Asylum Support (Children and Young People)

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant]

I absolutely agree. That does not mean that we should throw out all the rules on benefits in this country. It is a simple point to make—the vectors of asylum are oppression and dictatorial regimes, not the attraction of some kind of benefits system in this country. That is not to say that we should build palaces for every single person who comes to this country—no refugee expects that—but it is important to realise why people come.

It is also important to realise that no one wants to be a refugee; everyone prefers to live in their own country. The whole Old Testament is about people who are refugees because they had to leave their own country and the oppression that they lived under. The Israelites went off into the desert because of the oppression they were suffering under the Egyptians. That is a fundamental—theological, if one likes—understanding of the role of the refugee.

We need to do a great deal more, where we can, to ensure that our aid budget is deployed to try to ensure that fewer people around the world have to seek refuge. The number of people seeking asylum in this country and in many other parts of the world rose dramatically in the 1990s for the simple reason that there were many more dangerous places from which people had to flee.

We were hideously ill-prepared—in 1994, 1995 and 1996 there were only 50 people to deal with asylum seekers’ applications in this country—and it took a considerable period to put the situation in order. There were something like 170,000 applications a year; we are now talking about something in the region of 19,000, 20,000 or 21,000.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says that the number of asylum seekers increased because more places around the world were dangerous. Is it not also the case—this is not a harsh point, just one for balance—that many people who came here claiming that they were asylum seekers came for other reasons? In fact, the attraction of easier travel and better media meant that, in addition to the rising numbers, understanding whether the basis for asylum was valid or invalid become more important in the 1990s and the last decade.

[Chris Bryant]

That may be true, but part of my critique is that we have been very ill-prepared to make such decisions over the past 20 years. If a long time is taken to decide on someone’s asylum application—that happened under Labour, but also in the early 1990s—the danger is that we end up with people who have become stateless and without any real existence.

Among people coming to my surgery recently, one young gentleman—he is not young any more; he came here some 25 years ago—has never had an asylum decision and has simply being living here. He has not been living off the state. He lives with his wife, and he is the house husband. Sorry—not his wife, but his partner: he has decided to come clean because he wants to marry, and he cannot marry without regularising his position.

It is vital that we make swift decisions, and it is important that the Government do whatever they can to reach the target of all asylum decisions being made within six months. In some cases, we have to be very careful. In particular, I hope that the Minister will look at the new evidence about Sri Lanka. When we return people to Sri Lanka, where they face oppression and persecution, we need to be careful in our relations with the Sri Lankan Government, let alone with others. There can be no greater instance of the trauma involved in someone’s having to leave their country as a refugee than the case of the 92 Burmese refugees who died after being at sea for 25 days off the coast of Thailand.

I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of the British people would be scandalised, upset and shocked by many of the stories told and much of the evidence presented to the group, especially about those for whom no decision has yet been made. The warmth of feeling of the British people, however, is somewhat diminished for those on section 4 support, when it has already been decided that people should go home.

I also think, as I know from an e-mail I had from a constituent yesterday—about a story in the Daily Mail, which makes me slightly hesitant—that there is less support for those in this country who decide to take on further family responsibilities after it has been determined that their asylum claim will not be accepted. I merely note that five of the people we have talked about are women who became pregnant after their appeal had been rejected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. I do not know whether what she has reported is true or not, which is why I hope that the Minister can reply. He said from a sedentary position that it was not true.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to refer to the hideous conditions in which many people live. We need to do far more in this country to crack down on unscrupulous and poor landlords, who put people into housing that, frankly, is not fit for living. It has been a disgrace that successive Governments have not concentrated enough on that. Multiple removals are a waste of time, money and energy for the organisations involved, leaving aside the effect on families, and particularly on children who have to change school. I have already referred to slow decision making, and to how important it is that decisions are made swiftly so that people can organise their lives accordingly.

I want to ask the Minister what impact the bedroom tax will have—

[Richard Fuller]

It is not a tax.

[Chris Bryant]

I have heard the Prime Minister say that the bedroom tax is not a tax, which rather seems to give the game away.

[Richard Fuller]

Stop misleading people. It is not a tax.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking under immigration rules to promote better integration.

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

16. What steps she is taking under immigration rules to promote better integration.

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Our immigration reforms will return migration to sustainable levels in the tens of thousands, reducing pressures on communities. Changes to family immigration rules will ensure that migrants are not a burden on the taxpayer but can speak English and pay their way, and a new “Life in the UK” test will have British history and culture at its heart. All of that will help ensure that migrants are better able to integrate in the UK.

[Richard Fuller]

I welcome the Minister’s comments. The cornerstone of successful integration in Bedford and Kempston for generations has been a clear focus on hard work and strong family values. Will the Minister assure me that he will continue to promote those values, rather than the pattern of welfare dependency that has emerged in recent years?

[Damian Green]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an entirely valid point, because most immigrants come here to work and we should encourage them to do so. That is why our new “Life in the UK” test booklet will concentrate more on British history, British values and great people in British history and rather less than the previous Government’s version did on how to claim benefits.

UK Border Agency

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

rose—

[Keith Vaz]

I will give way twice more, but then I must make progress because other Members want to speak.

[Keith Vaz]

No one in this House knows more about these issues than my hon. Friend, having been the chair of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. She is right that decisions are being put off.

[Richard Fuller]

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that immigration is an issue of statistics. It may not be popular to say so, but does he agree that it is also an issue about the lives of individual people? In managing the statistics, we should not lose sight—no matter what the tabloids say—of the fact that we are talking about people who may have made a commitment to come here and who may have gone through extremely difficult circumstances to get here. How we treat such people should have just as much emphasis in our consideration as dealing with the statistics.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Yarl’s Wood is near his constituency, so he will have dealt with these kinds of cases. It is important that we look at the cases on an individual basis. Of course they form part of a grid, table or pie chart, but they involve individual people with real problems that we need to deal with.

I will move on to students, which is an issue of great interest to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. The Select Committee happens to contain not only the hon. Lady, but the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), so obviously student visas are an important issue to it. Of course, the fine universities of Northampton, Leicester, De Montfort and Rhondda are also represented in the Chamber. [Interruption.] If there is not a university of Rhondda, I am sure that there will be by the end of the week.

We love seeing the Minister for Immigration before the Committee, although we do not see him often enough. He is coming before us on Tuesday. When he last came before us, we talked about student visas. There is definitely a difference of emphasis between the Foreign Office, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Home Office. The Home Office feels that it is very important to reduce the number of students, and to reduce the intake only to the brightest and the best—whatever that means.

We all want to get rid of bogus colleges. That is why the Committee has pressed the UKBA to ensure that more of its visits are unannounced. The majority of its visits to colleges are still announced. People can therefore prepare for its arrival. We believe that it is important, as we have said in successive reports, that it just turns up on a Monday morning, a Friday afternoon or a Wednesday morning to see whether the college is operating. It is quite easy to do that. The UKBA does it for enforcement purposes. I have many examples of that. Indeed, the Home Secretary has given the example of a restaurant in her constituency, which she visited regularly and liked, being raided by the UKBA. It found that some of the workers were here illegally. If it is all right to raid restaurants, it should be all right to go into colleges to see whether they are bogus.

We and the university sector want as many genuine students to come here as possible, because if they do not come here, they will go to the United States of America. There is even evidence that France is setting up courses in English to attract people who do not want to apply to come to the United Kingdom. It is therefore important that we deal with student numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

I accept that completely, but if my right hon. Friend will forgive me for apparently being patronising, he should not hope for too much from that process—in so far as it is a process.

It is not simply that the policy is a hard, harsh policy; individual cases are dealt with with a level of incompetence that would not be tolerated in pretty well any other area of activity. For example, last week the Minister for Immigration sent me a telephone number for a constituent to use when his DNA test had been completed—and it was completed successfully, I might say. The telephone number was wrong. That came from the Minister’s office, and with his signature. The Minister sometimes wonders why I insist on having my cases dealt with by a Minister. The answer is that the UK Border Agency is an agency, and a Minister’s signature on a letter is what a Member of Parliament has the right to have. We have only two rights: freedom of speech, within procedure, in this House; and access to Ministers. If we do not have those, we might as well not be here.

Let me give the House just a few examples of the botching that has gone on in cases I have dealt with. On 17 May, the Minister for Immigration wrote to me about a particular person, saying that a decision will be made on his application within the next four weeks. He came to me on Saturday, six weeks after that promise was made—no decision. Another constituent was told in a letter from the Minister that her application would be concluded within three months, yet it was not. What on earth is the point of him giving these specific commitments if they are to be broken?

Here is another one. The Minister wrote to me on 12 December 2011, saying that the case in question would be decided by the end of that month. By my calculation, we are into July 2012: no decision on that, after a promise by the Minister.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for recounting stories that I think a number of us hear in our constituency surgeries. I am a new Member, having joined the House in 2010, but does he, like me, scratch his head at the number of constituents who have come to this country and have been waiting for many years for their cases to be resolved? What would he say, on reflection, about the attitude of the last Government in dealing with such cases as expeditiously as he is requesting this Government to do?

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

I would be the first to say that it was not good enough. I remember when Charles Clarke was appointed Home Secretary. I ran into him in the Members’ Lobby, from which my office is 40 seconds away. I said, “I want you to come up to my office.” He did, and I showed him my special immigration file. I said, “I cannot lift it out of the filing cabinet. I expect, under your Home Secretaryship, to be able to lift the file.” It was not as good as it should have been. There were Ministers in that Government, including Charles Clarke and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who were personally accessible if there was a problem I wanted to discuss with them.

However, I have to tell the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) that when I was gathering these cases to present to the House this afternoon, I had to use two files because my filing cabinet is now so full that I have to divide the cases into two, so that my secretary can lift one file or the other. I am not saying that it was paradise under the Labour Government by any means; what I am saying—I do not want to patronise the hon. Gentleman, but I do have the experience—is that things are far worse now.

