Immigration Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Minister to move the first motion, I would like to make three general points about the designation of the Lords amendments engaging financial privilege that are about to come before us. First, the designation of Lords amendments as engaging financial privilege is not a matter on which I or others exercise choice. I and those who advise me act as servants of the House in giving effect to its procedures and in asserting its financial primacy. Secondly, the designation of an amendment does not have any bearing on the subsequent freedom of the House to debate and then decide whether to agree or disagree to the amendment. Thirdly, I confess that I have felt a growing sense of disquiet over recent years at the strong convention whereby Ministers have no choice as to the terms of the reason they propose when this House has disagreed to a Lords amendment which engages Commons financial privilege, being limited simply to stating that fact without offering the underlying policy reason. I have therefore today written to the Chair of the Procedure Committee inviting his Committee to consider the whole reasons regime, and I have asked the Clerk of the House to prepare a memorandum. I hope that that is helpful to the House.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1, 11 to 13, 15 to 18, 24, 25, 27 to 45, 87 to 89, 117, 121, 125, 126, 158, 166, 227, 229, 235, 237, 239 and 243. If the House agrees to them, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

After Clause 37

Unaccompanied Refugee Children: Relocation and Support

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 87.

[Mr Speaker]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 88 to 101.

Lords amendment 60, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 84, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendment 85, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 86.

Lords amendments 183 to 215.

[James Brokenshire]

As you have set out, Mr Speaker, there is a range of Lords amendments in this first group. I will first speak to Lords amendment 60, relating to overseas domestic workers, and then to the Lords amendments relating to detention before moving on to Lords amendment 87, relating to refugee children.

I set out the Government’s response to James Ewins’ review in my written statement of 7 March. We have acknowledged the need to provide domestic workers who arrive in the United Kingdom in an abusive employment relationship with an immediate escape route from that situation, and we have acted on that. At the same time, the Government are concerned to ensure that such abuse is reported where it occurs. If that does not happen, we cannot take action against the perpetrators and abuse may be perpetuated. The Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner has endorsed that approach, making clear his concern that granting a longer extension of stay —as the Lords amendment would—irrespective of whether abuse has occurred, may create an environment in which criminals are ensured a continuous supply of domestic workers in which to trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is just over half an hour to go and I see probably a dozen people trying to get in to speak. There is no formal time limit, but if each colleague speaks for no more than three minutes, a lot will get in. Otherwise, a lot of people will be disappointed.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I shall endeavour to live up to that, Mr Speaker. Like Save the Children, I believe that every child and young person should live in a supportive, protective and caring environment that promotes their full potential. But this Bill, on which I served in Committee, is about the wisest use of resources, and I support the Minister tonight in his position on amendment 87, which is about how best to help unaccompanied children. We all seek to help them, so the question is: how?

We have two large questions about resources before us tonight. The first is: do we help people better in the region or through Europe and, within that, which is more unsafe? The second is: how do we balance such action with supporting children who are already in need? The key point that the Minister has set out, on which I support him, is that of avoiding the encouragement of extra peril and the creation of an extra pull factor. In that position he is supported by the UNHCR representative to this country and the Children’s Commissioner.

We have all agreed tonight that other European countries must step up, too. Europe is a place of safety; there are dozens of safe countries between Italy and Greece and the United Kingdom. I note some of the figures provided during the Lords debate on this Bill on the comparison with our European colleagues: we have relocated 1,000 refugees already, as we promised we would do by Christmas, and in that whole period the 27 other countries in Europe have managed to resettle only 650. We should look at the 21 other countries that have not taken in even one Syrian refugee.

The point we must then address is whether we are already doing enough to help the children are already in need in this country. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), I speak as somebody whose local authority does not do well on this count. I cast no aspersions on Kent, but I go on to say that Norfolk has more than 1,000 children who are in care and who need good homes. We must look at that statistic alongside this issue tonight. We must ask ourselves: how are we to provide a supportive, protective and caring environment for these children if we cannot already find enough foster homes and enough long-term homes for those children? We must balance those things tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but to help the House there will have to be a formal three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, with immediate effect.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

First, I should refer to my relevant entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: last October, I visited Jordan with Oxfam, making a visit to the Zaatari refugee camp. I join others in paying tribute to my noble Friend Lord Dubs, who is a living success story of how refugees can be resettled successfully and make a major contribution to their new society.

