Immigration Bill

Debate between Richard Fuller and James Brokenshire

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

This needs to be seen in the context of the reforms we are putting in place in the system, which is why I made reference to the quarterly reviews. This is about having a separate function whereby the removal plans will be subject to that internal scrutiny and then there is this automaticity in relation to bail hearings. It should be noted that the vast majority of those in immigration detention are there for only short periods—fewer than four months. We therefore think this is a right step to put in place, reflecting that desire to have that external arrangement. Indeed, it is open to anybody to apply for bail at any point, but we think there is a need for a further safeguard, which is why we have acted in the way we have, in terms of the amendments before the House this evening.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I have two quick points for the Minister. On the adults at risk policy and guidance he is putting together in May, will he confirm whether he will take input and advice from independent groups that have been working with people in detention over the past few years? Before a pregnant woman is detained, will an independent assessment be made, as is the case for children who are detained, following the changes we made in the previous Parliament?

[James Brokenshire]

We intend to publish the adults at risk policy in May and I am sure we will seek input from external parties. I appreciate that various stakeholders and organisations take an understandably keen interest in this area and in many ways have helped to frame and develop the policies we are bringing before the House this evening. Let me come back to my hon. Friend’s point about the detention of pregnant women later, because it may help the House if I set the position out and allow a further intervention then.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her searching questioning and desire to bring about change, and I am pleased that we are considering these amendments this evening. As I have explained, there is a link between health services in Yarl’s Wood and the way that extends and links into midwifery services provided through the Bedfordshire healthcare system. We believe that that arrangement is right to provide joined-up care, with nurses and other health professionals coming from Bedfordshire into Yarl’s Wood to provide support for pregnant women.

[Richard Fuller]

I do not wish to underestimate the significant change in direction on immigration detention policy that my right hon. Friend outlined today and last week, but he will understand that scepticism remains about Home Office procedures and policies when they are put into practice—hence the request for an independent point of oversight. In the steps that he is outlining, will there be scope for independent oversight prior to the detention of a pregnant woman?

[James Brokenshire]

The best way to approach this is to implement the changes that I have outlined to the House this evening. Stephen Shaw will review those measures in 12 to 18 months, and I suspect that he will examine how the implementation, policies and procedures will have effect. I will continue to examine how best we can provide greater transparency. Although we have recently created more management information, this is about how we provide reassurance and greater clarity about this procedure. I will continue to reflect on how we do that, so as to give my hon. Friend—and others—greater assurance on what are sensitive matters.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Richard Fuller and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

I wish to speak to the new clauses and amendments dealing with immigration detention. New clause 8, which stands in my name, would exempt certain persons from detention. New clause 9 and associated amendment 32, tabled by the Opposition, would provide for a time limit. New clause 13, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and many others across the House, would provide for a review of the role of detention centres in our immigration control system.

Before turning to those new clauses and amendments, however, I want to make a brief comment about the amendments tabled by the SNP. Those amendments have nothing to do with separation, but come from an acute sense that the direction of travel in the Bill, which is to make it harder for people here illegally to stay in the country, pushes against not just things we all agree are wrong, such as exploitation, but against our compassion. SNP Members are absolutely right to ask whether we have got the balance right, and they made some strong points in Committee and today.

The amendments and new clauses focus on immigration detention because for so long now we have lacked control over our immigration detention system. We allowed a culture of disbelief to grow up within it such that the people caught up within the system had no way of managing their rights. It is right that we look for a fundamental change. Immigration detention has moved from being a part of the immigration system to being the substantive and default position. The focus is on looking tough rather than being effective. It would be nice to hear from the Minister that he gets that and that he is focusing on an effective way to achieve what the people of this country want: that we remove, effectively and compassionately, people with no right to be here, while standing up for things we want to protect—namely, our compassion and our values. If some of the amendments we are proposing today are not pressed or if we do not hear a sufficient response from the Minister, I fear that the true victims will continue to be the British sense of compassion and the British sense of justice when we manage immigration.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for his. I want to emphasise that that sense of efficiency and effectiveness is absolutely at the heart of the work we are undertaking and of the broad review currently under way. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) makes some important points about vulnerability, and he knows that Stephen Shaw’s review will focus on that. We will come back to the House soon—before Committee stage in the House of Lords—to respond to the report and to allow, I hope, further detailed examination.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very pleased that the Shaw review will be available for their lordships to review in tabling amendments. I can assure the Minister that, should amendments come to this House to ensure that pregnant women and victims of torture and rape are exempted from our immigration detention estate, I will support those amendments at that time, if the Shaw review has not done a sufficient analysis.

