Immigration Bill

Debate between Peter Bone and Lord Hanson of Flint

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman politicises a point I am trying to make about process. He knows how Opposition motions are drawn up and he knows that they do not have the same impact as legislation. The proposed legislation will have the effect of depriving citizenship. If an Opposition motion is voted on and defeated one thing will happen: there will be political noise about an issue. This is about the deprivation of someone’s citizenship. We may, ultimately, make the judgment to support the Government, but this is an important point about process that I think we need to make.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. I agree entirely with his comments and it is unusual for the Home Secretary to be filibustering her own Bill. Where does he think the Government could have learned these tricks? Could it have been from the Blair Government?

[Mr Hanson]

I was honoured to serve for 12 years in the Blair Government and I do not think we filibustered that much.

The Home Secretary addressed some issues relating to new clause 18, but they still need to be examined in detail. For example, what definition does she have of “seriously prejudicial”? Who applies that definition? What type of person does she expect to lose citizenship? How many individuals does she expect to be impacted by this?

So late in the day was the new clause tabled that we have had to table two manuscript amendments this morning, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and me, that include the potential for discussion on judicial oversight. The Home Secretary touched on her role and responsibilities relating to judicial oversight, and we need further clarity on that. In the winding-up speech, whether delivered by the Home Secretary or the Minister of State, I would welcome a view on our amendments. Judicial oversight would give us some comfort on whether this is an appropriate measure to take, given the seriousness of removing someone’s citizenship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

There is, and we can explore that in due course, but I want to focus on the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, as the principle of removal is a reasonable one. Let us look at some of the tests that the Home Secretary talked about. I am not one to do this very often, but let me give credit to the Home Secretary: she is trying to make progress on a couple of issues in relation to existing legislation to try to improve the process of deportation. We have given our support to do that, but that process has not yet been developed, examined or evaluated. There is scope for us to look at whether what the Home Secretary has proposed is right and proper and is put into effect.

The hon. Member for Esher and Walton has a long history inside and outside this House of dealing with these matters, but there are still some concerns on the Opposition Benches about the measures that he is proposing, not because we do not want to deport foreign criminals, but because we want to do it in a way that maintains our integrity in relation to the convention on human rights and our integrity with our European and world colleagues. I say that because in relation to a similar amendment that he tabled to the Crime and Courts Act 2013, I have seen a note that perhaps I should not have seen—

[Mr Bone]

Tell us!

[Mr Hanson]

I am going to. It is from the Home Secretary to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), who happens to be the Prime Minister. In the note, on the hon. Member for Esher and Walton’s amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill, the Home Secretary said that the amendment

“would be incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the ECHR… Nevertheless if this amendment passes both Houses of Parliament and becomes law the Secretary of State will be required to act in accordance with it and make deportation orders notwithstanding other ECHR obligations. This would significantly undermine our ability to deport foreign criminals.”

There are real issues that need to be explored. The Bill restricts appeals against deportation that use the right to a family life in article 8. We have supported the Government’s efforts to do that. There are foreign criminals who have committed serious crimes whom we cannot deport and who have used article 8 inappropriately, but the new proposals have not yet been tested in the courts. We support the Government’s view that the proposals in the Bill should be implemented and that gives us grounds to have severe scepticism about supporting the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. What I am not clear on is whether the Home Secretary shares that scepticism, whether she intends to allow the new clause to go forward, or whether she intends to block, support or abstain on it. I would welcome clarification by the time the hon. Gentleman has made his points.

Immigration (Bulgaria and Romania)

Debate between Peter Bone and Lord Hanson of Flint

Thursday 19th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank you, Mr Benton, and your co-Chair, Ms Dorries, for sharing today’s proceedings. The debate has been interesting and has generated some important issues that we need to reflect on, and I welcome the opportunity to do so. In particular, I welcome the fact that today I have learned about, if nothing else, the new year’s eve and new year’s day arrangements of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). In itself, that has been illuminating—that was said before you were in the Chair, Mr Benton, but they are spending new year’s day morning at Luton airport to check on the immigration status of arriving individuals and their destinations accordingly.

I also welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) brought the debate to the House. We had a similar debate on his new clause in the Immigration Bill in Committee on 19 November. We completed consideration in Committee on that day, but the Bill has still not returned to the House—according to today’s business statement, its return is not planned even for the first week of January. The hon. Gentleman has, however, tabled another amendment to the Immigration Bill for consideration on Report.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the new clause tabled by the hon. Gentleman. The debate on it will be an interesting one to have—in essence, it will be the same as today’s. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others who have referred to the new clause, however, that that is still primary legislation. For the measure to take effect, the Bill would have to complete its passage through the Commons and another place and, even then, as the Minister said in Committee on 19 November:

“The only way of doing so would be to negotiate a change to those treaties. Given that this would require the unanimous agreement of all member states, including Bulgaria and Romania, the Government’s judgment—which I think is the right one—is that there is no prospect of achieving it.”

[Mr Bone]

Is it right for the House to interpret therefore that Her Majesty’s official Opposition will not be supporting the new clause?

[Mr Hanson]

That is perfectly correct. The new clause is trying to unpick treaties that are the responsibility of Government to negotiate. Primary legislation would not impact on that. Even the hon. Member for Amber Valley said in Committee a little later that

“trying to get this country to breach various treaties it has signed is probably not a very sensible way of pursuing our diplomatic mission, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2013; c. 401-02.]

I say that simply because the issue is important, and we need to address it, but I am not clear that the new clause or having the debate before or after Christmas would change the fundamental position.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme No. 2)

Debate between Peter Bone and Lord Hanson of Flint

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

If I may, Mr Speaker, I want to seek a few assurances from the Minister before I resume my seat.

I am particularly keen for the Minister to consider what assurances he can give the House that there will be a guaranteed debate on the Leveson amendments and new clauses and that there will be an opportunity for the House to vote on them.

I also seek clarification—perhaps the Leader of the House could assist on this point—about whether the second day of consideration will be confirmed for Monday 18 March—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the Minister of State could listen to what I am saying, because these are important matters that affect whether we will support the motion. I have asked the Minister, as the Leader of the House is in the Chamber, whether he can confirm that the second day of our consideration will be next Monday, as announced last Thursday by the Leader of the House. We seek assurances that there will be an opportunity to debate and vote on Leveson or press regulation-related clauses tabled by the Government or by the Opposition. I want to hear from the Minister—the Leader of the House can help him—whether the debate will happen on 18 March.

The Minister said that he intends to table a supplementary programme motion and he has a duty to tell the House when he intends to do that. Between you and me, Mr Speaker—dare I say it—our amendment would deliver what the Government want on Monday. If it were pressed to a vote, it might do what the Government seek to do, but I am willing, as I am that sort of a guy, to give the Minister the chance to reflect. If he can assure me that the supplementary programme motion will be tabled within living experience, rather than at some future date of which we are as yet unsure, that would reassure me and my right hon. Friends that the Government’s intentions should be supported by the official Opposition.

[Mr Bone]

Let me clarify. Has the right hon. Gentleman moved the amendment and might he seek the leave of the House to withdraw it later?

[Mr Hanson]

That is indeed the situation. I hope I have made that clear, but if I have not, so be it.

I seek three things from the Minister: a guarantee that there will be a debate; a guarantee that there will be a vote; a guarantee that there will be a second day of debate; some indication of when that will be; whether it will be on a day other than that which was previously announced; and when the supplementary motion will be tabled. I reserve the right to withdraw my amendment, but I wanted to move it so that we could get some clarity from the Minister on the key issues about which the Opposition remain concerned and want assurances.