Immigration Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As I have said, the primary consideration is for the Home Secretary to research various materials and determine whether the individual could reacquire their former nationality, because that is what we are largely talking about in the circumstances of considering such laws. I am sure that she would also have to consider practical issues and the other surrounding circumstances. It is difficult to be specific, as individual facts and cases will no doubt be relevant to the provision. She will, therefore, wish to consider those other practical or logistical arrangements as part of her determination about whether there are reasonable grounds for the individual to secure citizenship from another state.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I want to press my hon. Friend on justiciability. Is he now satisfied that amendment (a) deals with the convention issue about deprivation of citizenship not being exercised arbitrarily, but proportionately? Does the amendment meet such tests?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes. My hon. Friend rightly points to article 15 of the universal declaration of human rights, which makes a point about protection against the arbitrary deprivation of nationality. We are very clear that the provision is not arbitrary. It is a very focused and proportionate power that meets not only those requirements, but our obligations under the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness of 1961, and the declaration made by the UK when it ratified that convention in 1966. We have considered our international obligations very carefully. We believe that the provision absolutely complies with the obligations that we have set for ourselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

That is a legitimate question, and it is one that deserves an answer. The point I would make is that we are legislating. If we legislate for this and if it goes back to the other place in the form the Minister has brought forward, it will be enacted: it will have Royal Assent within a matter of, presumably, days. We will therefore have one year of operation between May or June 2014 through to May or June 2015. That is fair enough. We will then review it and make changes. All the concerns raised by Members today would potentially be applicable in that 12-month period. The argument I would make is that if we accept the amendment that has been considered by the Lords, we can look at this, get it right and ensure that the concerns that have been raised not just here today but by Members in another place are dealt with. The measures that are taken will then have the full confidence of both Houses of Parliament. At the moment, given the vote that was taken in the other place—242 in favour and 180 against— the proposals the Minister brought forward previously do not have the support and confidence of both Houses. The removal of citizenship is such a challenging and extreme measure to take that it must have the confidence of both Houses of Parliament.

[Mr Buckland]

I listened with interest when the right hon. Gentleman talked about his fear that the UK would be in breach of its international obligations in relation to statelessness if the Government’s proposals went through. Which particular international obligations does he think the UK would be in breach of?

[Mr Hanson]

I am trying to ensure that we propagate good practice. There are many states that currently remove citizenship from individuals. It has happened in Iraq and it has happened in other countries before, and we have been critical of that. We are trying to ensure that any action taken by a Government, particularly when it is one of Executive power by the Home Secretary, is supported by both Houses of Parliament.

Let me give the hon. Gentleman the opinion of international lawyer Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, who says that:

“any state that admitted an individual on the basis of his or her British passport would be fully entitled to ignore any purported deprivation of citizenship and as a matter of right return that person to the UK.”

That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). We need to consider this in considerable detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

It is a disgrace that we are talking about civil liberties and yet we have only nine minutes left, the debate in the Lords ended only 18 hours ago, and the amendments land before the House when it is likely to rise early next week because of insufficient business. Our job is responsibly to look after our constituents’ interests, which means both their human rights and their protection and security. Not one of the amendments we are considering is capable of doing that as a result of this bouncing of the House. I have been in this place only 17 years now and the worst civil liberties violations have occurred when the House has been bounced into urgent decisions. That is what is happening today and I resent that.

I resent it on behalf of my constituents. The practicalities of the provisions mean that we will deprive some of their citizenship and, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) has said, we will do so in a way that will not even allow them to answer the charges themselves. That is the SIAC process, which I voted against all those years ago.

What are the practicalities of depriving someone of their citizenship when they are a threat, particularly if they are abroad? In the other House there was a discussion about the comity of interest between individual states. What are we to do? Will we deprive a suspected terrorist of their citizenship and leave them as the responsibility of another state? Will that protect our citizens’ interests, if that person can then roam free to take action against this country? That is not fair, just or based on human rights, and it does not practically tackle the issue of security.

Their lordships want time to set up a Joint Committee to give this difficult area of policy the detailed consideration it needs. The Minister referred to the Government’s proposed review as independent, but the amendment makes no reference to independence. The reviewer will be appointed by the Government, not by an independent process. In addition, the Secretary of State will have a veto over what is reported to the House and that applies not just to national security but, as the amendment says, to public interest. Public interest has been used in this House by successive Governments to avoid embarrassments and to avoid providing the House with information on which we can make considered judgments.

The Government’s amendments are not acceptable. I do not think they resolve the concerns that the other House has raised and I hope that that place holds firm so that we can negotiate a proper process. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that we need a reasonable process within a limited period of time to allow us to return to the House to consider proper proposals that protect civil liberties while, just as importantly, protecting the security of our constituents.

[Mr Buckland]

I feel like I am in an episode of “Just a Minute”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but here goes.

I support the Government’s amendments, as we must focus on the issue. This is not some descent into despotism; all we are talking about is a return to the law as it stood before 2002. We are not even talking about the principle of statelessness, because the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allows for a person to be stateless when that nationality has been obtained by fraud. We are talking about only a very small cohort of people who pose a serious threat to the safety of the citizens we represent.