Let me give one more example of a constituent whom the Home Secretary wrote to me about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to listen to the contributions to this debate from both sides of the House and to make my own. I do so as someone who has been an immigrant most of his life—I left the country in 1986, before coming back to seek to represent the good people of Bedford and Kempston in 2004—and as a son of Bedford. Bedford is probably the most ethnically diverse, multicultural town in the country, and I am extraordinarily proud to be its representative. I also speak in this debate as a full supporter of this Government’s efforts to restore confidence in our immigration system.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you rightly pointed out at the beginning of the debate that we would have the opportunity to debate not only the estimates, but the specifics of the Home Affairs Committee’s report. If I may, however, I would like to move in a slightly different direction and review the morality of the decisions we make about immigration, which have led to us spending £1 billion a year and involving 12,000 people in an apparatus to ensure that our borders are secure and that people’s confidence in immigration is restored. I say that because the situation we are now in is a consequence of the policies and actions taken over a long period, and it has grown over time. If one looks at the scale of the issue in terms of immigration control, at the longevity of its relevance and also, if I may say so, at the arrogant dismissal of the issue for so long, one can see the context in which we are evaluating the UK Border Agency, which is essentially a child of those circumstances and those facts.

It is important for us to look at the reasons why concerns about immigration reached such a high level and why we are devoting such substantial resources to immigration control. Was it a matter of purpose or a matter of incompetence over a number of years, and who is to blame? Should we blame the bureaucrats and the agents, or should we blame the political masters? I do not wish to get into the commentary by Andrew Neather from a couple of years ago about the last Government’s deliberate policy to make the UK a multicultural society or the fact that they were not straight with the British people about that, but it strikes at our understanding of the context in which we will now ask for decisions to be made by this Home Secretary and this Minister for Immigration.

My general feeling, being a new Member of Parliament, is this. How on earth did we get into this position, where so many of my constituents come to me with such heart-wrenching stories of how their lives have been eviscerated by this country’s utter incompetence, over a long period, in sorting out its immigration? It hurts me in my heart to have to look at people who have suffered torture, had to flee their own countries and had to live under the wire of suspicion having to deal with not being able to guarantee that they can make a living while the system works out what should happen with their lives. It pains me, as a member of our country, to think what that says about the United Kingdom.

In the short time I have, let me take hon. Members through a couple of those points. The term “asylum seeker” used to be a badge of honour, but now we take it to be a token of shame to be bandied about in the tabloids and used as a reason for making excuses. The UK used to be seen as a beacon of liberty for asylum seekers. We are making changes in that regard, and I am not sure that all those changes are right.

I welcome fast-track detention as a policy, but I say to the Minister that if we are going to take people through a process quickly, let us assume that each of them has a valid case. In the short period that they have, let us give them the best counsel, the best lawyers and the best psychiatric help, so that we can make that evaluation according to the highest standards that people expect from a free society such as the United Kingdom.

[Nicola Blackwood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to take into account the possibility that those who go through that process might have been the victims of torture, and that we should implement rule 35 effectively?

[Richard Fuller]

Absolutely. I agree with what my hon. Friend says about being aware of that. Some Members might have heard, at the meeting held to discuss a report on fast-track detention, about the refugee from Uganda who had had to stand in a queue in an open room and explain to an immigration officer how he had been raped, and why he was claiming asylum. We must bring to an end such unfair and ineffective processes if we are to restore our sense of decency.

The policy has also led to the detention of the innocent. How did we manage to set up a policy that results in children being put into prison? What on earth were the previous Government thinking when they permitted that to happen? Why do we continue to keep pregnant women in detention? The Independent Monitoring Board’s report on Yarl’s Wood stated that it wanted the policy on the detention of pregnant women to be reviewed, and that, in the interim, detention should be the last resort. However, according to information that I have received from Yarl’s Wood Befrienders, there were cases of women who were 35 weeks pregnant being removed from Yarl’s Wood last month. I point this out to the Minister not because I am ashamed of what he is doing—I am proud of what he is doing to control immigration—but to illustrate how far we have allowed our morality to be debased by losing control over the system.

Let me deal with detention without trial. This country is supposed to be the home of habeas corpus, yet to my simple way of thinking we seem to be ignoring that when dealing with people who come here for immigration purposes. Studies show that there are 52 people in our immigration detention centres who have been detained for more than a year, and 16 who have been detained for more than two years. I understand the process issues, and I am sympathetic to the Minister on those, but if I want to hold my country to the highest standards, I cannot be satisfied unless the practice of detention without trial is brought to a conclusion. Will the Minister consider introducing a maximum detention period for people being detained under the immigration rules?

Will the Minister also ensure that the Home Office implements its own policies thoroughly? The Government have rightly said that they want to introduce a better process for people who have survived torture, who, according to the rules, are not deemed suitable for fast-tracking or detention. To avoid detention, however, such people are supposed to have their evidence to hand. The problem with that policy is that it is very hard for them to have that evidence to hand when they are assessed. It takes time to get it together. The pamphlet from Medical Justice, “The Second Torture”, gives 50 examples of people who have suffered torture but who have not been permitted to follow the appropriate process because the Home Office is not fulfilling its obligations.

Many hon. Members have talked about individual constituency cases of people who have lived under these policies and been in hiding. A gentleman who came to my office had been here since 1996. He had sought an opportunity to stay in this country, and received it in 2011, but the delays meant that he had been unable to see his terminally ill grandfather. I also met two constituents who had fled Zimbabwe. It is not easy for anyone who flees from Zimbabwe to get their documents from that country, so of course their documents will be false. When the marks of torture and shackles are still clearly visible on their legs, however, that should be sufficient evidence in itself. I ask my Minister to sort out this mess on immigration, and to seek to reassert the highest principles of British justice, British fairness and British compassion.

Immigration Queues (UK Airports)

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, but the question I was going to ask has already been asked.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is in danger of setting a real precedent: that because it has already been said, it does not need to be said again. That really is setting a new precedent in parliamentary practice! I call Mr Stewart Jackson.

UK Extradition Arrangements

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this debate and on the fierce advocacy that he has deployed both in his speech this evening and generally in relation to this issue. There have been a number of powerful contributions from both sides of the House. The contribution on the European arrest warrant from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) was particularly impressive. He said that he was not a lawyer and that being a politician was criminal enough in his constituency. All I can say is that I will not be taking my holiday in Bournemouth this year.

Extradition serves an extraordinarily useful function in the administration of criminal justice throughout the world. Merely fleeing a jurisdiction should not be equated with acquittal. It is very important that decent and proper extradition arrangements exist between civilised nations so that those who are accused of crimes, or at least of serious crimes, can be brought before the criminal courts of the jurisdiction in which those crimes are alleged to have been committed—provided of course that appropriate safeguards are in place, along the lines indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), to recognise that those accused of crimes are not guilty of those crimes until such time as a jury, or in some cases a judicial body, has said so. There was nothing more inimical to justice than the spectre, after the end of the second world war, of many war criminals who were guilty of genocide being able to travel to jurisdictions where there were no extradition arrangements with European nations, and in those circumstances being able to evade justice for a considerable period. During the debate, we should not lose sight of the fact that there are victims of crime who are as much entitled to justice as those who are accused of crimes and who are in fact innocent.

As has been recognised in the debate—we have begun to reach a consensus on both sides of the House—a balance needs to be struck between, on one hand, the protection of the fundamental right of a citizen not to be extradited abroad if there are inadequate safeguards to protect that citizen from an unfair trial and, on the other, the need to prosecute very serious crimes. A number of principles pervade this area of law but, given the events at the beginning of this century that led to the Extradition Act 2003, sufficient regard might not have been paid to them.

The first of those principles is that trivial offences should not trigger extradition at all. In circumstances such as some of those alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West, it is entirely inappropriate that any citizen be removed from his own jurisdiction, taken to a foreign place, perhaps not granted bail and locked up, and prosecuted for something that, on the face of things, is minor.

The second important principle is that of speciality, of which no mention has been made during this debate but which requires that the only offences with which someone extradited to a foreign jurisdiction can be charged be those for which he has been extradited in the first place. Two of the problems in this area that perhaps have not been properly grappled with by the Extradition Act are the absence of enforceable assurances from some countries seeking extradition from this country and the fact that the Home Secretary and the courts cannot take the principle of speciality properly into account in those circumstances.

There is also the principle that there should not be double jeopardy—that nobody should be tried twice for the same offence—save perhaps in limited circumstances. Again, I do not think that any mention has been made of that in the debate. Furthermore, there are principles surrounding the protection of people’s human rights—the principle that we do not require those domiciled in this country, regardless of whether they are citizens, to be extradited if they might face capital punishment. That was alluded to by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—although I could not agree with all her remarks about torture.

Two issues have arisen out of the 2003 Act. The first concerns the disparity—or lack of reciprocity—perceived to exist between the arrangements that we have in place for extradition to the United States and the arrangements that the United States has in place for the extradition to this country of those accused of crimes here. Notwithstanding what was said by the then Attorney-General, Baroness Scotland, when the commencement provisions of the 2003 Act were debated in the other place, I agree with the Baker report that there is little difference between the tests applied on this side of the Atlantic and on the other side. Fundamentally, there is no difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

What so concerns our constituents—certainly in my constituency—and many lawyers is that whereas in the United States the fourth amendment to the constitution, which requires probable cause to be shown, requires that an extradition request go before a court, there is no such requirement in this country. In those circumstances, it is perceived—I think, perhaps, correctly—that citizens or anybody domiciled in this jurisdiction whose extradition is sought to the United States are being denied a right that they might otherwise have had.

The commencement of the forum provisions contained in the Police and Justice Act 2006, in so far as they amended the 2003 Act, would go some way to meeting these difficulties. I agree with the Joint Committee on Human Rights that it is difficult to understand why those provisions have not been commenced, including by the previous Government. Liberty obtained advice from leading counsel, Edward Fitzgerald and Julian Knowles, that no amendment to the treaty between this country and the United States would be required were those provisions to be commenced. I would like to hear from the Minister, therefore, that the Government will at the very least bring forward the commencement of those provisions.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

My hon. and learned Friend is talking about the immediacy and the timing of some of these issues. That Babar Ahmad, who is the most pertinent example, has still not been brought to trial after seven years is further evidence of a scar on general jurisprudence in this country. Does that not give a sense of the importance of immediacy?

[Stephen Phillips]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a stain on justice in this country and, in my view, on justice in the United States that Babar Ahmad has been locked up for seven years. If Babar Ahmad wanted a trial, he could have one in the United States, but one of the great difficulties with forum issues is this: why on earth should he have to do so? Why should he be taken to a foreign jurisdiction, when the witnesses, the evidence and his legal representatives might be here, to defend himself against these very serious accusations? As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion pointed out, these are very serious allegations indeed. I was horrified to hear her comments about the absence of evidence before the Crown Prosecution Service. I hope that that matter will be looked into and that the Minister will assure us that the evidence will be made available.

