Public Order Bill

Debate between Richard Fuller and Yvette Cooper

2nd reading
Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I will first give way to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and then come back to the right hon. Member for New Forest East.

[Richard Fuller]

I was following the right hon. Lady’s argument until this last piece, where she outlined a series of cases—political issues—that the Labour party is against. I am just wondering why and how she differentiates that from the proposals in the Bill, which seem to provide the basis for her to make those moves directly.

[Yvette Cooper]

That is exactly the point that I am about to make, because the Bill does not address any of those points. All those cases are areas where there are existing offences, but there are and have been problems with enforcement. The Bill does not tackle that issue or solve the problem. Instead, in a whole series of areas, it makes the problem worse.

Refugees from Ukraine

Debate between Richard Fuller and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) suggested that the Opposition Front Bench had said that we should throw away security checks, which has never been the case. On that basis, I will accept the apology that he put forward, if he confirms that apology.

[Richard Fuller]

indicated assent.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Richard Fuller and Yvette Cooper

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

It is a pleasure to follow the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). I shall address my comments not to the substantive area of debate, amendment 87, but to other Lords amendments. As a result, I will try to limit my contribution, given that many people wish to speak to amendment 87.

Two issues of particular importance to me are, first, amendment 84, on the time limit for immigration detention, and the Government’s proposal, and secondly, amendment 85, on the detention of pregnant women. On amendment 84, I listened carefully to the Minister earlier and to the announcements by the Home Office last week, and on balance, notwithstanding the limitations just mentioned, the combination of the changes, along with the opportunity for Stephen Shaw to review the time limit, as part of his inquiry, in 12 to 18 months, gives me comfort that the Government, though they have not gone as far as I would have wished, have done enough for me to be generally supportive of their approach and certainly not to vote against them.

Unfortunately, on the detention of pregnant women, it is a different matter. Without a doubt, this is a big and welcome change, but for me it is a matter of principle: we should never detain a pregnant woman when we have the choice not to. It was January 2012 when I asked my first question in Parliament about the detention of pregnant women. I only regret that it took me 18 months as a Member to ask those questions—that it took me 18 months to become aware of a vast estate of incarceration and detention that had built up under the last Labour Government and continued under the coalition, and was detaining people in our name for no other reason than that they came here and had not proven their case to stay. Each of those many people—not just pregnant women, but others who were victims of torture and rape, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) mentioned—should have had a better and more humane alternative.

To those groups such as Medical Justice, Women for Refugee Women, the Refugee Council and so many others that have tried in the intervening period to persuade the Home Office to move its policy away from the default of detention and a culture of disbelief to something that is understanding of each individual circumstance, the Government’s announcements over the last few weeks are tremendously welcome. They do not go far enough, however.

I can assure the Minister that we will hold him and the Government to account in respect of all the words he has said and all the frameworks he has put in place to ensure that the objectives of the all-party groups in their inquiry into the use of immigration detention are achieved. There is a better alternative to detention: it is called case management, and it means letting people know what their rights are and not leaving them in the community with no one to talk to for month after month. We must engage with these people so they know that they can remain in this country if they can prove their entitlement, and we must provide them with the best possible support and advice to make that case. As I said, we will hold the Minister to account for that.

The campaign had a hashtag, as is common these days; it was called #setherfree. I regret that I cannot say to the women in Yarl’s Wood today that as a result of these changes they will be free. My hope is that we have started to change the direction, and that we are starting the process of taking that valuable phrase “asylum seeker” out of the gutter where it was left, and putting it where it should be as a place of honour—not for the individual, but for the country to which they come to claim that status. This is a judgment about us as much as it is a judgment about the people who come to this country. Let us take this step forward, but let us pressure the Government to do more.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the speech made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and pay tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), whose powerful speech must have been difficult to make. It was a great pleasure, too, to hear the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) back in the Chamber this evening.