It is important that the Government ensure that they do not end up with decisions being made in an arbitrary or disproportionate way, which is why the provision about reasonable grounds is important and goes a long way towards answering that point. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a Member, correctly said that the decision to deprive people of their state per se does not breach any international conventions. That is the case that was not properly answered by the Opposition.

In the seconds I have left in which to speak, all I can say is that the Government have moved a significant way and that that allows me and others to support their amendments and reject the Lords amendment.

[James Brokenshire]

It is worth outlining again at the outset the purpose of the Government’s amendments, which is to close a gap that has been highlighted by the Supreme Court, to guard our national security and to deal with a very small number of individuals who put this country’s security at risk. It is only to deal with those very serious cases of people whose conduct meets the requirement of being

“seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK.”

It is important to understand the context and how the Home Secretary, in exercising the power based on the amendments, must have reasonable grounds to believe that under the laws of a country or territory an individual is able to become a national of that country or territory. We have listened to the points that have been made about statelessness, and the amendments address and significantly close the issues that have been highlighted in the other place.

On scrutiny, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said, the matter has been considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as well as in the other place, so it is not correct to say that it has not been subject to careful consideration in the other place and by Members of this House, or considered in detail. That was incorrectly suggested by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who spoke for the Opposition. He has made various assertions that in some way the provisions are not compliant with our conventions and obligations to the United Nations. I reject that. We do not accept that in some way the provisions that are contemplated in the amendments do not comply with our conventions. Indeed, we believe that they adhere more closely to our obligations.

Stop-and-Search

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I want all forces in England and Wales to sign up to the code, and I hope that Members of the House will do what they can to encourage their local police and crime commissioners and chief constables to do just that. As I indicated earlier, I will not set a timetable for introducing legislation, partly for the reasons I set out in response to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I have long advocated intelligence-led policing, and this is a significant step along that road. Does she agree that the amendments to PACE code A—which are statutory because PACE code A is a statutory instrument—will represent real change for the vast majority of stop-and-searches, and that her approach on section 60 stop-and-searches replicates what has happened with stop-and-searches under the Terrorism Act 2000, where we have seen a reduction to nought without primary legislative change?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and it is a pity that everybody seems to have ignored or missed the point about the importance of PACE code A and the impact that it has on forces. That is why it is so important that, as I said, we will be amending that code in a number of ways, particularly to make it absolutely clear what are reasonable grounds of suspicion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has consistently made this point about human rights, and he is obviously well aware of a number of the measures that we have been looking at. Clearly, we have taken steps to ensure, for example, that we are better able to deport individuals and that our focus remains on deportation with assurance to ensure that those who would cause us harm and can be removed are removed from this country.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that TPIMs are but a part of the array of powers available to the police and surveillance services to protect us from harm, and that they are far more able to withstand the sort of legal challenges that caused huge problems under the previous control order regime?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. What the Opposition do not say when they raise this issue is that control orders were struck down on a number of occasions for a range of reasons. I am clear that prosecution is always the best route to deal with terrorists, and we should recognise the success of our agencies in securing the conviction of 40 individuals for terrorism-related offences in the past year.

Hillsborough

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I do not know why they were not made available, but the IPCC has them now, and will be looking at all of them as part of its investigation. Obviously, it will have had contact with the police officers who provided them.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, and for her work on this most sensitive and troubling of issues. I also pay tribute to the Hillsborough families for their steadfast campaigning. They are about to enter a very difficult phase in the process.

I make no apology for returning to the issue—the shocking issue—of the disclosure of 2,500 police notebooks. May I ask two questions? First, the IPCC now has those notebooks, but will those involved in Operation Resolve have copies of them? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a thorough review of the storage of police notebooks, given that the issue has implications for all historical investigations, criminal and civil?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for reiterating the point of concern about the police pocket notebooks. Although the two investigations are concerned with slightly different aspects of the Hillsborough tragedy, it has been made clear that information that is relevant to both should be available to both.

As for my hon. Friend’s wider question, as I said earlier to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), it is important for us to look at the issue of documents that are acquired by police officers in relation to investigations or to incidents that they attend and are required in the course of their duty, but which, in the cases that we are discussing, were treated as if they were personal possessions that officers could take home and deal with as they wished. That is an issue to which I shall want to return.

Immigration Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

I do not understand what benefits flow to Britain from taking away someone’s citizenship. Those benefits have never been specified by anybody. In the case of Mahdi Hashi, a large number of harms have been done, not just to him and his family—I do not know what citizenship his child now has—but to the rest of us who are trying to counter extremism.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

In welcoming the underlying principles of the Bill, I think that it is important to remind the House that deportation is not a punishment in the legal sense. When somebody commits a criminal offence and is convicted, the punishment is the sentence. Deportation is a function of the Home Office and the UK Border Agency in exercising their powers in relation to nationality and the status of individuals within the country. It is important that we make that distinction, artificial though it may seem, to ensure that we have a deeper understanding of what deportation should be about. I make no apology for the fact that if people commit serious offences, consequences flow from that. When the offence is serious enough, the consequences should include deportation.