The other area of debate has been the European arrest warrant, the problem with which is that the standards of justice that prevail in this country and other countries in Europe, such as Ireland, Germany and France, are not necessarily those that prevail all over the European Union. I regret to say that I do not share the hope of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Baker report that the system will sort itself out. That is the triumph of hope over experience.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

It is the purpose of the amendment to give the court discretion, although a practice has been established through the jurisprudence on control orders which informs that process. It is therefore intended to provide the court with the flexibility, as I explained in my introductory remarks.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

May I probe and press my hon. Friend a little further on this point? As he knows, a number of colleagues in the House have the same concern about the TPIMs regime as they had about the old control orders regime: the uncertainty that arises for individuals in the court process. Does he accept that the amendments to clause 8 will increase that level of uncertainty for people who are put under TPIMs? Does he agree that there is scope for providing, if not a seven-day limit, at least a definitive statement about for how long, at each stage of the process, such individuals will be detained?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have already explained, we received this request following the consideration by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. The Government have not been seeking to provide any uncertainty—far from it. The provision is intended to reflect the practice of the courts. Therefore, following consideration of the representations that we received, we have introduced the Lords amendment that is before the House.

[Richard Fuller]

I greatly appreciate the Minister’s clarification. I fully accept that this is not a request by the Government. I am saying, from a political perspective on that role of the courts, that we are talking about the start of a process that imposes penalties on people and that, at almost every stage, has a level of indeterminacy about what is being put in place for them and how long it will last. Will my hon. Friend give some perspective on the suggestion that this change, even though it has been requested by the courts, further exacerbates the uncertainty in the imposition of such controls?

[James Brokenshire]

I do not accept that it provides uncertainty. It provides the courts with the ability to operate the regime effectively. As this matter was raised in the Lords, we are seeking this House’s consideration to ensure that the measure is properly applied. That is the basis on which we have introduced the amendment. I think it is appropriate to provide flexibility in the way that has been proposed.

Amendment 10 relates to the police reporting measure. It makes it clear that in addition to requiring the individual to report to a police station at specified times and in a specified manner, the Secretary of State may require the individual to comply with directions given by the police in relation to such reporting. That is necessary to ensure that the individual can be required to co-operate with the practicalities of reporting—for example, requiring him to report to the front desk of the police station, to speak to the officer there, and to sign to confirm his attendance. That has always been the intention behind the measure, and it is the current practice for control orders. It is necessary to ensure that the provision reflects the reality of how the measure is intended to operate. It is also in line with the general procedures for individuals required to report to a police station for any other reason—for example, individuals on police or court bail. Lords amendment 3 is necessary in consequence. It specifies that the definition of “TPIM decision” at clause 17(3) includes such a direction given by a constable in relation to the reporting measure.

Lords amendments 4 and 5 are essentially technical amendments which are necessary in consequence of changes to other legislation currently before Parliament. Section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which has not been commenced, increases the maximum sentence on summary conviction in England and Wales from six months to 12 months. When the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill was drafted, the intention was that that provision would be repealed by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Because of this, clause 23 provides that the maximum sentence on summary conviction for contravening a measure specified in a TPIM notice is six months. However, section 154(1) of the 2003 Act will not now be repealed. On that basis, these amendments are needed to revert to the previous practice when legislating for offences that are tried summarily. They provide for a maximum 12-month term in England and Wales, but include a transitional provision limiting the sentencing power to six months pending commencement of section 154(1) of the 2003 Act.

Lords Amendments 6 and 9 relate to the overnight residence measure. That is intended to ensure that the individual can be required to reside at a specified address and to remain there for specified periods overnight. The clear purpose of that is to manage risk. As part of that measure, it may be necessary to require the individual to remain within the residence and to prohibit them from entering any garden or outside area that forms part of the property or any communal area in a shared property during the specified hours overnight.

As it was drafted, the provision did not necessarily make it clear that the measure could be applied in that way. These are essential drafting amendments to remove that uncertainty and to make clear the policy intention. They put it beyond doubt that the individual may be required to remain within their residence—that is, essentially, behind their front door—during the specified overnight period. I should make it clear that, where individuals are required to remain at their residence or are electronically monitored in other contexts, they will usually be required to remain in their house or flat and will not be allowed out into their garden. The particular requirements imposed by the Secretary of State in each case must, of course, always be necessary and proportionate. The court will subsequently consider the proportionality of each measure as part of its review of the notice.

On the point about directions hearings that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made, I should add that clause 8(5) still provides that the substantive hearing is to take place as soon as possible. I just wanted to reassure him in case he thought that the proposal was open-ended. That is certainly not the intention. I hope that the need to act expeditiously in this regard is clear to him.

Lords Amendment 7 deletes subsection (11)(a) of clause 26, which allowed a temporary enhanced TPIM order to amend any enactment. That subsection was drafted on the basis that the temporary enhanced TPIM order would need to amend other legislation to ensure that the enhanced TPIM system would function correctly. The Government considered it further following an amendment helpfully tabled in Committee in the other place by Baroness Hamwee. We concluded that the subsection was not necessary for this purpose and therefore amended the Bill on Report to remove it.

Lords Amendment 8 is necessary to ensure that the power to make a temporary enhanced TPIM order does not impinge inappropriately on devolved matters in Scotland. Clause 26, as amended, provides that a temporary enhanced TPIM order may not make any provision relating to devolved matters in Scotland, other than those already contained in the Bill, without the consent of the Scottish Government. In relation to those provisions touching on devolved matters that are already contained in the Bill, I can confirm that the Scottish Parliament passed a legislative consent motion on 17 November. I am grateful to Scottish Ministers and officials for their help in that regard.

Finally, Lords Amendment 11 relates to the transitional period provided by schedule 8. In the period following the coming into force of the Bill, the control orders in force immediately before the commencement of the Bill will remain in force, unless revoked or quashed before the end of that period. Such a period is needed to ensure that there can be a safe, orderly and managed transition of individuals from the old system to the new system. As the Government have consistently made clear, the police have confirmed that extensive preparations are being made and that arrangements will be in place to manage the move from the control order system to the TPIMs system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for clearly setting out the bulk of the amendments. Having read the transcripts of the evidence sessions in Committee, it is clear that the Government were pushed and pressed, as is right, through effective scrutiny from all members of the Committee and Members in the other place, to table amendments to clarify the Bill’s intention. On that basis, the Opposition are satisfied with Lords amendments 1 to 10.

However, I want to comment on Lords amendment 11 and amendment (a) to it. As the Minister said, the Lords amendment increases the transitional period for which schedule 8 provides, during which a control order that is enforced immediately before the commencement of the Bill will remain in force, unless revoked or quashed before the end of that period, from 28 days to 42 days. The Opposition Front Benchers’ amendment would increase that transitional period to 365 days. It is worth pointing out that those who have put their names to the amendment include two former police and terrorism Ministers and a former Minister who dealt with terrorism in Northern Ireland in the previous Government. Those Members clearly have a lot of detailed information and experience in dealing with such matters, and they thought it appropriate to put their names to the amendment.

Why have we tabled amendment (a)? It is because we want to support the Government in keeping the country as safe as possible as they move to the new regime of TPIMs. I heard clearly the Minister’s comments about his commitment to national security being a top priority. Of course, the Opposition support that priority. However, we believe that a more flexible approach would be a better way forward on the transitional period that is in the Bill.

I certainly do not wish to reopen the debate on control orders, but we know that nine people are currently subject to them—a small number of people who are intent on doing grave harm to this country. It is not possible to prosecute them, but to keep the country safe, we need to impose intrusive restrictions on them. I think that there are 11 control orders in total, but nine have the power to relocate as one of the conditions. We know that the Home Secretary has used control orders with relocation provisions in cases CD and BM. In the case of CD, a challenge to the decision to relocate went to the High Court. It was dismissed and the relocation was upheld.

It is important to quote the Mayor of London, who obviously has a keen interest in those matters. He said on the case of CD:

“It’s clear from the court papers that he rejects and would like to destroy everything that makes this a great city. We don’t want this man in London.”

In moving to the new TPIMs regime, the relocation provisions will not be available to the Home Secretary in future. We want to ensure that no unnecessary risks are taken over the next 12 months. As hon. Members have already said, we will have major events in our city, including not only the Olympics and the Paralympics, but the diamond jubilee. So we need to ensure that London is kept as safe as possible in 2012.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady says that we need to ensure that there are no unnecessary risks, and she says, fairly, that she and other Labour Members share the Minister’s commitment to the security of the nation. But the Minister said that the period was necessary to ensure that effective arrangements were in place, and he believes that that period is 42 days. What evidence does the hon. Lady have that the period needs to be longer to ensure effective arrangements?

[Diana Johnson]

That is a very helpful intervention, because I want to move on to the evidence that was given to the Committee by Stuart Osborne, the deputy assistant commissioner for the Metropolitan police service and senior national co-ordinator for terrorism investigations. He also represents ACPO. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) asked Mr Osborne how long it would take for a new regime to bed in before it becomes law, to which he replied:

“I think I said it would take a year to procure and train sufficient additional assets before it would be ready to do that. We have to order some of the assets so that they are made in advance. To train a surveillance officer and then have them fully able to operate in a challenging environment probably takes at least 12 months before they are deployable. Once they are deployable, they have to work within the environment under a new set of regimes that will need to bed in.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 10, Q31.]

On the basis of that evidence, which mentions the period of a year, hon. Members are concerned that we could be putting ourselves in a risky situation by rushing headlong into the new TPIMs regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hazel Blears]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am about to end my speech.

I thank the Minister and all his officials, who have certainly served him well and have no doubt contributed to the progress of the Bill. However, as the Minister will understand, I am not reassured by his comments. I know that he is doing his best to protect national security, but I think that he could have taken a simple step that would have given more reassurance not just to Members here but, more important, to people who will be living in their communities during what is likely to be a considerably more dangerous time for them as a result of this transition.

[Richard Fuller]

Let me explain why I oppose amendment (a), and explain to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) why she is hearing opposing voices not only from members of the two parties on the Government Benches, but from members of Opposition parties including her own. The reason is that the amendment is entirely without merit. It appears to constitute a rather unfair and somewhat unprincipled assertion that the Minister is playing fast and loose with the security of the nation, notwithstanding the protestation that of course we are all trying to make things secure and do what is in the country’s best interests.

