Minister why all the new powers are necessary. I represent a constituency where we host many major events. We have the National Assembly for Wales, we hosted part of the NATO summit, and we hosted the UEFA champions league final, including the fan zone. I regularly see such measures—bollards, traffic restrictions and blockages—being put in place anyway, so why are all the additional powers necessary? Substantial powers seem to be available to the police and other authorities already to restrict traffic or make areas safe.

Secondly, what steps will the Government take to ensure that appropriate notice of likely disruption is given to residents, or indeed to businesses, in areas that will be affected by the measures? Also, what compensation might be available to those who face significant disruption to, for example, business activity? Obviously, I appreciate that in very short-notice situations, when a specific threat arises, it may be impossible to give appropriate notice, and sometimes things need to be done to protect the public. That should be at the forefront of all our minds. However, we are talking about major events that are planned many months in advance. Unfortunately, I have seen many examples of businesses, in particular, and residents experiencing disruption that could quite easily have been avoided if better information had been made available about safe travel routes, or likely disruption of business opening hours and so on. That can be quite significant.

For the UEFA champions league final there were, rightly, extensive bollards and access gates, and all sorts of other road traffic measures, for several weeks in advance, as well as during and after the event. However, despite the availability of information about the fact that the event was happening, it was not always clear to Cardiff Bay residents—of whom I am one—or businesses what routes would be available, when they would be open, and what disruption was likely. I know of some businesses that lost substantial amounts because the placing of barriers and bollards obstructed the business and impeded access. Such things are side effects of necessary measures, but we must recognise that they are a consequence of holding major events, and of the provisions needed to keep them safe.

I would like, first, to understand why all the new powers are necessary and, secondly, what steps the Minister believes security authorities, police and local authorities should take to mitigate the effect on residents and businesses.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Doughty

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Monday 11th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

This has been a wide-ranging and thoughtful debate.

Two years ago, our late friend and parliamentary colleague Jo Cox was murdered, and between March and September last year there were five terror attacks. At the forefront of our minds are those who lost their lives in the incidents at Westminster Bridge, Manchester Arena, London Bridge and Borough Market, and Finsbury Park, and those who were injured at Parsons Green. We think of Jo and others who are no longer with us, and we think of the injured and their friends and families. We also think of our magnificent emergency services who, time and again, showed extraordinary bravery and courage in the most difficult circumstances.

I pay tribute to all the workers in our national health service who saved lives and treated the injured, and to all the services that were involved in the investigation and treatment of Sergei and Yulia Skripal—including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who was rightly lauded by Members in all parts of the House during the debate. I also pay tribute to the work of our security services. We should think about what has not happened: since the terrible murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in May 2013, 25 terrorist attacks have been foiled and numerous lives have been saved.

It is in the context of those events that the Bill is to be judged. We all want effective legislation in that context. Such legislation must always keep pace with technology and the times in which we live, and we support the Government in those aims. We also, of course, want to put public safety at the centre of policy in this area, and to make it as effective as possible. Aspects of the Bill build on the recommendations of the previous independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) rightly highlighted the work that David Anderson has done in this area over a number of years.

We are anxious for the wider impact of terrorist incidents on surrounding communities and businesses to be taken into account, and clause 19 is welcome in that it seeks to widen the scope of losses covered. Business interruption costs are not currently covered when there is no physical damage to the commercial premises, although we know that such interruption occurs. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) for the work that he has done in that regard. We will press the Government in Committee on whether they will cover losses that have been suffered by businesses in connection with the incidents of the past 15 months, and not simply losses that will be suffered in future incidents. Will they compensate businesses that have lost out in the past when they should not have done so as a consequence of the current loophole?

We intend to table substantial amendments to the Bill in Committee. The Minister has indicated a willingness to be constructive, and I take him at his word. I hope that he will consider all our amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are intended. We will continue to make the case for proper resourcing, an issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). I myself have asked the Minister about it on a number of occasions. We will continue to hold the Government to account for their funding of our police and other emergency services, and our security services, and, indeed, for how much we pay the workers who do so much for our society.

The first three clauses seek to update terrorism offences on expressions of support for a proscribed organisation, publication of images, and obtaining or viewing material on the internet—the so-called digital fixes. We agree of course that the law should be updated and keep pace with the times, but those clauses will need work in Committee. Max Hill QC, the independent reviewer of terror legislation, has said in recent days that

“the tweaks to existing offences range from pragmatic to problematic.”