There is no point going over our concerns again that the report has not been available to us in this House—we shall wait on their lordships—but I know that there will be women in Yarl’s Wood detention centre right now who have been victims of torture or rape. We also know that in the last year 100 pregnant women were put into Yarl’s Wood detention centre. This is not one or two cases; it is a significant part of what is happening, and that points to the reason behind new clause 8: the limits on the Minister’s ability to control the action on the ground. The procedures can look perfect on paper, but we know that in practice they are failing and falling down. That is why new clause 8 and the associated amendments aim to restrict the types of people who might fall foul of those processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has advanced these issues and underlined the need for us to remain focused on the removal of those who have no lawful authority to be here and to address those who have sought to come into the UK by clandestine means. The most effective way of dealing with those matters is to have an effective removal process, and that is why we are legislating in this way in the Bill. I also want to highlight the work that we discussed in our debate on the previous group of amendments. We are working to achieve a speedier and more efficient and effective use of detention and to determine how that plays into a more effective removal process more generally. The measures are already in place, but my hon. Friend’s points relate fundamentally to our achieving more efficient and effective removal, which is an aim I share.

[Richard Fuller]

May I take my right hon. Friend back to new clause 2, which relates to the deportation of non-British citizens who have committed offences here? I am persuaded by his response to the new clause, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), but will he tell us a little more? I understand that there is a number of countries to which it is extremely difficult for us to deport people in these circumstances. Are moves such as we have seen in relation to Jamaican prisons relevant to this issue, and has any progress been made with those other countries?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The issue of prison conditions is relevant, for example, as are prisoner transfer agreements and the bilateral arrangements that we have in place. Work is being done across Government on the return of foreign national offenders, which I know was a particular issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, not simply in the Home Office, but in the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Justice and elsewhere, to look at these issues in the round and see what measures and mechanisms are available to us to enhance the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) was right to frame his point in that way. I assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate that we are taking a joined-up approach across Government to use the measures that are available to us to enhance our response in respect of returns.

New clause 12 seeks to create a system that requires non-UK nationals, including EU nationals, seeking leave to enter and remain in the UK to obtain legal authority to remain in the UK. I agree with much of the thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), but new clause 12 essentially seeks to curtail the free movement of EU citizens to the UK under existing treaty rights. I am not sure that legislation is the right way to approach that.

The Immigration Act 2014 limits the factors that draw illegal migrants to the UK and introduces tough domestic reforms to ensure that our controls on access to benefits and services, including the NHS and social housing, are among the tightest in Europe. We believe that the way to bring about real change is through effective renegotiation with the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be well aware of the letter the Prime Minister sent to Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, to set out our approach and the broader stance we seek to take.

New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to amend the minimum income threshold requirement for sponsoring a non-EEA national partner and any non-EEA national dependent children to settle in the UK. That would undermine the impact of the minimum income threshold, which the courts have agreed correctly reflects the public interest in controlling immigration to safeguard the UK’s economic wellbeing by preventing family migrants from becoming a burden on the taxpayer and by promoting their integration. A couple with income equivalent to the national minimum wage can still access income-related benefits and tax credits. A minimum income threshold set at that level would therefore not be sufficient to prevent burdens on the taxpayer once the migrant partner reached settlement and had full access to welfare benefits. It would also provide less support for the migrant partner’s integration in society. That is simply not an adequate basis for sustainable family migration and integration.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Richard Fuller and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Some of the speeches from Opposition Members have done a bit of a disservice to our Home Secretary. I think that history will reveal her to have been an outstanding Home Secretary, given her capacity to cover the range of issues that the Home Office has to deal with, and the immediacy and potency of some of those issues. Those Members have also missed some of the breakthroughs that she has made in identifying issues of abuse, particularly in relation to people trafficking, and of discrimination in relation to stop and search that other Home Secretaries have not addressed. We must put that on the record to balance the argument.