In her rather brief contribution, the shadow Minister gave nary a reason why the Minister’s position is not the correct approach to take. All the speeches we have heard rely on a solitary piece of evidence provided in Committee, but surely hon. Members on both sides of the House will understand that the Minister has been in extensive discussions subsequently and that the most important consideration must be the one that he put forward today, which is that effective arrangements are in place. That would be the most important consideration if we were dealing with a normal piece of legislation, but in fact we are dealing with a change to one of the most pernicious pieces of legislation that our country has had in recent times—the legislation on control orders.

The shadow Minister’s amendment is merely further evidence that the Opposition have not yet reconciled their conscience on this issue, nor on the fact that they took a wrecking ball to the rights and liberties that this country has held strongly and to its heart for many years. Yet again, Opposition voices cloak in the name of security the most repressive period in recent British history when it comes to individual rights. As the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned, people are put under these restrictions on the basis not of conviction, but of suspicion.

I must just say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears)—I hope I may call her that, given that we have spoken together on a number of Bills recently—that some of us have not had the benefit of high office that she has had, and when she talks about the importance of getting to the smallest irreconcilable minimum the number of people who will be subject to TPIMs or control orders, as it was under her Government, nine is not the smallest irreducible minimum for us. Some of us feel that that number can be reconciled only when it is zero and that everyone in this country has the right to a trial before they are imprisoned for extensive periods.

[Mark Field]

I entirely recognise the sincerity of what my hon. Friend says and I, too, have many civil libertarian sympathies, but does he not recognise that this regime is not all that much different from the control order regime that it seeks to replace?

[Richard Fuller]

Without getting into the details, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can say that of course many of us would like to go further. The Minister and I have had disagreements on this, but in conclusion may I commend him on the way in which he has seen the passage of this Bill through? I hope that in future we may be able to go further.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I shall be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that the House is anxious to vote on this matter. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the evidence on the Olympics given this morning by Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. He called for a central hub to be created to police the Olympics, bringing together resources, intelligence and other aspects of policing. He and others felt that that was necessary.

On the questions raised by others concerning TPIMs and control orders, of course there is concern that some of these individuals will be allowed to return to London just as the Olympics are beginning, and the Government need to monitor the situation carefully.

My final point relates to the request for thousands of additional volunteers to come forward to police the Olympics—there is talk of 10,000 people. All I urge is that they are properly trained before they take on their responsibilities. I am sure that the Minister is conscious of the importance of the Olympics. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) was right to have raised it, and I hope that the Government will bear it in mind when we consider the resources and practicalities of the next few months.

Extradition

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing it. Like others, I believe that this debate should be held in the main Chamber. We are discussing fundamental constitutional rights. There is only one forum where those rights should be discussed, and that is the Floor of the House of Commons. The Leader of the House was with us a little while ago, and I have no doubt that he heard what many Members said, but I shall make a point of going to see him after this debate to reinforce the view that the Chamber is the place for such issues.

I first took an interest in these matters in July 2006, when at Prime Minister’s questions in two consecutive weeks, I sought to interrogate Tony Blair. I said then what I say now: the extradition treaty with the United States puts United Kingdom citizens in a position of disadvantage compared with their US counterparts. It is implied that the United States embraced the treaty, but that is not true. The Senate waited until autumn 2006 before ratifying it. The purported reason was that the strength of the Irish lobby in the United States was such that senators were concerned that the treaty, if ratified, might cause alleged terrorists from Ireland in the United States to be extradited to the United Kingdom. The treaty did not have an immaculate conception.

The treaty is wrong in principle. Extradition is based on the principle of reciprocity. For a state to give up one of its citizens to another jurisdiction can be justified only by the confident knowledge that citizens of both states have equal rights. I know that, here in the United Kingdom, the representatives of the United States have some reservations about what I and others are saying today. They need have no anxieties. I wish not for a levelling down but a levelling up. I seek equivalence, not exceptionalism.

I have sought to test the integrity of my position by asking myself what a United States member of Congress would do if the positions were reversed. We all know that such is the strength of feeling on Capitol hill about such issues that, if United Kingdom citizens were in a better constitutional position than Americans, there is no member of Congress who would not seek, as we do, to protect their own citizens. One thinks, for example, of Robert Byrd, the longest serving senator in the history of the United States and a constitutional expert to his fingertips. Faced with the situation that we face, I have absolutely no doubt how vehement and articulate his opposition would be.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is precisely because of the traditions of jurisprudence and respect for habeas corpus in both the United Kingdom and the United States that it is extremely important that we work together to level up the rules on extradition, as he says, so that we can send a message to other countries that are trying to achieve the same level of justice to which we have aspired and that we are achieving?

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I agree entirely. I can say this as a Scots lawyer, because we have a civil law rather than a common law system: one important export, even as long ago as our colonisation of the United States, was the common law. Habeas corpus is a fundamental principle of the law in the United States. Not only in federal law but in the laws of each state, habeas corpus occupies exactly the same important position, as my hon. Friend suggests.

I fancy that there is not much patience in the Chamber for an analytical exercise in the interpretation of the Baker report, but in order to provide some further reading to Members who have not yet had the opportunity to do so, I refer them to part 7, pages 231 to 243, paragraphs 728, 729, 735, 739 and 742, the burden of which is that the Baker report concluded that there was no significant difference between “reasonable suspicion,” which is the standard applicable in the United Kingdom under the treaty, and “probable cause,” which is the standard necessary in the United States and which is enshrined in the fourth amendment to the United States constitution.

I have the misfortune to disagree with the conclusions of the Baker report. I believe that probable cause is a requirement that has to be met before any United Kingdom citizen should be extradited to the United States. Why do I believe that? Because before surrendering a British citizen to a foreign jurisdiction, the state—our state—should reasonably require to ensure that there is a case requiring to be answered, not a suspicion. To borrow an illustration from my own experience as a prosecutor and from domestic law on both sides of the border, suspicion justifies arrest, but suspicion does not justify charge or prosecution. Probable cause, in my view, is necessary before prosecution can be justified.

I think that my argument is underpinned by the conclusions of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which reference has already been made. It concluded, rather as I have suggested, that it is necessary that the standard of proof on both sides of the Atlantic should be the same. Those arguments are properly set out on page 4 of the report. That the issue might require adjustment of the treaty was recognised by the Committee, whose Chair, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), is present, and by Baroness Neville-Jones, who gave evidence on behalf of the Government and who appeared to be optimistic that adjustment could be achieved.

I am persuaded by one other element of the consideration of these matters. There is a considerable predisposition on the part of the courts of the United States to invoke extraterritorial jurisdiction to an extent that we simply do not apply in this country. We have, therefore, in practice, no reciprocity in the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is my view, however, that if the significant difference in the approach in the United States is, as we know, common, that is all the more reason that the standards of proof should be equivalent.

Let me deal quickly with three further issues. First, on the matter of forum, it is surely correct in principle that there should be an effective statutory presumption that a case be tried in the country where the crime is committed, and that only in the most special circumstances should there be a departure from that principle. Secondly, on legal representation—this is also recognised by the JCHR—someone who is being sought to be extradited needs good representation not just in this country, but in the country to which they are extradited. We know that the availability of public funds, or indeed of public defenders, is to different standards in different states of the United States.

Finally, on the application of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is, of course, a statutory requirement for the Home Secretary, I do not believe that there is any justification for the Baker committee’s recommendation that the Home Secretary’s authority on that should be transferred to the legal system. Baker says that there should be a removal because of delay being caused if it is invoked and because determination of extradition should be exclusively a judicial process. That, I think, fails to understand the nature of extradition, notwithstanding the detailed historical analysis that the Baker report contains. Extradition is diplomatic in the first instance. It becomes judicial and ultimately it is political.

In exercising that power, the Home Secretary is not acting ultra vires; she is exercising the power conferred on her by Parliament—the same sovereign Parliament that resolved that other parts of the procedure should be exercised by the courts. I see nothing wrong in principle with the Home Secretary exercising a power conferred on her by Parliament additional to the powers of the court. Parliament has chosen not to grant exclusive jurisdiction in matters of extradition to the courts, as Parliament is entitled to do. The truth is that the Home Secretary is exercising an administrative function in furtherance of the duties incumbent on her by the Human Rights Act.

It has been suggested that it would perhaps be helpful if the considerations that the Home Secretary is obliged to take into account were more fully described in legislation, such as the health of the person being considered for extradition, which is relevant to the speech we heard a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the impact on family life, the quality of treatment that a person might receive in the penal system, and, of course, the proportionality of the likely sentence that might be imposed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The chief constable of Greater Manchester has been absolutely clear that it is possible to make cuts in budgets but that it is also necessary to make changes in and transform the way that policing is delivered. He is committed, as are other chief constables, to ensuring that he delivers a quality service to the people of Greater Manchester.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

T7. Given that so many people were left for years—sometimes for more than a decade—with uncertain immigration status, creating wrenching circumstances if their claims for status fail now, does the Minister consider that it was immoral of the previous Labour Government to lose control of the immigration system, and will he assure the House that he will not do likewise?

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

Yes, my hon. Friend knows that one of the myriad problems we inherited on the immigration front was the remains of a backlog of half a million asylum cases that had simply disappeared inside a warehouse. We have now got to the end of that process, but he is right: it is absolutely essential not to let any similar-sized backlog build up again—not just for general confidence in the immigration system, but as part of our moral duty to treat anyone who comes to this country and applies for asylum with as much efficiency as we can. The system should work not just for them but for the taxpayer. It is a win-win if we get the asylum system to be more competent than it was.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, one Parliament cannot bind another. It would not be appropriate for me to suggest or require that a future Government act in a particular way when addressing such points. It would be reasonable and appropriate, however, to consider these matters carefully and in a measured and appropriate way, examining the security issues at that point in time in the same way as this Government sought to do in our counter-terrorism review, which led to the creation of this Bill. We consider that a five-year renewal period, allowing each Parliament the opportunity to take a view on this important issue, strikes the right balance.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) in welcoming this measure. May I probe the Minister a little further on the spirit of the renewal every five years? Will he give some guidance about whether, in his view, we should have a thorough and complete review of these measures every five years rather than sending them through on the nod for another five years, saying that they seem to be working? Many of us would have liked to have seen the Government go further to undo some of the damage done by the previous Government and it is important that we hear whether the Minister anticipates the review every five years to be more thorough than the annual on-the-nod review.