The Government’s continued commitment to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees is hugely welcome. In all parts of this House we can be proud of the role the Department for International Development has played alongside many non-governmental organisations in the humanitarian effort in the region. I pay tribute also to those countries in the region that have welcomed huge numbers of refugees, notably Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. I welcome the announcement by the Government of an additional 3,000 places for resettlement, on top of the 20,000 they had already announced.

We can all celebrate the positive story about aid, and the positive story about resettlement is welcome. However, I do not accept the Government’s contention that this is somehow an either/or matter. It is not a choice between action in the region or action to help child refugees who are in Europe—we can do both.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heidi Allen]

I wish to speak on the Dubs amendment. May I start by thanking the Minister for Immigration and the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees for their genuine commitment to this cause? I know that, in this matter, they have tried to use both their head and their heart.

Having seen the desperate scenes in the refugees camps in Lesbos and Calais, I have had a very brief window on the world of families fleeing war and persecution, and it is those memories that give me a very, very heavy heart today. Many of us from all parts of the House always felt that our initial offer to resettle 20,000 refugees was not enough. Although our financial aid to the region has been nothing short of heroic, we have sensed that the British people, generous to the end, wanted to offer a home to more. The announcement last week that we would take another 3,000 filled me with renewed pride, not least because we were focusing on children at risk, but when did pride get to feel so numb? It was the dawning realisation that, by focusing on the camps in the region once again, we would be turning our backs on the thousands of unaccompanied children already in Europe. The argument for not helping them has always been the pull factor. If we take them, more will make that perilous journey. I know that the boats are overcrowded and not seaworthy because I saw them.

If the deal between the EU, Turkey and Greece is so fantastic in stopping the tide of daily arrivals, as we are told, then that means that the pull has stopped pulling. That can mean only one thing: these children are trapped. They cannot go forward, and they cannot go back. They are lost in Europe, lost in the chaos, but not, and never, lost on our conscience.

The confirmation that we will send 75 Home Office experts to the Greek islands is very welcome, but it has taken from the announcement in January to achieve that. We call the Greek islands hotspots. There are hotspots all over Europe: hotspots for trafficking, hotspots for abuse and hotspots for child prostitution on the Macedonian border, Italy and on our very own doorstep in Calais.

When part of the jungle was demolished, 120 children went missing. Right now there are 157 lone children with family in the UK, but there are no friendly faces, no child protection and no sign saying, “This way to be looked after.” Children cannot be expected to find the system without help. In one case, an 11-month-old baby separated from its mother was expected to claim asylum in France before any steps could be taken to reunite them—an 11-month-old baby. This is civilized Europe?

I will hear the whole debate. I had planned to abstain in the vote, because I must acknowledge the offer to take 3,000 more, and I would be playing fast and loose with their opportunity for sanctuary if I did not support the Government. But how can I forget the faces of the children I have seen in Europe? Abstention is a pathetic offering, really. Is it enough? Is it good enough?

If the Dubs amendment does not succeed tonight, I urge the Lords to continue fighting with us. We must seek to achieve a compromise amendment; something different, and perhaps less sweeping, but something that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Alison McGovern.

[Alison McGovern]

The speech that I follow was a fine one. There have been many fine speeches on both sides of the House. This is a cross-party campaign on a cross-party amendment with cross-party support from all parts of this Parliament. I want to say a few words about something the Minister said earlier. He said that this problem arose because of a situation

“in which families see an advantage”.

I cannot but argue against those words, because I do not see what possible advantage there could be for the refugee families affected. The unaccompanied children we are talking about are just that: children.

I think that the Minister’s words demonstrate what the Government feel to be the cause of this situation. We are used to debating this analysis in terms of push and pull factors. Well, I think that is a strange kind of argument that bears very little scrutiny. We all know that, fine though this country is, it is the push of conflict that has caused the problem, and the answer to the conflict is peace. We have been trying for peace for months and months, but there is none, so what then?