As many people have said, it is undoubtedly true that immigration is the No. 1 issue. It is equally true to say that the vast majority of people who believe that to be the case are not anti-immigrant. However, they have specific things that they want to see in our immigration policies. They want to know that the system is under control. They want to know that the numbers of people coming to this country are reasonable and that our borders are secure. They want to know that the people who come here make not just an average contribution— a break-even contribution—but an above-average contribution to our country. As we have heard from people who are themselves the daughters of migrants, they also want to know that the people who come here will do their best to integrate into the country that they now call home. And of course, they want those people who they believe have no right to be here to leave or to be removed.

As I look through the Bill, I miss the provisions relating to many of those early points. The focus of much of it is on that last point. It says, “Please leave.” It asks, “What can we do to encourage you to leave?” I ask the Minister to listen to what hon. Members have said about the importance of evidence in pursuing the policies in the Bill. If we cannot supply evidence to support the measures we are taking, I fear that some of the negative consequences—some of which have perhaps been presented today with a bit of hyperbole—might indeed come to pass.

I am worried that the Bill focuses too strongly on symptoms rather than on the underlying causes of the concerns about immigration in this country. Our previous Bills have contained a number of measures that have precisely targeted the causes, dealing with bogus colleges, spousal visas and even the English test. I do not see much in this Bill to reinforce my belief that that is a continuing thread of the efforts of our Government’s policies.

Above all, we want measures that deal with immigration but avoid things that are costly, ineffective or unjust. Will the Minister therefore support efforts that would limit detention in certain circumstances? He is aware of a case involving a pregnant women. He wrote to me at the end of last year saying that her healthcare had been adequately provided—he was relying on second-hand advice—but as we found out last week in the High Court that was not the case. Continuing with the detention of pregnant women leaves us open to these sorts of abuses in the future. This Bill is an opportunity to correct that, address the position of victims of torture and rape, and introduce a limit on the period of detention for people who are subject to immigration regulations.

As has been said, this is not just about the extension of powers, but about how well we are using the powers we already have. I urge the Minister to provide more information in Committee about how the current powers are being used and why they are not sufficient. Many of us do not wish to see landlords and business people used as the front line of our Border Force; we are concerned about the potential for them to be criminalised. We are also concerned that as we put further pressure on people’s ability to stay in this country we will drive them to vagrancy and crime. I am sure that is not the intention, but I am also sure the Minister can see the potential for that in some of these measures. We have to get the balance right. The same applies on the issue I raised in my question to the Home Secretary about potential discrimination, which has been widely mentioned today.

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

My hon. Friend has been taking the issues of immigration and detention seriously, as he has Yarl’s Wood on his doorstep in his constituency, and we have discussed them on many occasions. On detention, welfare and vulnerability, may I say to him that the Stephen Shaw report, which has recently been finalised, is addressing all those factors, and that we will be considering and acting on its recommendations carefully? I hope that gives him some reassurance about the attention and focus we are giving to the issues that I know he holds dear.

[Richard Fuller]

That is very reassuring, particularly as it comes from such a capable Minister.

I am used to being a bit out of kilter with the norm of political views about immigration here—it used to be just me and perhaps the former Member for Brent Central and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Of course, Sarah Teather has gone on to better things and the hon. Gentleman has gone on to be leader of the Labour party, so I am left here talking from a bit of a different angle from everyone else. The focus of much of this is illegal immigrants, and there is one word that nobody has used about illegal immigrants—compassion. I wish to discuss that.

Whether we like it or not, we are talking today about a lot of the toxic legacy of the Labour party’s lack of control of immigration. When I became a Member of Parliament in 2010, there were people who had been in this country for five, six or seven years when they had no right to be here, and there were children who had grown up in our schools when their parents had no right to be here. People should not blame the Conservative party for trying to clear up the mess that was left, but my party and this Government need to see not only effectiveness, but compassion. What is compassionate about sending a child who turns 18 back to a country that they have never really understood? Where is the compassion in taking money away from someone while they are waiting for their case to be resolved? Where is the compassion for someone who is holding on to stay in this country when they have no right to remain here? Where is the compassion in leaving them for years and just making their life harder and harder in the hope that somehow they just leave?