I welcome the UK Borders Act 2007, which was introduced by the previous Government. That Act changed the function of the criminal courts in the regime. Previously, a Crown court judge had to consider whether the continuing presence of an individual in the country was to the country’s detriment and make a recommendation on deportation. That was a cumbersome regime that did not lead to the results that the public wanted. Sensibly, the 2007 Act brought in the rule that deportation will be automatic for those who are sentenced to terms of imprisonment of longer than 12 months.

I support the clauses of the Bill that amend the 2007 Act to bring primary legislation into line with the immigration rules of 2012, which in my opinion have significantly reduced the margin of discretion that is open to judges, although it is possible to challenge the rules themselves, as we have seen. I think that those clauses will answer many of the legitimate questions that our constituents pose to us on the effectiveness of the deportation regime.

Let us not forget that, however many laws we pass and however much the debate rages over immigration law, the enforcement of that law is the most important thing in the eyes of the public. If the British public believe that our immigration system works, that wrongdoers are no longer in the country and that the deportation system is effective, faith will be restored. We cannot get away from that essential fact.

Of course, we are here to talk about legislation, so I will discuss new clause 15 and amendment 62, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). I know that he has taken great care in considering these issues and we have discussed them face-to-face many times. It is in a spirit of genuine concern that he has tabled new clause 15. However, there are serious questions that we have to ask about it. With respect to him, I think that he is in error when he suggests that the compatibility of the new clause with the convention would not be challenged. I think that it would be subject to such challenge, and I would go further and suggest that rule 39 would apply and that injunctive relief would be available. Let us imagine the consequences of that. If rule 39 injunctive relief were successfully obtained, that would gum up the works not just for one deportation but for thousands in the years to come.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman always stands up for the rule of law, and I entirely agree with him that the new clause would not be legal. Will he therefore join us in opposing it?

[Mr Buckland]

I think that the new clause is capable of achieving perfection, perhaps in the other place. As it stands, however, it does not work in terms of what it sets out to do. I am going to consider my position before deciding whether to abstain or to oppose it today.

I have looked carefully at the exceptions set out in section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007, and at the discretion that the Home Secretary is given under the legislation. That discretion is based on a series of factual events such as the existence of hospital orders or other Mental Health Act dispositions. The exception proposed in new clause 11 gives a subjective discretion that does not sit well with the wording of the UK Borders Act. Once we opened the door to that kind of subjective discretion, what would be the difference between what the new clause hopes to achieve and the wording of the Bill in relation to the discretion that is to be given to the courts? In a nutshell, the Bill’s existing provisions, as amended, already do the job of dealing with serious offending and of making a proper distinction between offences for which sentences of more than four years’ imprisonment are imposed, and those for which under four years are imposed. There is a clear logic to the provisions, and the new clause is therefore unnecessary. It would create the risk of upsetting the entire apple cart when it comes to the important work of deporting serious criminals from our country.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you have rightly asked us to curtail our speeches and I shall try to complete mine in four minutes, but I am seething with anger. The Bill affects many of my constituents, and this is the only time for Back-Bench MPs to introduce or speak to amendments on Report. I am being denied that opportunity because most of my amendments will not be reached today.

I will speak to only one amendment in the group, amendment 79, which deals with the restriction of bail for detainees. I have 1,000 detainees in my constituency, at the Harmondsworth and Colnbrook detention centres. The Bill will deny many of them the right to apply for bail in the 14 days before their removal. I deal with detainees in my office almost every working day of my life. Large numbers of them are parents and, in those last 14 days, they want to get bail so that they can see their children. Others need bail because they are sick or suffering from a mental illness. The Bill will deny them that opportunity, on the approval of the Secretary of State.

The Bill will also mean that a person will be unable to apply for bail if they have already applied 28 days beforehand. That means that there could be new set directions under the first rule, and a rolling programme could mean that people never have the opportunity to apply for bail. Some might think that spending 28 days in a detention centre before someone can apply for bail is not that significant. I suggest that they visit a detention centre. I also suggest that they read the report on visits to the Harmondsworth detention centre during 2013. It sets out the number of people who doctors had determined were mentally ill, had ill health effects from their experiences or had been subjected to torture. Of the 125 being held under rule 35, only 12 were released.

I also ask hon. Members to read the report on mental health in detention centres that was published in January this year by Medical Justice. It states:

“There is a crisis of mental health in detention, as demonstrated by the many Court cases…Evidence and experience shows that mental illness is the greatest health issue for detainees. The safeguards to prevent the detention of those with serious mental illness are not working. The rate of mental illness is already high in those who are subject to detention, in part due to the stresses in their life journey to that time. Detention serves to increase that mental illness and distress”.

The reasons for that distress are clear. When someone is detained, they may be told that they cannot appeal for 28 days, then they may lose that appeal and bail as well. There then follows another 28 days, and so on. The detainee never knows when they will be released. That is why detention impacts on people’s mental health.