[James Brokenshire]

As I said to the hon. Member for Cambridge, I would certainly anticipate a considered review of counter-terrorism powers when the time arrived. That would be the appropriate way to proceed and to examine the renewal. The time period will also allow further and broader consideration of the security position at that point and of what measures might be required, necessary and appropriate to deal with the risks, challenges and issues that face our country.

I do not wish to detain the House, but I should explain briefly that amendments 11 and 13 make necessary technical changes to clauses 19 and 20 in consequence of Government new clauses 3 and 4. Amendment 11 ensures that the Secretary of State is not under a nugatory duty to report on the exercise of her powers under the Bill at a time when her powers have expired or been repealed. Similarly, amendment 13 ensures that the independent reviewer is not under a duty to report on the operation of the Act for periods when the operative powers are not in force.

Amendments 8 and 20, which were tabled by the Opposition, relate to when the Bill may come into force —currently, the day after it receives Royal Assent. It has been suggested, and I have consistently and strongly refuted such suggestions, that the police and the Security Service will not be ready to implement the new system when the Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent because the additional investigative resources that will complement the new system will not be in place. On that basis, and on the basis of wider suggestions that the powers under the new system will be insufficient to protect the public, it has also been suggested that the new system should not be introduced before the 2012 Olympics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

May I welcome the Minister formally to his place? It is a pleasure to continue on Report the debate that we had in Committee.

I shall speak to new clause 7 and amendment 20, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Government’s movement in relation to the introduction of new clause 3 and new clause 4, which, as he explained, envisages a five-year sunset clause and moves us somewhat further on than did our debate in Committee.

New clause 7 would replicate the position under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which brought in the control order regime, and the amendment would limit to 12 months the powers under the TPIMs regime and would, therefore, require their annual renewal by Parliament.

Our new clause began in Committee as an amendment, which I moved, and was based on oral evidence given in Committee by Liberty, Justice and others. It was introduced to reflect our concerns that the Government’s legislation will mean fewer checks and balances on what are exceptional measures. Many in the House agree that they are undesirable and in an ideal world we would not have to have them, but they have proved necessary, given the serious terrorist risks that we face.

I do not often agree with Liberty, particularly on control orders, because our starting points for the debate are different, but I was struck by its evidence in Committee, when the organisation made it clear that it would rather—to be fair to Shami Chakrabarti, she said that she would choke on these words—take existing control orders, with their annual renewal, meaning a 12-month limit on their power, over the new TPIMs regime. The reasons for that—and why I agree with that position—primarily relate to the importance of bringing such exceptional measures back to the House for regular, annual review and, if Parliament deems it appropriate, for renewal.

[Richard Fuller]

I was not on the Committee, but in the evidence I noted Lord Carlile’s comments about the point of annual renewal. He said that

“annual renewal has been a bit of a fiction, to be frank,”

and went on to issue a challenge, stating that

Parliament should have the courage of its convictions and decide whether it wants a regime like this or not.”—[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 23-24, Q70.]

How does the hon. Lady square that with her view of annual reviews?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I will come to Lord Carlile’s evidence in Committee. He clearly did not think that annual renewal was needed, but recent developments, in particular the introduction of the Government’s draft Bill four days ago, make annual renewal even more necessary than before. I will turn shortly to the reasons why.

--- Later in debate ---

I also say to the hon. Gentleman that when an individual is put on police bail, it is with a view to bringing a prosecution. If that process were started in the knowledge that the intelligence could never be converted into evidence, applying for police bail would be a sham. I am not sure that many judges would let an individual get away with that.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman does not, so I shall press on.

I spoke of the draft Bill that the Government published a few days ago, which seeks to introduce control order powers by way of emergency legislation. That Bill, which we will discuss at length shortly, raises many questions, and an early opportunity for Parliament to take stock of the operation, implementation, practice and working of that regime will be welcome.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady is being extraordinarily generous in giving way. The question that I should like to ask is from the perspective of the people who are under control orders and similar restrictions. Such people have not been brought to trial and no evidence has been presented to them to substantiate the reasons why they are under such restrictions. She is advocating annual reviews, and increases as well as decreases in powers, but has she considered the commentary on the mental health implications for the people who are subject to control orders? In that regard, does she believe that some period of certainty for those people on how they will be treated will be welcome?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The first part of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention makes my point for me. This is about the balance of risk. It is in the interests of those who are under control orders for Parliament to look at such measures at regular intervals rather than once every five years. His intervention supports rather than goes against my point.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I shall make some progress, because I am about to wind-up on new clause 7.

The Minister spoke of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend spoke powerfully on the merit of reaching a settled position on such measures, but I should tell the Minister that given what has happened in the past few days, we are clearly not at a settled position on the Bill. In fact, the Government unsettled matters further by introducing the draft Bill a few days ago. For that reason, the Opposition believe that an annual renewal measure is merited and needed now more than ever, and we shall later seek to press new clause 7 to a Division.

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments on amendment 20, which is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. He updated the House and told us from the Dispatch Box that the police say that they will be able to meet the increased risks that we face under TPIMs with the additional resources, but I am afraid that I do not feel reassured by what he said, and we need to consider the matter in greater detail in the House this evening.

By way of background, I should add that amendment 20 began life in Committee, as the Minister noted, and was introduced following evidence given to the Committee by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osborne, the national co-ordinator for counter-terrorist investigations. It is important to consider his evidence in detail. He was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) about the time scales that he was working to in relation to the TPIMs regime, given that we have the Olympics next year, which is a particular concern. He said:

“To get the resources that we anticipate we need will take more than a year, in terms of being able to get people trained and to get the right equipment. Until we have got that, we will not be able to start to bed things in and see how it works and how it transpires. It also depends on how many people actually go on to the TPIMs regime and how many people come off it. There are a lot of inter-dependents there. The control order put people in the protect and prepare part of the Contest strategy. TPIMs moves them back into the pursue element of the strategy, which is a slight paradox because it was only due to the failure to get sufficient evidence to prosecute them that we moved them into the control order in the first place

He was asked further questions about resources by the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). He asked why Mr Osborne was saying that it would take a year for the new regime to bed in, to which Mr Osborne replied:

“I think I said it would take a year to procure and train sufficient additional assets before it would be ready to do that. We have to order some of the assets so that they are made in advance. To train a surveillance officer and then have them fully able to operate in a challenging environment probably takes at least 12 months before they are deployable. Once they are deployable, they have to work within the environment under a new set of regimes that will need to bed in.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c.9-10.]

That important evidence is the reason I moved the amendment in Committee and why I tabled amendment 20 for debate today. I was extremely concerned about the position on resources. The evidence from Mr Osborne was obviously stark, and it raised in my mind the spectre that if the Bill were passed by the end of this year, as we anticipate it will be, we would create a concerning situation: the additional resources required to meet the increased risk might not be deployable, and if they are, it seems they might be only partially ready. That is not, to my mind, a satisfactory state of affairs. The amendment therefore seeks to prevent the Bill from coming into force until the resources are online and would put in place a mechanism by which to get agreement between the national co-ordinator and the Home Secretary on the additional resources required and to get them ready and online.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I entirely endorse my right hon. Friend’s point, which reminds me that, under the Bill, access to electronic communications must be provided to suspects. One of the justifications for that is that the suspects will be monitored in that way, and the equipment will be provided by the Home Office. Presumably, some kind of software or hardware wiring will be needed to enable the suspects to be traced, and to listen in on conversations. Again, I do not believe that those technical assets could be procured overnight, especially given the different kinds of asset that might be needed to deal with different kinds of risk.

[Richard Fuller]

I fear that Opposition Members might be trying to scare Members of Parliament when there is no real justification for doing so. In Committee, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) spoke of increased threats, saying:

“I visited some of our prisons and I saw some of the terrorists who had been prosecuted, and they really are scary people. Next year, a large number of them will be released on licence, and they will be back in society, so the threat is always there.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2011; c. 55.]

Does not that show that our police and security forces are constantly having to meet these threats? If the police feel comfortable managing people who have been convicted and are coming out of prison, this modification of control orders into TPIMs is a minor issue in comparison. The hon. Lady is building this issue up into something that it is not.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, he almost makes my point for me. The police do an incredible job of trying to protect us from the serious risks that we face, not only from the individuals who are or have been subjected to a control order, but from the many hundreds, possibly thousands, more who are of interest to them in their investigations into potential terrorism offences. The risk is always there, which is why we had to bring in the control order regime and why we believe those powers are necessary. Elements of the Bill decrease those measures in such a way as to increase the risk. We are told that the risk can be mitigated by the additional resources, but it cannot be eliminated. We have a real fear that those additional resources will not be ready by the time the Bill comes into force. For that reason, amendment 20 would reassure the public; its purpose is really no more than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

Annual review is just a veneer; to see that, we need only consider the number of Members present to debate it. I also believe that it is always whipped through by the Government party. The people under these control orders have never had the advantage of having been brought to a proper trial, and what they want is some certainty. They want certainty that this Parliament will handle its responsibilities thoughtfully and thoroughly, and that would require conducting a thorough review that could then be used to advise the Government and inform Parliament in a real debate. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that would be a major difference?

[Mark Durkan]

I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not believe that it will be a tonic to the mental health of people under these orders if they know that Parliament will not seriously discuss the matter for another five years. I do not see what relief or redress that offers them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, about the issue of our pretending that annual review will somehow of itself offer comfort to people under these orders in that it might result in their being reprieved from their exigencies. I would not give that false comfort or promise, and nor should we.

Based on the experience that we have all had of the many previous annual renewals, the hon. Gentleman also makes a valid point in saying that the Chamber might take its responsibilities in this regard somewhat lightly, but let us therefore be exposed to condemnation for such dereliction of duty and for not turning up every year to consider renewals duly and properly, rather than pretend that it is sufficient to do that on a five-yearly basis. Considering the issues at stake under this Bill, the attendance for the current debate is not particularly unimpressive in comparison with the likely attendance, which the hon. Gentleman indicts, for an annual review debate.

We should not kid ourselves about the false merits of a five-year sunset clause as opposed to an annual review, and nor should those of us who might vote in a Division to keep a version of annual review delude ourselves about the extent of the impact of annual reviews. However, annual reviews might ensure that the various other parliamentary means of scrutiny—whether through the Backbench Business Committee or Select Committees—are used to condition such reviews and, perhaps, explore more of the alternatives.