We can talk about effectiveness, but it is our values, too, as a country that we are talking about. I, for one, want to make sure that the Bills we pass in this country stand up for the best principles of our country as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Fuller and James Brokenshire

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady raises an individual case. I know how hard Passport Office personnel are working to ensure that passports are delivered on time to enable people to travel. If she gives me the details of her constituent’s case, obviously I will look into it.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

May I commend the staff of the Passport Office for dealing with constituents from Bedford and Kempston who have had passport difficulties, and the Minister for his calm handling of the issue? When looking forward on the handling of passports, will he consider advising people a year early that their passports are due to expire so that they can renew them without having to wait until the last minute?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the incredible work being undertaken in passport offices up and down the country to meet this exceptional demand. Clearly we will reflect carefully on a range of issues once we get through this exceptionally busy period to see where further improvements can be made and to ensure that service is improved further in the years ahead.

Student Visas

Debate between Richard Fuller and James Brokenshire

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s point, which is why in my statement and in some of the answers to questions I have underlined the support that is being provided to students who, through no fault of their own, may have concerns or be affected. We will certainly keep information on gov.uk up to date. The new hotline has opened this afternoon, so students will be able to contact that. As I have said, we will be working with the sector more generally to ensure that support is provided appropriately.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The Minister has suspended the right of the university of Bedfordshire, which has a campus in my constituency, to sponsor foreign students. Will he clarify whether that is because of its involvement with ETS, or because of broader aspects of abuse of student visas? Has he had an opportunity to speak to the vice-chancellor so that he may reassure students throughout the university on valid foreign visas that their studies will not be affected?

[James Brokenshire]

We are in regular contact with the university of Bedfordshire. There has been a conversation with the vice-chancellor this morning and a meeting has been arranged either for later today or within the next few days for the precise purpose of assessing the next steps and to see what may be required in relation to reassurance for students. The action taken by the Government has been linked to ETS in terms of the certificates provided that were questionable or incorrectly issued. It is as a result of looking at the records and the way in which that academic institution has been fulfilling its responsibilities as a highly trusted sponsor that we have taken the action today in respect of its inability to take on new students. We will clearly be working with each of the institutions that I have identified in my statement.

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Centre (Detainee Death)

Debate between Richard Fuller and James Brokenshire

Monday 31st March 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am afraid that I do not have the details to hand, but I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further information on the duration of detentions at Yarl’s Wood.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

May I thank the Minister for his thoughtful responses to questions? Many outside observers of Yarl’s Wood would say that its management has improved in the recent past, but however good it is, we are still dealing with some very vulnerable women. Many of them have sought asylum here because they were victims of rape or abuse, and just because they could not prove that to an immigration official does not mean that it did not happen. The current process for detaining women for immigration purposes seems to me to be ineffective, costly and unjust. Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity, after this tragic incident, to bring a fresh pair of eyes to the whole process of the detention of women for immigration purposes?

[James Brokenshire]

I respect the close interest that my hon. Friend takes not simply in Yarl’s Wood, but more generally. I underline the fact that there have been improvements at Yarl’s Wood, and he referred to them. We are seeking to speed up decisions while maintaining high standards in asylum cases and more generally in the immigration system. That is why we took the decision to split the old UK Border Agency, with visas and immigration as a specific command in the Home Office—responding to and accountable to Ministers—to ensure that we improve our decisions and their timeliness.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Fuller and James Brokenshire

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the risk from Syria—that individuals may travel out there and then come back and pose a risk to us in this country. That is why the Government have taken a number of steps. For example, the Home Secretary has highlighted the change and strengthening of approach in relation to the royal prerogative. We will not hesitate to take measures to disrupt travel and to prosecute those involved in terrorism whether here or in other countries, such as Syria.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Will the Minister assure me that he will not follow the example of Labour Front Benchers who, in a debate last week, trampled on centuries of long-established principles of justice purely to look tough on this issue? Instead, will he continue to balance the principles of British justice with the rights of suspects?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the whole issue of the challenges that can be made in the courts. As control orders were being steadily eroded, we reviewed them very carefully as part of the counter-terrorism review at the start of this Parliament. The courts have upheld every TPIM notice that they have reviewed, and TPIMs have been endorsed by the courts, counter-terrorism reviewers, the police and the Security Service.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Debate between Richard Fuller and James Brokenshire

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I note my hon. Friend’s comment. Clearly, his own experience was very shocking and I well understand why he would wish to intercede in the debate to make that point clearly. Proscription can be an important mechanism to disrupt activity. We therefore believe that it is an appropriate mechanism to send a strong message that terrorist organisations are not tolerated in the UK and to act as a deterrent to their operating here. It also means that an organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate.