The Under-Secretary of State for Refugees and I served together on the International Development Committee, and I have every respect for him. I ask him to read the report produced by our former colleagues, which asks the Government to take account of this request from Save the Children. [Interruption.] He is looking at me and I know that he will read it and look again at the request. Bringing people from the region was the correct approach, but it was too slow, and unfortunately the announcement last week that sought to spike this debate today was another classic almost U-turn, but it did not go far enough.

Therefore, as others Members have said, in the knowledge that there are children who need our protection, what can we do? This is our continent. It is our job to take care of those children. We know it, and that is why we must vote for the Dubs amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

We are approaching the last moments of the debate, so I will confine my remarks to one amendment and to one argument within it—the pull factor some have expressed concerned about.

Let me share just something of my experience when I went to Lesbos with Save the Children. I was struck by many things, but one was the extraordinary contrast between the almost biblical scene of men, women and children travelling on foot and in numbers across the country, and the fact that they were carrying mobile phones. All over the camps, people were huddled not around fires, but around charging stations, desperate to keep connected. One worker described to me how any change in border access or the availability of places in the camps would be communicated by mobile to friends and families following on, and shared over and over, inspiring immediate and dramatic change on the ground.

This 21st century migration through Europe is like nothing that has come before. In the light of that, how can we say with confidence that announcing 3,000 open places for minors in the UK would not affect the decisions desperate people would make and would not create risk? I share the hopes and the fears for the vulnerable children who have been mentioned in this debate, but we must look to the long term. It has previously been said that this will not solve the problem, so we must be very clear that we are not exacerbating the situation. There is a body of anecdotal evidence that families separate when they can find only enough money to pay traffickers for one place in a boat. Knowing, as we do, that children’s best chances for the long term are with their parents, every effort must be made to keep families together, and where they have been separated, to reunite them.

To finish, it was said during my time in Lesbos that the time it took to work with lone young people to establish their identity and ask all the right questions when they presented at the camps was one of the main reasons that many left to risk the perilous journey that so many Members have described this evening. We must therefore build the infrastructure, the systems and the confidence of young people that reception centres across the continent, not the open road, are their best route. This is vital work and it will, in the coming weeks and months, see increasing numbers of the children and young people already in Europe resettled with us in the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

Two minutes each would be better.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

This evening, we have had lots of passionate speeches about children from Members on both sides of the House. I will speak about my experience as a former foster carer, and somebody who has provided supported lodgings to minors who have presented themselves unaccompanied. Ikram was 15 when we fostered him in my home and my children were very young, and Hazrat was one of the boys we also looked after.

Hazrat told me in his own words how, when they were trying to get on to the back of a lorry, there was only one space for the two boys who needed it and one killed the other for that space. He witnessed that barbaric act, and he told me about it in person. It will haunt me for the rest of my life. It will haunt me when I look at my children; my daughter was young and I only had two children at the time.

Given the stories that these boys sat down and told us, I cannot begin to imagine the mental health trauma that they went through. Yet these boys wanted to work, to get an education and to leave that behind, so desperate were they to leave the horrors that they experienced while getting to this country for sanctuary. These children did not want to come to this country for our jobs, our benefits or anything else. These children’s mothers told them, “You have a better chance of making it past the traffickers and past the exploitation. You have a better chance of making it outside here, so go, my son, go.” Those were the words their mothers spoke to these young people.

I am proud to come from Bradford West. Bradford is a city of sanctuary, in which 169 organisations have signed up to support refugees and asylum seekers. When the Minister visited, we had a conversation about Bradford being seen as a trailblazer for integrated health and social care, education and so on. Bradford could lead the way, and we would support other areas. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) said that Kent does not get such help, but we would help: Bradford will help.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, this amounts to five children per constituency. Is that really an ask? Is a debate about five children per constituency really one we should have to have today? Can Great Britain really not extend such support, as one of the greatest nations on earth? It is a shame if we do not sign up for and accept the Dubs amendment. I will do so, and I would welcome Conservative Members joining us in the Lobby tonight.