In the context of our deliberations today, I and others regret the fact that good amendments that were submitted on police bail and the conditions that could be attached to that are not available for us to discuss. Through discussing them, we would have been able to consider possible restrictions in cases where the police so far have only limited evidence that is not amenable to their taking the case to full prosecution. For such cases, there are means within the standard criminal law that can be deployed and developed, and amendments were tabled that offered that option. Through having annual reviews, some such alternatives might build up more of a head of steam. I am not saying we need annual reviews in the same style as in the past, but if we were to use annual reviews and the other parliamentary means now available to us, we could make more of this system.

Focusing now on the substance of the Bill, control orders are a poor tool and a crude weapon, but whereas TPIMs might appear to be softer, even when looked at through the bubblewrap of all the claims that the Government make for this Bill, they are also a poor tool and a crude weapon. Some of us have experience of how counter-terrorism measures can be deployed in counter-productive ways. They can act as grist to the mill of those who would radicalise others and try to spread subversion and dissident tendencies. They can also be used in ways that get in the way of good police work, and good police interface and engagement with communities whose sympathies and confidence are essential in holding the line against terrorist and subversive tendencies. We should therefore always tread lightly in relation to measures brought before us and offered as necessary and justified on the basis of countering terrorism.

Parliament should be particularly wary when we are given the assurance that these powers will not merely be activated on the basis of secret intelligence by mysterious Executive servants who may or may not appear before Select Committees or anybody else in Parliament, because there will be a degree of judicial oversight through posts such as special advocates. We should be very wary about being casual about any provisions that involve constant reference to words such as “special” and features such as “secret,” but that is precisely what we have in the TPIMs cocktail that is before us, and it is the same cocktail that was before us in relation to control orders. We as a Parliament should at least be trying to provide some sort of antidote to that, or diluting it through putting in place the kind of scrutiny and challenge that an annual review might provide.

I have listened to the arguments for and against these amendments. I am not impressed by the Government’s arguments, including those of the Liberal Democrats, in favour of their proposed measures. I support the Opposition on annual renewal, while not being under any illusions that that will be any great shakes in itself, but I certainly do not support the Opposition in trying to insinuate that somehow this legislation is dangerous in itself and exposes us to new risks because it damages control orders. I do not believe control orders have been necessary or effective in the way that they have operated. In fact, that has been dangerous in some regards, because sometimes both the terms and conditions of control orders have been interpreted randomly and capriciously, so that not only have people’s movements been restricted, but people have been made amenable to prosecution, and the threat of it, for supposed breach of unreasonable conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. Friend has taken a very consistent line on ensuring that those suspected of terrorism offences are brought to justice and that the courts are used appropriately. We need to do all we can to ensure that that happens, which is why we are taking forward measures such as post-charge questioning, which he has advocated clearly, and why we are continuing to examine the way in which intercept evidence might be usable in the courts and how the Privy Council review continues in relation to that. I agree with him that we need to be looking at a package of measures, that this is not about one instrument in itself and that it might be appropriate to take a range of steps. I would not want to suggest in this evening’s debate that this is about one issue. The Government are taking forward a range of measures as part of their counter-terrorism review and this Bill is just one part of that.

[Richard Fuller]

Before the Minister moves on, may I ask about the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)? The hon. Lady mentioned that there had been no convictions of people on control orders. By supporting the Government today, we will be extending the TPIMs regime by five years. What comfort can the Minister give us that that record of no convictions will be improved by a more thorough prosecution of the evidence and by bringing to trial the people under control orders? Can he say anything to give us some assurance that that system of containment rather than prosecution will change to one of prosecution and bringing to justice rather than one of just containing a problem and leaving people on one side?

[James Brokenshire]

I would point my hon. Friend in the direction of the Bill’s provisions, which clearly underline our desire to prosecute people when the evidence is available. That is part and parcel of the additional investigative capabilities intended to be available to the police and the security services. I believe that this approach will contribute to our being able to achieve the sorts of steps that he is advocating in terms of seeking to prosecute where there is admissible evidence that could be brought before the courts.

I deal now with some of the other issues raised in this useful and constructive debate, which has been a symbol of some of the other consideration of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge raised the issue of Libya and he will doubtless have heard clearly the comments made by the Prime Minister during the statement preceding this debate. It is the Government’s long-standing policy not to comment on intelligence matters, but I can make it absolutely clear that the Government’s clear policy is not to participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment for any purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

I will keep my remarks brief, because I know we all want to get on to the debate about relocation. However, I wish to say a word about new clause 5, which shows the difference between the Bill before us and what the Government know they might have to do. The new clause and the draft Bill on enhanced TPIMs measures published last Thursday represent the Government taking out an insurance policy against the failure of the Bill before us this evening.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) reminded us that we are debating the matter around the 10th anniversary of 11 September. It is important that the House remembers that, because that incident, more than any other, forced Governments around the world to reassess their thinking and their expectations of what terrorists were capable of. It also forced all of us in democratic regimes to look again at the protections in law and law enforcement that we can give our citizens against terrorist activity. That is the basis of this whole debate and the Bill.

We did not get here entirely by choice. We got here partly because of court judgments shaping the regime for us in an involuntary way. The problem is simple: what do we do when we cannot bring someone to prosecution, but we have a good and reasonable suspicion that that person would engage in terrorist activity if they could, and there may be inadmissible evidence that they have tried to do so? There has been an assumption running through this debate that such people are necessarily less dangerous than those who have been convicted. That is not necessarily so. If they were able to carry out their intent, they may in fact be far more dangerous than people who have been convicted of other terrorist events.

The Government have published draft legislation that is an insurance policy against the Bill, and they cannot have an in-principle objection to the measures within their own draft Bill. Whereas the Bill before us states, unbelievably, that the Secretary of State must grant terrorist suspects access to mobile phones and the internet, the draft Bill would give the Secretary of State discretion over that. Whereas the Bill before us disarms the Government from giving the public the protection that relocation can provide, the draft Bill would reinsert that possibility. The question that the public will ask, and which the Minister must believe they will ask very seriously should the draft legislation be needed in future, is why the Government did not include those powers in the Bill before us. Why wait until an incident has happened?

I repeat the question that I put to the Minister before. What would he say to the victims of terrorism in such circumstances? Would he say, “We knew we might need these powers, and we could have legislated for them, but we chose not to because we believed that the balance of civil liberties was wrong”?

[Richard Fuller]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

Not at the moment.

Let us deal with the point about civil liberties. The Minister has said several times that the motivation behind the Bill was a perceived imbalance in the last Government’s civil liberties legislation. The notion that we are some sort of quasi-police state or overly authoritarian state is complete nonsense. In this country we enjoy freedom of expression, religion and association that is the envy of the world. That is why so many dissidents from regimes around the world have sought refuge here. Indeed, the criticism that is sometimes levelled, and perhaps with validity, is that we have been very generous in accommodating dissidents from other regimes, and that sometimes our freedoms have been abused by some of those individuals. It is simply the wrong analysis and the wrong starting point to say that civil liberties in this country have been fundamentally compromised. That is not the case, but because the Government believe it and have carried forward into government the wrong analysis that they developed in opposition, that is leading to the wrong policy and to greater risk for the public. New clause 5 addresses that to some extent, but people will not understand why it, and the draft emergency legislation, were not put into the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hazel Blears]

I am delighted that my new clause has been selected. The Minister will know from our lengthy debates in Committee that this is the issue about which I feel most passionately and which I believe is one of the biggest flaws in the Bill. The Government’s decision not to have a power of relocation is fundamentally flawed and flies in the face of the evidence, of logic and not only of my personal views, but of the views of some very, very knowledgeable and experienced people in the police, of Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer, and of Lord Howard, the former Home Secretary—a range of people who feel that the Government are limiting their options for controlling suspected terrorists and providing the public with the security and protection that we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to try to achieve.

My new clause 1 is a simple and straightforward measure that would provide that the Secretary of State may include in a TPIM notice the power to direct that a terrorist suspect should reside at a specific address that is not his home address or an address with which he has a connection, as is provided for in current legislation. To tie the Home Secretary’s hands in providing that a suspected terrorist has either to live at home or in the area where his known associates are gathered is absolutely ludicrous. Therefore, my amendment would provide that the Secretary of State may direct that the suspected terrorist is relocated to a different area so that they can be properly monitored and the public protected.

[Richard Fuller]

The right hon. Lady made a forceful opening to her comments, and I am interested to listen further. In her advocacy of enforced relocation, has she looked for inspiration to other democratic countries that forcibly relocate people who have not been subject to a trial?

[Hazel Blears]

There is a range of examples of countries that have attempted to deal with the threat for international terrorism with different legal provisions. France is often cited as a place where people are brought to trial under the criminal justice system. People are often held for months, if not years, under the investigatory process adopted by an inquiring magistrate. Indeed, the powers in some European countries are perhaps more draconian—the hon. Gentleman’s words, not mine—than any that we have ever had on our statute book. Therefore, to try to portray our country as one that does not accord with the rule of law or have effective judicial oversight, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has on a number of occasions, is an absolute travesty when we look at the real circumstances.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, and I shall enjoy the opportunity to ask her the question again. The question was not about draconian measures. She is advocating a specific measure—forced relocation—and my question was specific. What other democratic countries has she used as her inspiration for this measure—which she makes out to be so important—which involves the forced relocation of people who have not been convicted in a trial?

[Hazel Blears]

I have not used any other country as my inspiration. What I have used, as my commitment in new clause 1, is a genuine analysis of the evidence provided by the police and other experienced people in the field in asking what measures we can take to ensure that the public are properly protected from the serious harm intended them by some of the most dangerous people in this country. It is right and proper that our Parliament should decide of its own volition what the appropriate measures are. We do not always look to other countries, which have very different legal systems to ours. I am absolutely convinced that the power of relocation can add to the security of this nation, which is my prime and most important concern when looking at this legislation.

I want to emphasise the point that the kind of people subject to either control orders or, in future, TPIMs are unfortunately some of the most dangerous people we could ever have to deal with in this country. There has been some suggestion that people who have been prosecuted through the criminal justice system are somehow more dangerous than those who are subject to administrative orders. If hon. Members looked at the judgments of High Court or Court of Appeal judges who have seen the intelligence and the information about the people upon whom we seek to impose such orders, they would perhaps revise their position. There are currently only 12 such individuals subject to control orders, and the expressions used by judges in relation to them include “trained soldiers” and “committed terrorists”, determined to be martyrs to their cause and determined, whatever steps we take, to cause the maximum harm to innocent people in this country. Those are statements by judges, not given to florid language, having seen the intelligence that the services hold in relation to some of those people. We are talking about a maximum of a dozen people who are very dangerous indeed. That is the measure that we must use in asking what powers we seek to use, whether they are proportionate and whether they are the right powers. It is my submission that the power of relocation of some of the most dangerous people in our country—committed terrorists—is a proportionate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am mindful of the time, so I will try to keep my comments relatively brief.