It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation, invite support for a proscribed organisation, arrange a meeting in support of that organisation, or wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that they may be a member or supporter of such an organisation. We believe that proscription is a powerful mechanism to disrupt and take firm action against terrorist groups, which is why 49 international and 14 Northern Irish terrorist organisations are currently proscribed.

On the specific groups before the House this evening, having carefully considered all the evidence we firmly believe that both organisations, Boko Haram and Minbar Ansar Deen, are currently concerned in terrorism. Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, but I can provide a brief summary of each group.

Boko Haram is a prolific terrorist organisation based in Nigeria whose ultimate goal is to establish the Islamic caliphate. Seeking to undermine democratic government through its campaign of violence and attacks, it has targeted all sections of Nigerian society—Muslims, Christians, rich, poor, civilians and members of the security forces alike—as well as members of the international community. For example, an attack near Abuja on Christmas day 2011 that killed at least 26 people, and an attack on a bus station in Kano City in March 2013 that killed over 60, were both attributed to the organisation. The organisation has also sought to attack international targets in Nigeria. In August 2011, it claimed responsibility for a suicide attack against the UN building in Abuja that killed 26. It has also targeted westerners for kidnapping in the past few years.

I stress to the House that the Government are aware of the concerns over the approach used by the Nigerian Government to defeat Boko Haram. While the UK Government continue to work with Nigeria to fight terrorism, we make it clear that human rights must be respected at all times in our work to defeat terrorism across the globe.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning some of the disgusting attacks by Boko Haram in Nigeria. We live in an interconnected world and I am sure that the Government of Nigeria will be pleased at the action being taken by the British Government today. Has my hon. Friend had any conversations with the Nigerian Government with respect to the motion before the House?

[James Brokenshire]

What I can say to my hon. Friend is that Boko Haram has carried out indiscriminate, mass-casualty attacks, and clearly we are conscious of all the events I have outlined. We believe that proscribing that organisation shows our condemnation of its activities very clearly and will prevent it operating in the UK and give the police powers to tackle any UK-based support for it, so proscription is an important step. I cannot comment on specific discussions we have had with the Nigerian Government, but clearly those continue. I stress the point I made earlier about condemning any human rights abuses in that regard. I think it is important to state that in this context.

The second group we are proscribing is Minbar Ansar Deen, a Salafist group based in the UK that promotes and encourages terrorism. It distributes material through its online forum, which promotes terrorism by encouraging individuals to travel overseas to engage in extremist activity, specifically fighting. The group is not related to Ansar al-Sharia groups in other countries. Proscribing it sends a clear message that we condemn its terrorism activities.

Decisions on when and whether to proscribe an organisation are taken only following extensive consideration and in the light of emerging intelligence. It is important that decisions are built on a robust evidence base, do not adversely impact on any ongoing investigations and support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. It of course would not be appropriate for us to discuss specific intelligence that leads to any decisions to proscribe, but clearly we keep the whole area under constant focus.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Richard Fuller and James Brokenshire

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.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Richard Fuller and James Brokenshire

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 ---

[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 ---

[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.

Youth Violence (London)

Debate between Richard Fuller and James Brokenshire

Thursday 16th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the complexity of the problems surrounding this difficult issue. I am afraid that I cannot give him a direct answer to the specific point that he raises about any decision that the Mayor may or may not have made on Operation Trident. However, I should be happy to make inquiries and, as required, write to him if that would be of assistance to him. What I can tell him is that the Mayor of London has recently appointed an expert advisory group made up of members of the black communities to support him on a number of those complex issues. The information I have is that the Mayor remains focused on the issue, recognising the difficulties, challenges and complexities that many hon. Members have highlighted in this debate.