[Mr Speaker]

There are two minutes to go.

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

I would have liked to have more of an opportunity to speak, as I was a member of the Immigration Public Bill Committee, but I will confine myself to the Lords amendment calling on the Government to relocate 3,000 refugee children. I am sure that there is no one who could possibly disagree with that. It would be morally wrong and would not befit our nation, which has supported many different religions, races and nationalities in their hour of greatest need, if we did not reunite these children with their families. We must work along with other EU states to make sure that utmost priority is given to ensuring that children are not left unaccompanied and in danger. Along with other countries such as Spain, Greece, Italy and France, we must provide the very best protection and support for these children until they can be reunited with their families. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was absolutely right: it can take the French authorities up to nine months to pass on applications to the Home Office. Although all authorities are under huge pressure on these matters, this delay cannot be tolerated, and an application cannot be accepted as just another application when it relates to an unaccompanied child.

In 2015, over 3,000 asylum applications were received from unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—a rise of 56% on 2014 and 141% on 2013. That puts unprecedented pressure on our system and our local authorities, as detailed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst). These numbers raise serious questions as to whether other EU countries are fulfilling their child protection obligations. It is vital that we continue to do what we are doing now, and more, but this must not stop us raising and tackling these issues with our European partners on a wider scale.

We need to ensure that we support these children and others who make the journey in the best way possible, using our heads and our hearts. While all may not agree, I think the actions that the Government are taking—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Helen Grant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to declare an interest as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which I should have done prior to my earlier intervention. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make that clear now.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her characteristic grace and courtesy in raising that point of order. Her interest, of course, is a non-pecuniary one. Nevertheless, it is most prudent to declare it. I am sure that the House will appreciate the fact that she has now done so.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 59, 60 and 87;

That James Brokenshire, Charlie Elphicke, Rebecca Harris, Sue Hayman, Stuart C. McDonald, Keir Starmer and Craig Whittaker be members of the Committee;

That James Brokenshire be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee;

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Charlie Elphicke.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Border Force Budget 2016-17

John Bercow Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

There are service standards for people coming through the border at our airports, and we meet those standards. These proceedings are very interesting because, on the one hand, people are calling for more border security, and, on the other, the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to get through the border rather more quickly.

[Mr Speaker]

I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman always looks to be a happy chappie.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I can confirm that the shadow Home Secretary was quite right when he drew attention to the port of Immingham in my constituency because border staff there do have worries. The concerns of residents in the town and neighbouring areas have been heightened following reports last week that the National Crime Agency acknowledged that Humber ports were being targeted. Can my right hon. Friend give an absolute assurance that resources will be moved to protect the Humber ports if the NCA’s analysis is correct?

--- Later in debate ---

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I concur with the commendations of colleagues for the excellent work that is done by border staff, but numbers are also important—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A rather unseemly exchange is going on between the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who has just put a question and was dissatisfied with the answer, and the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) who, in the exercise of his duties as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary, always feels compelled to display a level of fealty unsurpassed and indeed unequalled by any other Member of the House of Commons. That is not necessary. We all know of the fealty bordering on the obsequious that is on evident display from the hon. Gentleman on a daily basis, but it must not be allowed to interrupt the eloquence of the flow of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins)—or even the flow of his eloquence.

[Toby Perkins]

I will endeavour to re-find myself, Mr Speaker.

The Prime Minister received a report from experts saying that 30,000 was the right number of Border Force members to protect our borders. Does that still reflect the policy of the Government, and can the Home Secretary tell us how many border staff we currently have?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are currently looking at reports from the UNHCR on precisely the issue of unaccompanied children, and I hope he will agree that lots of efforts are under way to ensure that that happens.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Callum McCaig.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

22. Thank you, Mr Speaker; I was not expecting to be called. The Government have rightly made a big deal of the Syria donor conference in London, but the UNHCR has said that financial solidarity is not enough. Why will the United Kingdom Government not listen, and why did they not step up to their responsibilities at the Geneva conference and do more to help Syrian refugees?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

If I am allowed to speak, I shall try to continue.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) is chuntering, from a sedentary position, “It is up to the French.” The hon. Gentleman is welcome to his opinion, but his opinion is not enhanced by his suddenly winking at me as though in self-justification. The hon. and learned Lady is a distinguished advocate, and she must be heard. Even if she were not a distinguished advocate, she would still be heard.