Of course, with any change in the law, we have to ensure that there is wide public consent. The independent reviewer of terror legislation said last October:

“While we can all agree that there should be nowhere for real terrorists to hide, we should also agree that legislating in the name of terrorism when the targeted activity is not actually terrorism would be quite wrong.”

That is why the legal frameworks we set in this House must be forensically considered, seeking to protect our daily lives and our values of freedom and respect. It is vital that we guard in our criminal law against any unwelcome consequences.

We will therefore be scrutinising the Government carefully on what they mean by “reckless” in the context of an expression of support for a proscribed organisation. On the photographs provision, we will want the Government to distinguish genuine threat from immature behaviour or other motives. On the streaming of material as well as downloading, I agree that the law needs to be updated in that respect, but we need to be clear about what “streaming” means. At present it is specified in the Bill as three views, but, as a number of contributions to the debate from across the House have suggested, that will need to be carefully considered. Journalists and assiduous researchers accessing material for legitimate purposes—and indeed the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee—should not be criminalised, so we will be looking at the position of the Government with regard to the “reasonable excuse” defence.

On the additional sentences in the Bill, the Sentencing Council published its guidelines for terrorism offences on 28 March, but those were based on the current maximum sentences. I would be grateful for reassurance from the Minister that the Government will work with the Sentencing Council on the new proposed maximum sentences.

The release of terrorist offenders who are subject to extended sentences will be a decision for the Parole Board. There were concerns in a different criminal context with regard to the Warboys case, but I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to give reassurances that shortcomings have now been satisfactorily resolved and that there can be wide confidence in the Parole Board as it carries out such an important task.

On data retention, we will of course look carefully at the Government’s justification as to why the collection of data from people who are arrested but not charged is necessary and proportionate, and what mechanisms are in place for wholly innocent people who wish to have their data removed.

A number of Members mentioned the extension of the Prevent programme, and clause 18 gives local authorities the power to refer to Channel panels as part of that strategy. Labour’s policy is for there to be a review of Prevent, and we will of course consider carefully the capacity of local authorities in this regard in their current funding settlements. Indeed, at Home Office questions only last week, I raised with the Minister my concerns about local authorities being given additional duties in respect of data without appropriate data security and training and the resources required.

It is entirely reasonable for the Government to be looking at border security. Clause 20 activates schedule 3, which includes the power to stop, question and detain. That is a very broad power. Paragraph 1(4) of schedule 3 states that somebody can be stopped, questioned and detained

“whether or not there are grounds for suspecting that a person is or has been engaged in hostile activity.”

In his opening remarks, the Home Secretary made it clear that there should be robust safeguards in circumstances such as these, and I absolutely agree with him. At the moment, the Bill provides for oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, but I suggest that working with the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism—who is at the moment the reviewer of schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000—is going to be crucial. That relationship will need to be spelled out as the Bill proceeds.

[Stephen Doughty]

We obviously understand the need to detain individuals in certain circumstances, particularly at airports when they are potentially posing a risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are to exercise these powers sensitively, it is crucial to have regard to compensation for those who have been stopped and subsequently found not to be guilty of any offence—for example, if they have missed their flight or had property taken off them?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend on that point. How we draw the law precisely in this area is very important. The powers will need to be backed up by appropriate safeguards and protections for those who are wholly innocent of any offence.

On the question of border security, the Bill as it stands means that a person who is detained for less than an hour will not have the right to access a solicitor, and that someone detained for more than an hour will be able to access a lawyer, but they could be required to do that within the sight and hearing of an officer. That will clearly have consequences for our cherished and valuable principle of legal professional privilege, under which people have the right to consult a lawyer and to do so in private. This is something that we will want to consider further in Committee, and I very much hope that the Government will listen to the points that have been made about the need for appropriate safeguards.

I hope that the considered nature of this debate will continue into the Committee stage. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the House to scrutinise and, hopefully, improve this legislation in such a crucial policy area.

Yemen: Political and Humanitarian Situation

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He speaks with great eloquence and passion on an issue that I know he has spent much time engaging on personally, both in government and subsequently.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. To add to the points that have already been made, does he agree that one thing the UK Government and others could do is urge all sides to allow unimpeded humanitarian access, which would clearly assist with the situation?

[Stephen Doughty]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, that message has been made clear to me in my conversations with organisations such as Oxfam, Save the Children, Médecins sans Frontières and many others in recent weeks and the past few days.