There is much more work being led by the Metropolitan police and partners in London. A new anti-violence board brings together partners in the police, health, education, offender management and the community, along with parents. It will focus on the most dangerous offenders, hot-spot locations and protecting the most vulnerable victims. In addition, this year the Home Office is providing £700,000 to tackle youth violence in the capital. Lambeth, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Streatham, is one area benefiting from that funding.

I also want to highlight the Mayor’s “Time for Action” programme, which recognises that to reduce youth violence we must ensure that young Londoners are a valued part of their communities and that they can contribute in meaningful ways. The programme focuses on: for the first time, giving young offenders in custody the tools to get them into work; tackling truancy; supporting young people in care to go to university; promoting sport; working with uniformed organisations to help build young peoples’ character; and sharing good practice.

I would particularly like to acknowledge the Mayor’s work to encourage the mentoring of at-risk black boys in Lambeth and other boroughs. The issue of young black men being disproportionately at risk of being victims and offenders is a challenging one—a fact that has rightly been brought to our attention in the debate tonight—and I certainly support all the initiatives that show a determination to take this on.

So there is an impressive array of work going on in the capital aimed at keeping young people safe. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in extending thanks to all those in London—the police, the Mayor, local authorities, community leaders and those in the local communities—who have worked so hard to contribute to this difficult work. Some of those excellent projects are currently being visited by Brooke Kinsella, whose brother Ben was tragically murdered in London two years ago. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have asked Brooke to head up a fact-finding mission to assess the work going on across the country to tackle youth violence. I am very pleased to have her working with us, but sorry that it was the loss of her brother that drew her into this work.

Brooke is visiting projects in London and across the country that are working to prevent young people from getting pulled into a world of violence. I know that she has visited some of the good work that is under way in the constituency of the hon. Member for Streatham, and seen a great deal of dedicated voluntary and community sector work with young people. Her findings will be presented to the Home Secretary later this year, to help to shape the Government’s work in tackling serious violence among young people.

I would like to take this opportunity to place on record the Government’s appreciation of Ms Kinsella’s dedication. I know that the projects she has visited have appreciated her time and support for their work to protect young people, and that she has been inspired by some of the excellent and varied work being led by local communities up and down the country. Some of those projects have been funded through the Home Office community fund, which, since 2009, has provided 144 small community organisations with £10,000 each per year to stop young people committing violence. I know that funding is always an issue, and in the current financial climate, that will continue to be the case. However, I know that Brooke has been very impressed at the work being undertaken, often with minimal funding but always with a great deal of commitment, hard work and community good will.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) made some excellent points in his speech, and there was only one matter in which I had cause to disagree with him. That was when he described the pessimism about the response of the private sector and corporations. We are talking about crimes against young people in London, which is a centre for many businesses and corporations. Does the Minister accept that this Government, having inherited the current financial situation and therefore being able to do less themselves, have a responsibility to encourage those who are able to create great profits in this same city to do more, using measures such as social impact bonds and early intervention? What can he do to encourage more to happen on that front?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend mentions social impact bonds and other means of drawing funding together from a range of different sectors. He might be aware of some of the innovative work that has been done in Peterborough prison to look at outcome-based issues and the structuring of a payment-by-results method. The Government are really looking to achieve positive results, and we are certainly looking closely at the way in which the third sector and the private sector can be joined together to make a combined difference. In raising the issue of the role of the private sector and of corporate social responsibility, my hon. Friend has made an important and powerful point.

I also want to touch on the work of the Victims Commissioner, and to reassure families that this Government are committed to supporting victims of crime through the criminal justice system. That is an important aspect of all this. Since Victim Support’s homicide service was set up earlier this year, it has supported 457 individuals from more than 200 families, including after the tragic events in Cumbria. This service ensures that families bereaved by murder and manslaughter benefit from a professional caseworker and tailored, intensive support. I also want to draw the House’s attention to the work of Louise Casey, the Victims Commissioner. In her inaugural public speech, she outlined her first impressions of victim and witness care, and talked about how we could take the work further forward.

I am conscious that the end of the debate is drawing near, but I want briefly to mention the accident and emergency data-sharing work that is under way to ensure that we have good information, as well as the sentencing review that is being undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and the work being done on gang injunctions—