[Joanna Cherry]

This is not a laughing matter, and it is not “up to the French” when those children have connections with the United Kingdom. That is my point.

In the Grande-Synthe camp, I met a 16-year-old girl who was working hard for exams in a pop-up school in a tent. She had made the journey to northern France on her own. Her father is in the United Kingdom, but owing to the absence of guidance from the French authorities and the failure of our Government to act, she was stuck in limbo and uncertain about her future. Children like her are very vulnerable in the camps. It is time for the Home Secretary to show leadership. Will she give us a commitment that her Department will ensure that those with a legal right to join their families in the United Kingdom are granted that right as a matter of urgency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I think crime is changing. The hon. Gentleman is right that this is about skills, which is why we established the National Cyber Crime Unit in the National Crime Agency, and about resources, which is why we have put £1.9 billion into this area of work. However, the issue is also about recognising that many such crimes can be prevented through straightforward good practice by citizens.

I think—I know you do too, Mr Speaker—that questions should always have a purpose beyond challenging the Government and should actually deliver positive results for Members. Following the hon. Gentleman’s question, I will write to him and to the whole House with details of how he can advise businesses in Scunthorpe and his constituents on how to stop these kinds of cybercrimes.

[Mr Speaker]

I await that with eager anticipation.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

The west of England is leading the way in tackling cybercrime following the £1.9 billion investment announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last year. Given the atrocities in Brussels last month, will the Minister update the House on how he is working with our allies to tackle cybercrime?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

We are working closely with the French Government. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees said in answer to a previous question, we have had a secondee working in the Ministry of the Interior in France to speed up the process in relation to children identified as having links to family here in the UK. Equally, the French Government are putting greater support in through a charity to raise awareness and identify children better to give them the help they require.

[Mr Speaker]

It is good to see the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) back in his place.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues on the effect of changes to immigration rules on recruitment of overseas workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you for reminding us of Ruskin.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

T6. The Home Secretary recently said at the launch of the Conservatives’ PCC election campaign that “the Conservative Government has protected overall police spending for the next four years”.However, Sir Andrew Dilnot, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, has confirmed House of Commons Library research that shows that forces will see a £160 million cut next year alone. In the light of that, and given the importance of the upcoming elections, will the Home Secretary admit that funding for our police forces has not been protected and is being cut again for each of the next four years?

Investigatory Powers Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

It happened close to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, so I will give way.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) intervenes, I advise the House that, although everything is being done perfectly properly, and the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman have been generous in giving way, 48 Back Benchers wish to contribute. Those who have or seek the Floor might wish to take account of that point. I call Mark Pritchard.

[Mark Pritchard]

I will be brief, Mr Speaker.

The shadow Home Secretary is quite right to point out that abuses, where they have taken place, are absolutely wrong, but does he also recognise that the Bill contains a new offence of misusing communications data, which is something he should welcome?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In the light of the extensive interest in this debate, we shall need to begin with a limit of eight minutes on Back-Bench speeches, though I give notice to the House that that limit will almost inevitably have to fall. I begin by calling the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In seeking to accommodate remaining colleagues, I am afraid it is necessary now to reduce the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to three minutes with immediate effect.

--- Later in debate ---

Bill read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that the programme motion in the Order Paper was published in error, a fact of which I informed the House some hours ago. The correct motion has been available from the Vote Office. I invite the Home Secretary to move the amended programme motion.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 22 February, be approved.

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker. Alluring though the prospect might be, and as you know, it is not my habit to disappoint the House or to abbreviate my remarks when further articulation of an argument is necessary—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that Members are leaving the Chamber, but it would be appreciated if they could do so quickly and quietly. I am sure that the substantial numbers of Members who are staying will want to savour the speech by the Minister. At any rate, he deserves an attentive audience. Indeed, I am sure that he expects nothing less.