I endorse the powerful contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). She spoke with great passion about an issue that has concerned her for some time. It certainly concerned her in Committee, and it has concerned Opposition Front Benchers, too.

Relocation has been a central issue in the debates that we have had about the Bill, both on Second Reading and in Committee, and it is one of the most important issues that we are taking forward on Report. New clause 1 seeks to add the power of relocation to the Bill to replicate the position in relation to control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

It is clear from the evidence that the relocation power has proved extremely useful in disrupting terrorist activity. It is regularly described by police and others as one of the most useful and effective powers that they have under the control orders regime. We know that nine of the 12 current control orders have relocation as part of the control order.

The importance of relocation as a measure to be made available to the police in meeting the terror threat was made clear at the evidence sessions held by the Public Bill Committee. We heard evidence from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Osborne, for whom, like my right hon. Friend said, I am starting to feel slightly sorry. She quoted him, but I will repeat the important bit of the quote again because it will concentrate the mind of the House:

“The relocation issue has been very useful for us being able to monitor and enforce at the current time. Without that relocation, and depending on where people choose to live, that could be significantly more difficult.”

He added:

“The new freedoms that will be given to individuals will significantly increase the challenges that we have to face, and managing those challenges will increase the resources that we need. The degree to which we are successful in managing them depends on both the extent of the Bill and the additional resources that we get.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 5-6, Q 10 and 14.]

The importance of relocation as a measure was further highlighted by Lord Howard and Lord Carlile. Lord Howard, the former Home Secretary, has described the power as the single most useful power in ensuring that the package of measures that we have is sufficient to keep us safe.

It is clear from the evidence that the police gave to the Committee that the additional risk created by removing relocation from the TPIMs regime could be mitigated by the additional resources, but it would not be eliminated and there are of course degrees of mitigation. In Committee, DAC Osborne was only “hopeful” that the risk would not increase if the Bill were passed, which does not fill me with a huge amount of confidence.

It is clear, and we must recognise, that there is an irreducible minimum number of people who pose a serious threat to our country and we have to have an adequate and effective way to manage that risk. Relocation is clearly an important part of that package of measures. It is our view that, if the new clause is added to the Bill, the policing challenge that DAC Osborne and others will face will be reduced and our collective security protected. It has always been our concern that if this Bill closes off the power of relocation to the Home Secretary—if it deprives her of being able to use that power—that would deprive her of an incredibly important tool in her kit bag for dealing with the threat posed by a very small number of people. For those reasons, we will support new clause 1 in the Division.

[Richard Fuller]

It is a pleasure to be able to make a brief contribution to this debate.

I listened to the rhetoric of the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) in her opening speech in support of her new clause, and it made me even more scared about giving Administrations a fiat on the treatment of people in our judicial system, rather than leaving that with the judges. On many occasions, both in this debate and in Committee, the right hon. Lady talked about the importance of balance, but I feel that, in the sharpness of her rhetoric and the blithe way challenges were laid down and comments were made about loosening and potentially putting us at risk, her speech did not betray any balance whatever. That highlights one of the risks in giving the Executive the power to restrain and control people who have not been brought to justice. Both in the specific instance of relocation and more generally in the tone of Opposition Members, a disservice is being done to this Government’s attempts to return us to some semblance of the traditions of British justice that we achieved before the period of the so-called “war on terror”—before 2001—and we should remember that control orders were not introduced until 2005, and that therefore they were not in place between 2001 and the Iraq war, which some would argue was the period of greatest risk.

I wish to make a couple of comments on the specific issue of relocation. I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Lady and I do not mean to pick on her; I am just picking on her point. I challenged her earlier about democratic countries from which she drew inspiration. I could not think of any either, so I did some research on a well-known search engine. I looked up forced relocation of individuals. Kazakhstan featured prominently. There were also a few honourable mentions for Cambodia—not the current Cambodian Government, but I think we can work out which Government—and for Burma. Kazakhstan, Cambodia and Burma are not exactly the paragons of virtue in this respect that I would like our Government to follow as they attempt to strike the difficult balance of maintaining both the security of the nation and the liberty of the individual.

May I also refer to one not particularly tabloid-friendly comment on relocation? A number of Members have talked about meeting people who are subject to a control order or its equivalents and who have been subject to relocation. We must remember that those subject to control orders have not yet gone through full justice in our country. Many other countries, including the United States, have laws against cruel and unusual punishment. Relocation has the most significant negative impact on the mental health of these individuals. In evidence in Committee, Dr Korzinski said:

“What I am concerned about…is the absence of any sort of safeguards with respect to the impact on the mental health of the individuals who are subjected to these regimes. I can say quite unequivocally that it has been catastrophic in all the cases that I have worked on.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 43, Q121.]

That may not be the most popular of reasons to oppose the right hon. Lady’s new clause, but there are also many others, such as support for our justice system and achieving that balance that she advocates, but which I do not think she spoke to today. I shall support the Government on this new clause.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made some powerful and important points in his succinct contribution.

As I think the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) accepted in her opening comments, we are revisiting a subject that we debated in detail in the Public Bill Committee, when amendments with the same effect were tabled by Opposition Members and the same arguments were made in support of them. As was made clear following the carefully considered counter-terrorism review, despite the aspersions that the right hon. Lady seeks to cast, the Government concluded that it should not routinely be possible under the TPIM system to require an individual to relocate, without consent, to another part of the UK.

The debate in Committee frequently turned to the question of balance—specifically, the balance between protection of individual liberty and security for the wider population. This is an area where there is a very careful balance to be struck, and where views on where the right balance is may differ. The previous Government took the view that compulsory relocation was necessary as one of a wide range of potential obligations under the control order provisions. Our conclusion, as we made clear in January, is that a more focused use of the restrictions available under the Bill, together with the significantly increased funding we are providing for covert investigation, will allow us to protect the public effectively without the need for this potentially very intrusive power to be routinely available. That is where our approach departs from the Opposition’s, and why we are seeking to strike a different balance from that marked out by them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

Unlike the shadow Home Secretary, many of us regard this as a lost opportunity to put behind us legislation that is a scar on our constitutional and judicial structures. References have been made to 9/11, which we will be remembering this Sunday. I was in New York on that day, and the memory is still visceral. The event has unleashed a decade of sometimes good, sometimes poorly thought through legislative responses to real and apparent and sometimes not-so-real threats. Over the years, there has been growing opposition to some of those more extreme measures—the push for 90 days’ detention without trial, the preamble to the Iraq war, with the promotion of non-plots, such as the ricin plot, and the sexing up of dossiers as a basis for our going to war, and of course the control orders. These are all part of an approach to the control of terror that says there is never enough doubt.

This is not a point of balance. We need to have a balance for the rights of all people in this country, and one of the most sacred rights is the right to a free and fair trial. That opportunity has been lost today, but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has done her best to have a thorough and meaningful review of the measures that the Government consider appropriate for the times. This is not a mere nod-through of legislation. The debate has been robust.

[Hazel Blears]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Fuller]

Very briefly, yes.

[Hazel Blears]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know that he does not have much time. These are obviously incredibly difficult issues for anybody to determine. What would he do with the handful of people for whom prosecution is not an effective route—because of the need to safeguard intelligence—and who cannot be deported or taken through the criminal justice system, but who pose a significant threat to the safety of the decent, law-abiding people in our country?

[Richard Fuller]

That is an interesting challenge. I will be brief. I simply would not accept the premise that we cannot take them through the criminal justice system. The whole thrust of my perspective is that we should always seek to do that. That is what I would try to persuade Governments of all hues to do. When people, of any hue, get to the Front Bench, they always have access to more information than the rest of us. It is hard for the Executive branch ever to give up counter-terrorism powers, because they would face the sort of challenge that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench this evening—that perhaps there is some risk or that someone will be caught out as a result of the changes. However, it was always a risk that something could go wrong, even under control orders. The reason it is wrong to give such powers exclusively to the Executive and why they should rightly be in the hands of the judiciary is that the judiciary can make a fair, non-political response to the matters of fact before it.

However, that opportunity has been lost. We shall again have to go through secret evidence, secret hearings, special advocates and no access for the suspect to the evidence against them. I trust our Home Secretary in her review, as many other hon. Members have said they do. We trust that she has done this for balance, and we hope that she is right. However, let me end with a quotation by Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty, which has been strongest in its opposition to the legislation:

“But under that Act”—

the Bail Act 1976—

“you are heading for a charge…It may be a long process…but at least you can stand outside the Old Bailey saying, ‘Justice has been done’…The problem with these administrative, shadowy, quasi-judicial systems is that they potentially go on for ever and you never know why.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 50, Q137.]

We will put this Bill to a vote this evening, and I am sure that the Government will succeed. We will review the position again in five years and hopefully lose this part of our legislation.

Student Visas

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

That is absolutely right. This afternoon, we need to consider the transitional arrangements for the introduction of these new requirements and the position in which they put our universities.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making some sensitive contributions on this important issue. In response to an earlier intervention, he talked about trusting our universities to assess English. Does he also accept that we are going through a period of time in which that trust in some colleges has not been something that we can rely on? How would he ensure that immigration student visas are there for valid educational reasons and that there is enough scope and control, while, at the same time, allowing that amount of trust to the colleges that he is talking about?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. I have talked to companies in Sheffield, and they say that the opportunity to have some of the best intellectual talent in the world working with them in product development and improving manufacturing processes is a startling benefit that our city gets from its two universities.

I will move on to the specifics of an area that the Government have seen as problematic: the post-study work route. I understand, unless there are more changes that the Minister wants to share, that under the new proposals international graduates of UK universities will, from April 2012, need a confirmed job offer for a graduate level role—that is fair enough—but which pays at least £20,000, and they will need to apply for a tier 2 visa for the job before their tier 4 visa expires. There is nothing wrong with limiting work to that of a graduate level, but the imposition of a £20,000 salary threshold is too restrictive for some sectors and regions. Sheffield university tells me that its average graduate starting salary falls below £20,000: in arts and humanities it is £16,600, in pure science it is £16,100 and in social sciences it is £18,000. According to the graduate employer survey of 2011, graduates in Yorkshire should generally expect a starting salary of between £15,000 and £18,000.