The report from the chief inspector of prisons came out earlier this month. It explains what is happening in detention centres. There is an increase in the number of self-harm incidents. A significant number of detainees are refusing to accept food. In Harmondsworth, we now have regular hunger strikes. The place has been burned down twice as a result of detainees’ anger at being detained. The report said:

“Disturbingly, a lack of intelligent individual risk assessment has meant that most detainees were handcuffed on escort… and on at least two occasions, elderly, vulnerable and incapacitated detainees, one of whom was terminally ill, were handcuffed in an unacceptable manner”.

These men were so ill that

“one man died shortly after his handcuffs were removed and the other, an 84-year-old man, died while still in restraints.”

Those were

“shocking cases where a sense of humanity was lost.”

That is what Her Majesty’s inspector of prisons said four weeks ago.

It is unacceptable to detain people on such a scale. Harmondsworth has gone from a row of Nissen huts where no more than 30 people were detained to effectively two prisons with 1,000 detainees. To deny people the right to bail in the way in which the Bill proposes takes away hope, and increases the pressure and mental stress and the number of mental illnesses. At the same time, it brings about this level of abuse and inhumanity. I urge Members to be careful. This Bill will increase harm and be counter-productive. It will deny justice to the most vulnerable people in our society. It is unnecessary. All people want is the right for their case to be heard in the normal manner, as we would all expect it to be. They are crying out for justice.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and I particularly take on board his last exhortation. He is absolutely right: when it comes to national security, party politics should recede into the background and the common interest of Members of Parliament, whether acting as legislators or residents—or as parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) reminded us—should guide us in our deliberations.

The TPIMs debate is finely balanced. I took part in the Bill Committee on what is now the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, and I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which this week will publish its post-legislative report on the Act’s implementation. While it would be wrong of me to pre-empt its findings, personally, I can offer some opinions on where the balance needs to be struck. I am sure that the first principle that needs to be emphasised is accepted by most, if not all, Members. The fundamental basis from which we all start must be the rule that individual freedom should be curtailed only where there are reasonable grounds for arrest or sufficient evidence to charge a suspect, or where custody is the only appropriate sentence after a finding of guilt. Any departure from that rule has to be exercised sparingly and within the narrowest parameters, and cannot involve indefinite or permanent deprivation of liberty. Balanced against that important principle has to be the duty of the state and its agents to safeguard us in our daily lives, which is why the activities of our security and intelligence services deserve our strong support and praise.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have seen people locked up for a long time. When they come out, their resentment and aggression can grow, and what worries me is our assumption that the aggression and resentment of these six people, after two years on TPIMs, will have lessened. I am worried about them just being released.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend’s point allows me to make two observations. First, we have to be careful, in setting the parameters of any orders we impose, not to heighten the sense of grievance; and secondly and most importantly, the Government have to take other measures, in terms of the resources given to the security and intelligence services, the work done by Prevent and the counter-terrorism work done day in, day out to supplement the TPIMs regime. Is there not a danger that in dwelling on the detail of TPIMs, we ignore the bigger picture and the Government’s welcome injection of extra resources into this area of activity?

The constant vigilance of our security services is not only underpinned by statute, but, as the Home Secretary said, exercised by use of the royal prerogative, which is still the residual source of authority for Government activity in this area and which I know is used daily. The motion calls on the Government to share with the Intelligence and Security Committee the full assessment of the threat or otherwise posed by the six individuals who are to exit the TPIMs regime imminently, and then subject it to a cross-party review. However well intentioned that might be, to link such a process with individual cases is misconceived, because it risks bringing a Committee of Parliament into the field of operations. It is the job of parliamentary Committees to consider the strategy and the legal structure; it is not their job to consider operational matters, and I can see any cross-party review falling foul of that problem.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

What does the hon. Gentleman see as the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee? It looks at lots of issues that are reported to it about the threats the country faces, which ordinary Members of Parliament cannot see.

[Mr Buckland]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about the role of that Committee and its structure, which perhaps allows it to go into more intimate detail than debates on the Floor of the House would allow. However, if members of that Committee were to intervene—I am sure some of them will take part in the debate later—I think they would hesitate before allowing the ambit of the Committee to include looking at individual operational matters. That really is not the role, as I see it, of a Committee of Parliament such as the Intelligence and Security Committee.

TPIMs are already subject to a number of reviews. We have heard a lot about the independent reviewer, David Anderson, QC, and his annual reports, which give a helpful and comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness or otherwise of TPIMs. There are also, of course, quarterly reports to Parliament made by the Home Secretary, and I have already mentioned the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As I understand it, the Government intend to carry out a broader review of counter-terrorism measures, which will no doubt include the operation of TPIMs. For all those reasons, it seems unnecessary to call for a cross-party review at this stage.

Let me deal with some of the points that have sparked debate this evening, the first being the question of absconsion. The very nature of such orders means that the risk of absconsion will always be present, whatever the conditions may be. The only way to prevent absconsion is to lock people up, and doing so without trial falls foul of fundamental principles that we should all share as democrats and lovers of liberty. There is an argument I have heard that the risk of absconsion would be higher if TPIM subjects remained in their local communities, but to my way of thinking it is equally arguable either way. It is equally arguable that a person placed in another part of the country, isolated and therefore disengaged from their community, would want to abscond as well.