I shall focus my remarks on amendment 87, proposed in the House of Lords by Lord Alf Dubs. Some 95,000 children and teenagers are alone in Europe as a result of the refugee crisis—four times more than Save the Children thought the figure was for unaccompanied child refugees. This amendment asks Britain to help only 3,000 of them; and that is all. It will not solve the problem, but it will mean we are doing our bit. That is why I think the Government are so wrong to say no. We should do our bit just as we did 70 years ago when Britain supported the Kindertransport that brought Lord Alf Dubs to Britain and saved his life. It had cross-party support at that time. Those survivors of the Kindertransport are asking us to help child refugees again today.

The reason why this amendment is needed is that there are so many children who are disappearing, suffering and dying on our continent today, and other countries do not have the capacity to cope with that alone. This House has the power in its hands to vote for this amendment today.

We should be clear that we all support what the Government have done in providing aid for the region. We all support the 0.7% of GDP that goes in aid, and we also support how much has been done to help the areas affected by the Syrian refugee crisis in particular. We know, too, however, that aid in the regions is not enough, particularly when people are fleeing and need sanctuary, and it is not enough when we need to help children. The lone child and teenage refugees are hugely vulnerable. Thousands are sleeping rough in Europe tonight because there are simply not the places, the sanctuaries and the children’s centres that we need to give them shelter.

Home Affairs and Justice

Debate between Richard Fuller and Yvette Cooper

Thursday 28th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The point I just made was that in a global economy, and also given Britain’s history, we have long seen benefits from people coming here from all over the world, making this country their home and contributing to our economy, and setting up some of our biggest businesses, including Marks & Spencer. But we also need a system that is fair and that is controlled and managed. That is why we have highlighted areas where we think stronger controls are needed in order to make the system fair; for example, better enforcement is needed. We want to see lower migration as well, but the system has to recognise the different kinds of migration, which I think is the point the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is making.

The problem with the gap between the Government’s rhetoric and the reality is that in the end it undermines confidence in the whole system and faith in any immigration promise the Government might make. It also allows some people to exploit the issue in order to divide us. The Government are taking the British public for fools.

[Richard Fuller]

I commend the right hon. Lady for her passionate and effective speech. She talks about fair immigration policies. Does the Labour party support a reduction in the income limit for a spousal visa?

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Richard Fuller and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

In fact, I talked about the importance of protecting both liberty and security when I opened my remarks. We need both in a democracy and it is the responsibility of Government to protect both. On TPIMs, I think that the Government were wrong to remove the relocation powers. They are important and effective, and it has been recommended that they should be restored by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, whose judgment has proved to be balanced and sensible on a series of issues. There are other areas where additional safeguards are needed, and I will come to them shortly.

[Richard Fuller]

The right hon. Lady will understand that there is some sensitivity on this issue, given the rather poor record of the last Labour Government on protecting civil liberties. For example, we had 90 days’ detention without trial and the imprisonment of children for immigration purposes only. Does she at least agree with the Home Secretary’s move to raise the threshold for when relocation can be imposed from reasonable belief to the balance of probabilities?

[Yvette Cooper]

I do support the proposals, because they came out of David Anderson’s report about changes to the TPIMs regime. He looked at the evidence and came up with sensible recommendations. However, I warn the hon. Gentleman against playing party politics on this issue, because that is what got the coalition into trouble in the first place. The reason the coalition removed relocation orders was that it wanted to make party political points, rather than look at the evidence. That is why it has had to do a U-turn: it has finally had to look at the evidence. I caution him about doing the same again.

Passport Applications

Debate between Richard Fuller and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I certainly do. March is three months ago, and people should get their passports within three weeks, according to the Government’s targets. That simply is not happening.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

I have also had constituents contact me with concerns, and in most cases those have been sorted out, but in addition I am being contacted by constituents before the target time has been exceeded. Does the right hon. Lady share my concern that perhaps people are unnecessarily getting the message that they should be anxious about their passport applications?