One of Sheffield university’s strengths is architecture. The students’ union international students’ officer, Mina Kasherova, in written evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, highlighted the problems facing architects: they need to gain work experience after graduation to obtain their professional qualification, but they will not be able to get such a post with a salary of more than £20,000 through tier 2.

[Richard Fuller]

This is an open question. The hon. Gentleman made the point that the average salary requirement for a student coming to this country to go on to post-graduate study would be higher than that which a student from this country would normally accept. Does he believe that we ought to set the bar higher for international students, as a point of principle?

[Paul Blomfield]

We should ensure that we make a realistic offer to students coming here. If we say that we recognise, as the Home Office has, and as the Government have in their reconsideration of their original proposals, that post-study work is part of the attraction of coming to this country, we have to be able to offer that work meaningfully, for the benefit both of the students and, as some of my hon. Friends have said, of companies here. Universities UK has pointed out that this problem extends to a range of professionals, including trainee solicitors, pre-registration pharmacists and optometrists.

The second problem in relation to post-study work is the reduction of the period that students have in which to find a job, from one year to that indicated by the date of expiry of their tier 4 visas. Universities UK points out that recruitment in certain roles and sectors is cyclical, and that some individuals might not be able to apply for certain roles because their visas will have expired before the recruitment process takes place. Will the Minister consider applying some flexibility and common sense to the starting salaries and the time period?

A third area of concern is the maximum length of study. Universities UK is worried about limiting the maximum total period of leave to five years of study at national qualifications framework levels 6 and 7. If that limit is rigidly applied, it will prevent international students from studying a four-year undergraduate degree followed by a two-year postgraduate programme. I recognise that there will be exceptions, but they should not be limited to courses that lead to the award of a professional qualification or registration, because there are many other long courses at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. The limit is causing concern to Scottish universities in particular.

The fourth area of concern is a very distinct one, and I mention it on behalf of the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who would have been here herself but for the demands of a Public Bill Committee. I understand that she has corresponded with the Minister on this, and is awaiting a reply to her latest letter. In her constituency, as in mine, the Ruskin Mill Educational Trust runs a college that provides practical skills therapeutic education for young people aged 16 to 25 who have a range of learning difficulties. It offers just five places each year to overseas students and, due to the specialist nature of its work, the annual fees are between £70,000 and £100,000. The students there clearly work at or below NQF level 1, and therefore will always fail to meet the requirements for level 3. This is clearly not abuse of the system but something that needs a common-sense and flexible approach.

All the issues I have raised are ones of detail, and dealing with them will not undermine the Government’s objectives. Failing to deal with them, however, will undermine the recruitment efforts of our universities and colleges. In conclusion, I wish to make a general point about the Home Office’s impact assessment. It is extraordinary that we seem to be pressing ahead with proposals—the Minister has signed them off—that it has been demonstrated will cost the economy possibly £3.6 billion, including £170 million in tuition fees over the next four years. That will mean millions lost to our universities at a time when they can least afford it because of the changes that they undergoing, and billions lost to the economy at a time when we can least afford it. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will genuinely reflect on these issues and make changes that will not undermine his policy goals, but avert that damage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

Time permitting, I hope to articulate the slightly wider view that universities have not only a narrow remit to deliver education to their paying customers as part of a contractual relationship, but a social responsibility to educate the people of this country appropriately.

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One problem with the lens through which the previous Government looked at immigration policies was that it often focused predominantly on economic perspectives. Having had years of immigration, which have kept working wages down, and hearing that we need different immigration policies based on economic benefits, the British people want to see immigration brought under control first before they move forward. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes an astute point. Incidentally, there is no empirical, anecdotal or demonstrable academic evidence to show that there will be a significant impact on good-quality institutions and the courses they offer. That is simply because we are going forward incrementally, and we cannot yet assess the impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and to speak in the debate secured by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). He made an articulate speech that raised a number of points, which I am sure the Minister will consider. I think that he will find support across the House on some points. Other points might be a little more contentious, but we look forward to hearing his comments.

Mr Benton, I must ask for your forgiveness and that of other hon. Members, as I will not be able to stay for the closing remarks from the Minister. I have a good reason, which allows me to highlight what is perhaps a contrarian point. I am meeting representatives from the Taiwanese embassy equivalent to talk about a visit by Taiwanese students to the university of Bedfordshire in my constituency of Bedford, which includes Kempston. Some Opposition Members talked about the importance of having people come from mainland China. We all have to make our choice of Chinas. I tend to prefer those that have elections and do not lock up Nobel prize winners. The issue with Taiwan that is important to mention is that we have simplified immigration rules for Taiwanese students to come to study here. It is precisely because the controls and understandings that Taiwan has in sending students overseas are so well administered that we have confidence in the country that is sending, as well as the country—the UK—that is receiving. It will be a great pleasure to welcome them.

We have a responsibility to weigh up two major factors, which have come through the different contributions: restoring people’s confidence in our immigration system and controls; and ensuring that we are optimising and maximising the opportunity to enhance the economic well-being of our universities, and the role that our open educational system can play to spread freedom, democracy, belief in the rule of law, understanding of free markets, and the belief that every citizen’s rights have to be recognised in all parts of the world. That is an important and critical role that our universities play. As I am leaving shortly, I will address those two areas quickly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said that immigration control is a significant responsibility for the Government. If we do not believe that, then I do not think that any of us can have knocked on doors at the general election. It was raised as a concern by many residents. There was exasperation at how the system had got out of control under the previous Government. Both the previous Government and this Government sought to bring in controls. We are still dealing with an issue where people’s confidence has not yet been restored. I urge the Minister, in response to all the hon. Members he will hear from today, not to lose sight of the fact that he has a significant responsibility to ensure that people’s confidence in our immigration system is restored. He and his colleagues in the Home Office have made a very good start, but he has to see it through to the end. That sometimes requires very tough decisions. I urge him strongly to continue all the way through this period of office, and I congratulate him on the steps that he has taken.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that confidence in the immigration system will be even more jeopardised if the Government make announcements that claim that they will sort out the problem, but then find that the immigration figures are still increasing and that, for example, the measures for overseas students will do nothing whatever about EU students? Will that confusion lead to even less confidence in the immigration system?

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman urges some very good caution. The worst thing to do is to ignore the immigration issue, pretend it is not there and destroy people’s confidence in the system, as his Government did. However, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, there is an issue about trying to ensure that we have the numbers, so that we are dealing with the facts. Facts help people to gain confidence. If people do not have the facts, it is harder to gain their confidence. However, the measures this Government are taking on that have been a significant step forward on behalf of the country.

The United Kingdom—what a wonderful country we live in, and how proud we can be of our values and our society. We have these great debates in this fantastic mother of Parliaments. We are a beacon for educated people around the world. We should be really, really proud of what is now called the soft power that countries such as ours have. The fact we have a vibrant series of educational institutions is a critical part of ensuring that the United Kingdom continues, in the words of a former Foreign Secretary, to punch above its weight. There is no doubt that hon. Members from all parties think that that is an important thing for us to accomplish.

However, we must recognise that our higher education institutions are going through some substantial changes and challenges. I would like to praise Professor Marilyn Leask, who is the dean of the Bedford campus of the university of Bedfordshire. There is a Luton campus, but I shall not speak for that one. I will speak for the campus in Bedford. Professor Leask is considering with energy and vitality how to deal with the challenges faced by our higher education system in terms of the changes to student fees. She is based in a teaching training institution for physical education and is considering new ways to accommodate those changes. We must recognise that our universities are going through substantial changes. This issue is one part of a much bigger picture that they are trying to piece together, as they put together a more sustainable long-term funding basis for their future operations. It is probably not the most important part of our universities’ business model, but it is an important issue.

I ask the Minister—again, apologies that I will not be here to listen to his response, but I shall read it with great interest—to explain how the relationship between the Home Office and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is operating, so that we can get a sense of whether we have an integrated strategy. Million+ is asking for an integrated higher education strategy, which is a very good thing. If we have all these advantages from being this wonderful country and if we want to educate the world, we must have a coherent strategy to achieve that. That does not necessarily mean that some of the issues raised today have to be acceded to, because I do not think that all of them are right, but it does give a context for where we are heading. As these institutions and universities are building their new business models, we need to give them a context in which they can plan for the long term more coherently.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point about this being a time of great change for universities and that they are having to look at their future planning. Does that not make it all the more important for the Government to proceed on the matter with caution and deal with the timing carefully? Universities need to be able to plan and adjust, rather than being rushed into things. That is one of the concerns that universities have raised.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady makes a good point about the transitional arrangements this year. She has heard an answer from the Minister on that and I am sure that he will address the matter again when dealing with some of the follow-up concerns raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. That is a particular issue on which I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

More generally, on Opposition Members’ calls for caution, when we are looking for change, caution is not always the best way to proceed. It is important to deal with the matter clearly and cleanly, so that the people who are responsible for building business models do not have to anticipate future changes. Such an approach is helpful to them when setting their strategy. Being cautious is not always the best approach. In this instance, given my and other hon. Members’ concerns about the importance of getting peoples’ confidence back in immigration, obtaining clarity quickly will be of benefit to the long-term strategy of our higher education institutions and our universities. They need to have an integrated strategy, so that they know the Government’s direction of travel. They need an understanding between the Home Office and BIS to make that happen.

My message to the Minister is, first, that he has a responsibility to fix immigration. That is what the British people asked for at the last general election and that is what they are looking to the Home Secretary and the Minister to accomplish. I urge him to consider everything he does through that lens, rather than through the particular lens of each issue. Secondly, he has heard from hon. Members on the issue of whether students are migrants or not. It may be worth considering what happens in the United States and the United Nations. Some of us prefer the approach of the United States to that of the United Nations. Will the Minister look at that as part of setting an overall strategy, as it would be interesting and worth while to do so?

On the transitional arrangements that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and others mentioned, again, the Minister has given an answer and I look forward to him expanding on that in his closing comments. I urge the Government to have an integrated, international higher education policy. We have a fantastic country. We have to bring people here, so that we can spread a message of freedom and spread understanding of the English language. We must give people Shakespeare and give people an understanding of the Magna Carta. If we do those things, we will have a country that can not only interact, but sell to the rest of the world.