The truth is that there is no clear evidence to support the contention that the lack of relocation powers in TPIMs has led to more absconsions. When it comes to the reasons for those absconsions, Ministers must satisfy themselves that the secret services and the police are taking every step possible to reduce the risk posed to the rest of us by such people and that suitable resources are available to deal with the situation. That is why the increase in resources by the Government is so important.

As an investigative measure, TPIMs are a bit of a misnomer in my view. I agree with the view of David Anderson that the investigatory part of TPIMs has not been effective. There is no evidence to suggest that they have in any way led to further prosecutions. What they are is a preventive measure. That was the view of the reviewer and it is certainly my view. I agree with him that TPIMs are likely to have prevented terrorist activity and, most importantly, they will have allowed resources to be released from deployment on the former control order regime, to deal with other pressing national security targets. Those are not my words; they are the words of David Anderson in his last review, and I agree.

We have heard about exit strategies. It would be wrong to explore individual cases, but—to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—some information about the work being done in the wider counter-terrorism context would be welcome, whether it be general information about the Prevent strategy or information about the work of the new extremism taskforce, which was set up in the wake of the appalling Woolwich murder.

Much has been made of time limits, yet an inescapable truth has been avoided by some Opposition speakers: that the indefinite use of control orders would inevitably be subject to legal challenge in the continuing absence of guilt. The argument about time is therefore rather an artificial one and does not advance the merits of the case much further forward.

In a nutshell, it would be wrong to characterise the introduction of TPIMs as a wholesale diminution of the Government’s resolve to tackle terrorism. To say so does no service to the issues that we are dealing with. Let us return to the approach outlined by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, and rise above petty party politics.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Intelligence and Security Services

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing the debate. I regret that it does not address the real problem of how to rebuild trust in the work of our intelligence services, to protect our country and our spies from the many allegations that circulate around them, against which they cannot defend themselves.

Let us be clear that spies spy. That is no big revelation. Britain spies, as do other countries, to protect itself and to further its interests. If we were to discover that banks in, say, Liechtenstein were hiding British taxpayers’ money and refusing to reveal which British citizens were avoiding paying tax, I believe that it would be perfectly legitimate for British intelligence services to go there and find out who those tax avoiders were. To do so would not protect us against terrorism, but it would protect Britain’s interests.

I venture to suggest that it is right for our spies to go abroad and find out which countries are not playing by the rules—which countries are cheating and stealing our secrets—to protect British industry, British jobs and British national security. That is what spies do, and we should be proud of the fact that we do it particularly well. In fact, we do it better than most across the globe, and it gives Britain a place at the top table. That is not to be sniffed at.

I am not a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I worked in intelligence in Northern Ireland before half the legislation, which the hon. Member for Cambridge seems to have missed, came into play. I also worked for QinetiQ before I first came to the House. While the hon. Gentleman was a biological scientist, I was a computer geek. I wrote COBOL from the age of seven or eight, which was about the time when he was born. The debate is often couched in a language of, “Wow, can we do that?” and people are surprised by what is possible. Already, without being a member of a security service or a Government, I can find out how every person in this room shops, where they live, when they bought their car and what their credit rating is. I can probably get hold of everybody’s details without very much effort.

Interestingly, I have heard no criticism of the fact that we do not regulate the private sector. No one has expressed fear about that or demanded that we do so. The big capitalist companies in America—the Googles and the Facebooks—harvest our data without a by-your-leave, sell it on and on through intermediaries and make billions of pounds. However, I have not yet heard anyone mention that they all keep their servers offshore to avoid tax. That is the area that needs regulating to protect people.

I am proud of the fact that our security services are regulated, and I would rather have the state than the international private sector grooming through my internet capabilities. I am aware that each of us is subject to oversight, because we are democratically elected. The Home Secretary is appointed by the Prime Minister, in a Government who are is created through a democratic process.

Additional oversight is provided by the relevant legislation. The Intelligence Services Act 1994 mentioned the intelligence services as though they were simply a normal body. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 attracts a lot of criticism, but I operated before it was introduced, and I did not have to sign off anything, keep a log or register with anybody the things that I wanted to do. RIPA did not give people new powers; it made them register how they use their powers. It is a good piece of legislation, not a negative one. My former colleagues still hate it, which is a good sign, because it means that they are accountable for how they use their powers.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

To amplify the point, RIPA and the Police Act 1997, which predated it, were a response to rulings by the European Court of Human Rights that the previous regime was not compliant with the convention. They were introduced to bring the United Kingdom into compliance with the convention.