Unfortunately the crisis in the country is now even worse than we could have imagined a few months ago, with the disastrous failure in governance and the decimation of the Yemeni economy. The United Nations has estimated that it is only a matter of months before Yemen faces total and utter collapse. The sheer scale of the devastation is astounding. At least 18.8 million people, almost two thirds of the population, are in need of some kind of humanitarian aid or protection. Close to one third of the population are in acute need of assistance—that is 10.3 million people. Some 7 million people do not know where their next meal will come from or are at risk of famine. One child under five in Yemen dies every 10 minutes. Cholera has now spread to every part of the country, with more than 200,000 suspected cases and 1,300 deaths, according to Oxfam and other agencies.

The United Nations’ humanitarian chief, Sir Stephen O’Brien—a former Member of this House, known to many of us—described the situation in Yemen as a “man-made catastrophe”. I wholeheartedly agree with that, but I would go further. I am sorry to say that on the one hand the UK has delivered lifesaving aid through the Department for International Development, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) rightly praised in the last Parliament for its work in Yemen on the humanitarian crisis, but on the other hand the UK is responsible for a clear failure in our foreign policy and the moral approach we have taken to our arms export policy. No humanitarian response can adequately meet the increasing needs that the ongoing conflict is causing, and there needs to be an immediate cessation of hostilities by all sides.

Leaving the EU: Infrastructure in Wales

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

We do not always agree on everything, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that—particularly when we see very different visions emerging from members of the Cabinet as to what a post-Brexit UK and Wales might look like. We heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggest in Germany that the UK is going to have a race to the bottom and be a completely deregulated tax haven on the fringes of Europe. That is not what I believe the people of Wales voted for. They voted for a strong economy with strong rights. They might have had different views on immigration or the democratic deficit there has been in parts of the EU, but they did not vote for a race to the bottom or for us turning into some sort of Gibraltar or one of our overseas territories on the fringes of Europe.

Leaving the EU will have a significant impact on the funding and development of infrastructure in Wales. We all know of examples in our constituencies of where European funding has delivered results, whether that is in community facilities in Butetown in my constituency, road infrastructure or science and innovation in our universities. We have no clear answers as to what will happen to that infrastructure support for Wales post-2020 and what will replace it. Businesses and investors need certainty about the infrastructure and environment that will support their long-term decisions, so it is vital that we have greater clarity. We need clarity in particular on issues such as loans made by the European Investment Bank, which I will come on to, and the specific assessment criteria that will be used to guarantee funding for projects signed after the autumn statement but while we remain a member of the EU.

I am sure that many hon. Members will mention individual projects. I will give some examples. EU funding in recent years has supported many infrastructure projects—for example, through £40 million towards Swansea University’s new Bay campus; nearly £4 million towards the development of the Wales coastal path; £9 million towards Rhyl harbour; and the dualling of the A465, the “heads of the valleys road”. Many prospective infrastructure projects are yet to be properly finalised, such as the Swansea Bay city deal, the North Wales growth deal, the tidal lagoons and the South Wales metro, which I raised in a previous debate and is of great concern to my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth. Of course, the uncertainty around those projects has not only been caused by the referendum result; there are other factors at play, but that is a crucial part of whether those projects go forward.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Flello. My hon. Friend talks about specific projects. I particularly have in mind the £106 million that is earmarked from the European regional development fund for phase 2 of the South Wales metro. Does he agree that, for projects such as that, it is all about certainty, and that it is in the hands of the UK Government to provide that certainty?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree. It is about not only certainty of the funding for projects but managing the growth of rapidly growing areas in south Wales. In my own city of Cardiff in particular, we need to know that we are going to have the transport infrastructure to cope with the anticipated demand. The South Wales metro is crucial to that.

EU Referendum: UK Steel Industry

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Doughty

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

My right hon. Friend makes a crucial point. The industry, its workers and all of us want to hear categorical assurances from the Minister today about action. We do not want to hear more platitudes and warm words. Particularly with the uncertainty, there is a real danger that the answer to our many questions will be, “We don’t know. Wait for the new Prime Minister and the new Government.” Well, the steel industry cannot afford to wait. It could not afford to wait before, and we now need real assurances. This is a matter of national significance.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on securing this debate. He is rightly talking about securing concrete action from the Government. Does he agree that one idea would be for the Government to redouble their efforts to ensure that British steel is used in procurement projects, both in the supply chain and in headline contracts?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree. The fundamentals of this debate have not changed. It is about the action being taken on energy costs, on the UK steel industry’s terms of trade, on unfair dumping, on the additional risks now being created by the uncertainty about our future trading relationships and, indeed, on the crucial question of procurement.