[Yvette Cooper]

The unfortunate thing is that the message on the Government’s websites and helplines still says that passports will be processed within three weeks. Families are making decisions on that basis: they think it will be done within three weeks and then it is not. It can be delayed by many weeks, and that is a huge problem, because they have made plans and invested in booking holidays.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Debate between Richard Fuller and Yvette Cooper

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The independent reviewer’s proposals should be looked at very seriously. As I have said, there may be other options, such as the extension of time limits. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, any set of proposals will involve limitations. This is the kind of debate we ought to be having in Parliament, but it needs to be informed by that proper security assessment.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way once more, but I must then make some progress, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady; I know that she wants to move on. Do I understand from her response to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that her understanding of justice in this case is that the group of people concerned should not be allowed to see the evidence that will be presented in a trial that they will not actually undergo, and that they should then be forcibly relocated from their communities and kept in detention for at least 23 hours a day, for an indefinite period? Is that the Labour party’s view of justice in this case?

[Yvette Cooper]

No. We have made it clear throughout the passage of the legislation that these measures should be used only in very exceptional circumstances, and that there must also be a court procedure. There must be legal safeguards, and there must be judicial processes. I have cited the views of the judges, not just the views of the Security Service and the Home Secretary. However, we must also recognise that there are some cases in which it is very difficult to prosecute in the courts because of secret intelligence, and the risk to human sources who may put their lives at risk by providing that important information.

The Home Secretary should tell us this: does she still believe that each of the six men whose restrictions she is now removing poses a terror threat—yes or no? She told us 12 months ago that the answer was yes, because she renewed their TPIMs, but what is her answer now? We know what she thought of those men when she imposed the restrictions, but surely it is even more important for us to know the risk when she takes those restrictions away. We are not asking her to show Parliament the detailed Security Service assessment—she should show that to the Intelligence and Security Committee—but we are asking her to inform us of her conclusions, and to give us as much detail as she gave publicly to the courts.

The Home Secretary gave us her security assessment when Magag and Mohamed ran off. She told us then that she did not believe they posed any risk to people in the United Kingdom. If she could tell us that much about those two terror suspects once they were out on the streets without restrictions, why can she not do the same now in relation to all the others?

People change and risk levels change. If the risk has been reduced, restrictive measures may no longer be justified, in which case they should certainly be removed. We support the removal of restrictions as soon as they are no longer justified. Over the last decade, control orders have rightly been removed from more than 30 people because they were not longer justified. Terror powers such as these must always be kept under review, but the Home Secretary has removed these restrictions not because they are no longer justified but because of her legislation, the legislation she pushed through Parliament. How can Parliament assess whether that legislation was right, and whether she has done the right thing, without knowing the continued risk that any of these men is expected to pose?

We also need to know what action the Home Secretary has taken to prepare for the end of TPIMs. The independent reviewer warned us some time ago that serious planning should be done to work with those individuals to reduce the risk once the restrictions were removed. Has that happened? Has any work been done with them to address their extremism? Judge Wilkie suggests not. On the basis of the evidence that the Home Secretary submitted to the court, he said that she

“does not accept that there is a general duty to tailor measures towards the end of a TPIM in order to facilitate assimilation.”

What planning has taken place to cope with the restrictions being removed? The Home Secretary has told us that the Metropolitan police have a plan for each person, but will she ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee is shown those plans? Will she also tell us what those plans will cost? When control orders were downgraded to TPIMs two years ago, the Government provided extra funding for surveillance and investigations. However, that extra funding was clearly not enough to ensure that there was sufficient surveillance on Mohamed and Magag, who were able to abscond, or enough to deliver successful prosecutions. That reduction from control orders to TPIMs will have put additional pressure on the resources of the police and the security services, but surely the ending of TPIMs for those suspects altogether will put even greater pressure on those resources now, as there are no restrictions in place. Has any additional funding been made available to cope with the ending of TPIMs for those men, or will surveillance resources have to be redeployed from other important targets?

Before the Home Secretary stands up to answer my questions, let me address some of the points that she usually makes in her defence, as well as some new ones that she has added to her list in the past few days. She usually argues that control orders were not strong enough, and that people absconded while subject to them. She and I agree that the control orders without relocation powers, under the regime that operated before 2007, were not strong enough, but that is why the control order regime was tightened up in 2007 with a greater focus being placed on relocation, after which no one absconded. My response to that was to say that we should keep the relocation powers. Hers was to ditch them. She has lost two terror suspects as a result.