[Mr Wallace]

RIPA is not perfect. It has its flaws, like any legislation, but it was an attempt to put on a statutory basis what we were doing to protect our agents, our personnel and the functions that we carry out. Let us remember that spying is dangerous. It is about risk. Our men and women in Cheltenham, in Vauxhall and all over the country put their lives at risk to protect Britain, and there is a serious downside to getting it wrong. If they get it wrong, they do not get charged the wrong price, or something of the sort; if they get it wrong, people die. If that happens, constituents get very upset, and the country becomes less secure. Terrorists start to win; countries that are not our friends or allies start to win; and British industry starts to lose out. Spying has a strong role to play, but getting it wrong carries great risks.

I will not go on about The Guardian, but I will make one or two points. First, the newspaper has yet to specify any crime committed by the British Government, authorities or spies, even though that is what its public interest defence hinges on. It has yet to produce any evidence that British spies are breaking British laws. It is welcome to do so at any time, and I would be delighted to discuss that in a meeting with the editor of The Guardian. Until he publishes such evidence, however, the reports amount to saying, “Yahoo! Look how exciting technology is. Look what we can do.” That is not a public interest defence; that is an attempt to sell more newspapers.

Secondly, how do we know the whole picture? I am assured that grown-up people in The Guardian are sitting down in a sealed room and looking through all the evidence. Perhaps they could have asked for help from their former features editor, Richard Gott, who had to resign in 1994 after allegations emerged that he had taken money from the KGB. He would have been a good man to review the evidence.

Who should be the judge and jury in this case? I venture to suggest that a state with some form of oversight would be a better judge and jury than a whole load of journalists locking themselves up in a room with the evidence. Until The Guardian produces evidence of a crime that our agents are supposed to have committed, it has no public interest defence. That is all that it has to answer, and I will defend its right to publish if it produces evidence of a crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady, and to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He is right to make important points about the Committee’s increased powers and remit. I add that the Committee now has a remit to examine not only operational issues relating to the three intelligence agencies but it can examine the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism within the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence’s intelligence arm and the Cabinet Office. Its ambit has been radically and importantly widened.

In a nutshell, the ability to oversee operational activities for the first time is helping strike an important balance that we as legislators and politicians need. It is up to us to set strategy, and it is up to the professionals—the people whom we trust in places such as GCHQ and our other agencies—to get on with the job, but oversight is vital.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend mentioned GCHQ, which has been mentioned numerous times in this debate. Does he share my concern that university syllabuses overlap by only 15% on cyber-technology? We need greater agreement on what is required if we are to create the experts needed now and in future.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right. The challenge will get ever more complex, so the skills needed will be the sort that we may not even have thought of yet. It is that type of environment. In a nutshell, the status quo will never be an option when it comes to intelligence and security, which is why I welcome warmly the Committee’s intention to consider the operation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, or RIPA, as we have been calling it all afternoon.

As I said earlier in an intervention, RIPA was a response to what was seen as a deficiency in United Kingdom law in a number of cases that the Strasbourg Court considered relating to the interception of communications. RIPA was seen as an important consolidation of powers that had already been given to the police that, as we have heard, were extended to other agencies in a way that caused controversy and proper concern. The Government have done much work to roll that back, but RIPA itself is now in need of an update.

On both sides of the argument that we have heard in this debate, there is agreement that, for whatever motive, RIPA needs careful consideration. The intention behind the Government’s proposals on data retention and collection involved the need to update RIPA. Using that consensus gives us the potential to ensure that the Act is as up-to-date as possible. The challenge will be how to future-proof it. I do not have an easy answer. As we know, in the world of information technology, to use a well-worn phrase, change is the only constant.

We all know that we have moved from an era when privacy in our own homes and of our personal chattels was important into an era when our personal data are the most valuable thing that we possess. When it comes to the retention of our personal data, the right to privacy is under challenge as never before. Article 8 has been mentioned, quite properly, by several Members including, among others, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) in an eloquent speech, as we have come to expect from him.

However, it has also been rightly pointed out that that right is qualified on grounds not only of national security but of crime prevention, health protection and, lastly and importantly, protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Herein lies the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) addressed the House earlier. He believes firmly and rightly that the activities of the security services are meant to guarantee the freedoms of all of us. Therefore, the qualification in article 8 is emblematic of the balance that must be struck when we come to such issues.

I will focus on one aspect of the debate on which we have not touched today. It concerns schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which is particularly relevant in the David Miranda case. I will not dwell on that matter specifically, but I will discuss the important work of David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who makes important and helpful recommendations to the Government about how we can get the balance right on significant issues such as terrorism prevention and investigation measures, control orders and the use of schedule 7.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We have considered carefully the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which recommends, among other things, that schedule 7 be changed to get the balance right. We broadly welcome the Government’s intention to reduce the scope of that provision, but there is an important point to note when it comes to use of the more intrusive powers in schedule 7. Whereas reasonable suspicion must be the threshold for the police and other authorities to stop, question and search travellers, there is concern that the same threshold is necessary for the use of more intrusive powers, such as detention for up to six hours, search and seizure of personal electronic devices or the taking and retention of DNA samples or fingerprints without consent.