The Home Secretary has now come up with two new defences. She has told the Daily Mail that the problem was the fault of the Human Rights Act, and she has told The Sun that it was the fault of the Liberal Democrats. Both claims are nonsense. She has also tried to claim that control orders had to be reformed because they were being undermined in the courts. The independent reviewer has made it clear, both to the Home Affairs Committee and in other statements, that the courts have repeatedly upheld the principle of control orders and upheld individuals’ cases time and again. The independent reviewer has said:

“The replacement of control orders by TPIMs was a political decision. It was not prompted by any court judgment, either from the United Kingdom or from Strasbourg.”

As for the idea that this was all the Liberal Democrats’ fault, the Deputy Prime Minister is not even strong enough to sort out the problems in his own party. No one believes that he is strong enough to make the Home Secretary put forward legislation that she does not agree with. Let us remember what she said at the time. She made it clear that it was her legislation, not his. She defended every one of the changes, including the two-year limit, the end of relocation and the granting of extra freedoms. Indeed, she was proud that she was

“re-striking the balance between national security and civil liberties.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 71.]

The Home Secretary cannot blame the Liberal Democrats, the Human Rights Act or the courts. She has only herself to blame if she does not like the consequences of her legislation. We need to know what she is going to do now, however. What is the risk to the public from those six men? What is the risk to the public from her legislation? What is she doing about this? She told us three years ago:

“Where successful prosecution or deportation is not possible, however, no responsible Government could allow dangerous individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 69.]

So can she now get up and tell us that she is not doing exactly that? Can she put her hand on her heart and tell us she is confident that she is doing the right thing for the British people by removing those TPIMs from those six individuals this month? And if she is really as uncomfortable with her own legislation as her briefings to the newspapers suggest, is it not time that she backed down and set up a cross-party review to look at this legislation again?

Jobs and the Unemployed

Debate between Richard Fuller and Yvette Cooper

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. This is about investing in our future, because this is about the young people who will support us all for very many years to come. If we do not give them the start in life that they need, if we do not give them the work experience that they need to get into jobs, if we leave too many of them stuck on the dole for years, we will pay the bills that result from their being unemployed for years and we will lose their potential skills and talents that could contribute to our economy for many years to come.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Is not the biggest burden on the young people about whom the right hon. Lady talks so eloquently the massive debts that her Government left behind? They are already shackled by the previous Government’s policies, and that will be a burden on them and their employment opportunities for the future.

[Yvette Cooper]

If those young people cannot get jobs, if they end up stuck on the dole for years—that is what happened to young people whom I left school with in the 1980s—that will devastate their entire future. They will struggle to get work for many years to come and that will push up the deficit. The hon. Gentleman seems to fail to understand that if unemployment is high, that pushes up the bills for unemployment benefits and cuts the number of people who are working in good jobs and paying their taxes, not just this year and next, but for many years to come.

[Richard Fuller]

In my constituency, the unemployment rate doubled under the last Administration. In the last 10 years, unemployment has gone up. We recognise in Bedford and Kempston that we need small businesses to create the jobs that will employ people, not just in five years’ time, but in five months’ time. The one thing that small businesses in my constituency want is to know that the Government have control over the deficit, that their taxes will be down, and that regulation will be reduced. Surely that is the way in which we can create jobs.

[Yvette Cooper]

Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, if we cut the deficit at the pace and scale that his party wants, that will make it harder for businesses. It will make it harder for small businesses and companies across the economy. His party’s own appointed Office for Budget Responsibility confirms that. It says that there will be fewer jobs in the economy, not just next year, but each year for the rest of this Parliament as a result of the Budget. It is hitting businesses and employers throughout the country, making it harder for them to take people on. That is the complete fallacy in the arguments of Conservative Members. They are stuck in the mentality of not just the 1980s, but the 1930s, which says that so long as the deficit is cut, things will suddenly be hunky-dory. It will not. It cuts jobs and makes it harder for people to get back into work, and it pushes up the costs of failure too. That is what is so irresponsible.