Our Committee’s view was that the threshold of reasonable suspicion should come into play at the point when a person is formally detained, which under the new provisions in the Bill will be one hour after questioning. That is a small but important example of the need to ensure that when powers are exercised, as they properly should be—the Committee welcomed the use in principle of those powers—we as a state use identifiable and understandable thresholds before going down the line of intrusive use of power. We urge the Government to consider that point carefully in their response to the Committee.

Much has been made of the revelations concerning Edward Snowden. The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) put it well. The issue of whether The Guardian has broken the law is a moot point; the Official Secrets Act 1989 requires several thresholds. It requires the leave of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General before prosecutions can commence, and it requires that any disclosures be damaging.

I do not think that we can comment properly about the rights and wrongs and the weight of the evidence in this particular case, but the right hon. Gentleman was right to ask whether, in the general circumstances, the actions of The Guardian were wise. I do not think so. Newspapers, like any other part of our mosaic of a society, must balance and weigh carefully the need to be irritating and robust in their journalism with the wider responsibility to bear in mind the qualifications to the right to privacy in article 8.

I have said in the past in this place that I believe privacy should be enshrined in the law of this land, if only to show that we as legislators have the courage to take steps in an area notoriously pockmarked with legal pitfalls. That is the job of politicians, and it should be the job of parliamentarians: to be brave, to strike the right balance and to ensure that we as a society protect the innocent, properly monitor those responsible for acts of terrorism and threats to our country and prevent them from causing chaos, death and mayhem on our streets.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

The UK is committed to using its best endeavours to secure Mr Aamer’s release and return to the UK. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Prime Minister spoke to President Obama at the G8 in June and has followed that up with a subsequent letter. We have long held that indefinite detention without review or fair trial is unacceptable, and we welcome President Obama’s continuing commitment to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Victims of serious crime will be reassured that the Government are minded to opt back into the European arrest warrant. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much support across the EU for adopting the sort of proportionality tests that the Government are minded to introduce in amendments to legislation?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right; a number of other member states have expressed concern about proportionality, and indeed some already operate, in various forms, a proportionality test. I think that the Government’s decision to table amendments in order to introduce a proportionality test in the UK will ensure that we do not see the European arrest warrant being used for the minor and trivial crimes that have led to much concern about its operation.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). In his excellent, detailed speech, he made an interesting political point about the importance of the Government setting out their philosophy on the future of justice and home affairs in the European Union. I am very enthusiastic about the economic progress of the European Union, but I have always been more cautious about justice and home affairs. That caution is in part based on my long experience as a common lawyer in the law of England and Wales, and I am glad that the Government have decided to opt out of what we used to call the third pillar.

Some of the differences between our jurisdiction and those of the other member states are sometimes a little over-dramatised. In this country, we rightly place great emphasis on the charging process and on the process that follows, from charge up to and including trial. One of the great differences in our way of proceeding in criminal matters is to be found following the decision to charge and during the detention of the defendant. In other member states, the process is often much more inquisitorial, with a heavy degree of judicial involvement in the investigation. It can involve a wholly different way of dealing with criminal proceedings from that of England and Wales, and indeed of Scotland.

That underlines the fundamental issue that we have with many of the proposals that emanated from the justice and home affairs pillar. Notably, one proposal that we rightly decided not to opt into related to access to lawyers. In this jurisdiction, we believe that access to lawyers is fundamental once a subject is charged and being interviewed formally in a police station under the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, if we read the EU directive carefully, we see that the proposal applies to the investigative stage as well. I could not support that, and neither could the Government, bearing in mind the potential consequences for the admissibility of evidence in a trial and the burdens that it would place on the investigating authorities, which would have to ensure that lawyers were present at the early stages of the criminal process. That is why a process of opting in en bloc would have been wholly wrong. It would have embraced far too many aspects of justice and home affairs that are completely alien to the way in which we conduct criminal proceedings here.

I want to address what is probably the most politically contentious issue, the European arrest warrant. I shall remind the House of some further statistics relating to the arrest and surrender of people under the warrant. Between April 2009 and April this year, just over 4,000 people were surrendered from England and Wales to another EU country, of which only 181—or about 5% —were United Kingdom nationals. In reverse, 507 people were surrendered to the United Kingdom from another EU country in that same period, of which just over half were British nationals.

It is clear from looking at those statistics that the European arrest warrant is undeniably an important tool for the efficient administration of justice. We must have a debate on the consequences of subjecting the regime to the jurisdiction of the Luxembourg Court, but it would be wrong, and foolish in the extreme, to ignore the reality of the hundreds of victims and their families who are looking to the authorities to act swiftly to bring individuals to justice. And it does not stop there.

I have mentioned the arrest warrant, but it is right to point out that, in a large number of other measures, there exist helpful schemes of mutual recognition that will assist prosecutors—for example, when they are seeking to adduce evidence of previous convictions, where admissible, in certain trials. The mechanism will be much improved by which serious convictions recorded in other EU jurisdictions could become relevant for the consideration of juries in England and Wales. That is a good thing.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is bringing a lot of wisdom and experience to this issue. Given that we want to stand alongside the victims to ensure speedy and effective justice, does not the figure of 5% of British nationals that he mentioned give rise to concern? Let us take as an example the case of Andrew Symeou, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) mentioned. The present arrangements have done no service to the victim, given the length of time taken up by the process, and the fact that the charge was based on flimsy evidence and that the authorities had plainly got the wrong man.

[Mr Buckland]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for the campaign that they have rightly pursued on behalf of that Enfield resident.

I made the point earlier about the distinction between our system of justice and certain others. Ours seeks to use proper evidence to identify individuals who are suspected of committing crimes, and then to proceed against them. We have to look at that in the context of other systems in which the investigation process is far too long and in which evidence that we would not regard as strongly probative can be used to launch an investigation that can result in someone being incarcerated for an inordinate period of time. The amendments to the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which will amend the Extradition Act 2003, are vital in this context. I was delighted to see that one amendment provides that, in the absence of a prosecution decision, a court would have to consider that factor before allowing extradition. In fact, it would be barred where there was no clear prosecution decision to charge or try the individual concerned. I believe that the sort of monstrous situation in which Mr Symeou and others have found themselves can in large measure be avoided.

[Michael Ellis]

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but does he agree that the changes envisaged to the European arrest warrant as enunciated by the Home Secretary a few days ago make it a very different kettle of fish?

[Michael Ellis]

I see the Labour Benches are as full as I would expect them to be, which says something about the interest of the Opposition in this matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that the European arrest warrant will be something completely different because its charging decisions will be made beforehand, and that proportionality is another factor that must be carefully considered?

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to repeat a good point, and he should make no apology whatever for that. When I went to court I was always taught to make the point, make it again, and make it again if I thought the jury was in some way unsure.

[Chris Bryant]

That’s because you were charging by the word.

[Mr Buckland]

I certainly was not charging by the word; it was a graduated fee system, but that is for another debate. I do not think my hon. Friend should be criticised for repeating the point.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Buckland]

I will give way in a moment, but I want to deal with the point raised by, among others, my very good hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). In an interesting intervention earlier in the debate, he mentioned the legal personality of the EU, and the possibility of an extradition agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU. I think he is right about that—[Interruption.] Well, I think he is. Against that observation, however, the reality of the situation we face in which countries and organisations are making a multiplicity of arrangements with each other means that individual bilateral arrangements will take their place far down the order of priorities—too far down for the victims of crime we represent. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, that is not a price we can afford to pay when it comes to the swift administration of justice.

[Mr Cash]

I rose to say that I thought my hon. Friend was making a good job of what I think is a voluntary opt-in to this debate, and it is very instructive. He talked about repeating a point again and again and again, but I think it worth pointing out to him that there is a rule, I believe, about tedious repetition. I am sure he did not mean that he was in any way going to fall into that trap.

[Mr Buckland]

I was not referring to me but to the previous intervention. I certainly do not fall into that category. I hope I do not, and I do not intend to —[Interruption.] I am grateful for the Whip’s assistance on this occasion in putting that on the record. In reality, the structures within which the Government have to work are not of their creation. They are the product of a rather depressing series of negotiations—and I speak as a more pro-European Conservative than most—that ended up in the Lisbon treaty.

Collectively, the countries of the European Union took themselves down a massive constitutional cul-de-sac when they should have been thinking about the growing economic crisis that exploded on us all in 2007-08. That is history and we must deal with its consequences, but the framework within which we operate is something the Government could not control. Setting out a clear intention—as the Government are doing—indicating which proposals they wish to opt back into, and allowing this place to debate each measure piece by piece, is the right way to proceed. That sends a clear message to our colleagues in the European Union, and allows practical measures to be taken that will enhance the administration of justice, while at the same time avoiding some of the pitfalls that I and others have outlined today.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Chapman]

It was not me who made that suggestion; it came from the legal services ombudsman. So clearly there is a way around this matter and the Minister may wish to explore that a bit further. His intervention shows that the Government are not going to do this, but we would like them to commit to a robust complaints procedure to sort out the problems that our constituents face. They deserve access to a robust complaints procedure when things go wrong, as they too often do, so we hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support our proposal.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I shall speak briefly in support of a probing proposal, my new clause 17. I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), and I entirely share and sympathise with the thrust of her argument: we do need to make sure that the regulation of the behaviour of bailiffs is not just about certification; and the continuing behaviour of individual bailiffs does need to be monitored, tracked and adequately assessed, so that regulations are adjusted to keep pace with changing practices in debt collection.

We all know that debt collection is a sad fact of life that affects a large number of our constituents. We have all, in our case loads, doubtless come across worrying stories about abuses of power. It is right to acknowledge that the Government are moving, with their transformative agenda, to address large parts of the concerns that Members rightly have. Using the existing legislation to create new regulations is a good step forward. Importantly, the strengthening of the certification process, in the form of training and the like, is a valuable way forward, as is the creation of the new fixed-fee system. As I have already said, that deals only with the point of certification and not with practice. We must be realistic and we must acknowledge that taking a snapshot of the behaviour of individual bailiffs will not deal with many of the problems that beset people who are in debt but still deserve to be treated with respect.