[Mr Hayes]

With your encouragement, Mr Speaker, I repeat that it is not my habit to disappoint the House or to be constrained by facts, believing as I do that it is a journey beyond the given in which men and women shine and soar. Nevertheless, I will be brief and factual tonight.

The International Sikh Youth Federation, a separatist movement committed to the creation of Khalistan, an independent Sikh state in the Punjab region of south Asia, was established in the 1980s. In the past, the ISYF’s attacks included assassinations, bombings and kidnappings, mainly directed against Indian officials and interests. The ISYF has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the UK since March 2001. The decision to proscribe the ISYF was taken after extensive consideration and in the light of a full assessment of available information and at that time, as is necessary, was approved by Parliament. It is clear that the ISYF was certainly concerned with terrorism at that time.

Having reviewed, with other countries, what information is available about the current activities of the ISYF and after careful and appropriate consideration, the Home Secretary concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that the ISYF is currently concerned with terrorism, as defined by section 3(5) of the Terrorism Act 2000. Under section 3 of the Act, the Home Secretary has the power to remove an organisation from the list of proscribed organisations if she believes that it no longer meets the statutory test for proscription. Accordingly, the Home Secretary has brought forward this draft order, which, if approved, will mean that being a member of or providing support to this organisation will cease to be a criminal offence on the day on which the order comes into force. The decision to de-proscribe the ISYF was taken after extensive consideration and in the light of a full assessment of all the available information. The House will naturally understand that it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the specific intelligence that informed the decision-making process.

The House would also expect me to make it clear that the Government do not condone any terrorist activity or terrorism apologists. De-proscription of a proscribed group should not be interpreted as condoning the previous activities of the group. As I said, the decision to proscribe was taken on the basis of the information available then, and we take this decision on the basis of up-to-date information. Groups that do not meet the threshold for proscription are not free to spread hatred, fund terrorist activity or incite violence as they please.

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the UK) Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Friday 11th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

Again, Mr Speaker, I would just like to clarify that point. The Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) is in the building, and will be attending the Chamber shortly. I think that she had a couple of things to do beforehand.

[Mr Speaker]

It is very reassuring that the hon. Lady is able to drop in on us. We will be deeply grateful to her.

[Mr Hollobone]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I share your sentiments, but at least it is reassuring that the Minister will turn up to the debate. Let us hope that we can ask questions of her later on. Before I take the interventions that I promised, let me say that part of the problem is that foreign national offenders and their deportation, removal, transfer, repatriation, or whatever we want to call it, is a major policy issue that falls between two stools. There are two major Departments of State that are basically responsible for this area, and all too often one blames the other for why the situation is not being tackled. That is why it is the Prime Minister himself who needs to take on board this issue. Indeed, he promised the House that he would, yet six years into his premiership, the problem is not going away. If anything, it is getting worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have no objection to the number of interventions—that of itself is perfectly orderly and many would say that it should be encouraged. But if Members could have some regard to their length—shortening thereof—that would greatly assist our deliberations.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker, for your ever wise guidance, but I am sure you will agree that the interventions have been most illuminating, helpful and constructive.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) for his intervention. I can see that we might disagree on aspects of justice policy, but I believe that Bill Committees should be inclusive. Members who hold a range of different opinions should be included, so my hon. Friend is back on the Committee. That is one of the mistakes that the Government are making, most recently with the Enterprise Bill, where all those who were against extending Sunday trading suddenly found they were not on the Bill Committee. The result was the events of this week, when the Government lost that part of their legislation. Given his views, which might be contrary to those of other Members, my hon. Friend would play a very constructive role in debating these issues on Committee, so I encourage him to pursue his views with great vigour.

It is shocking that 160 countries around the world are represented in our prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say very gently to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) that I hope he is not intending to provide biographical details of each of the people from Poland before proceeding to the second of the 160 countries of which he wishes to treat. If that is his intention, it might test the patience of the Chair. I feel sure that he is planning no such mission. On that note, no doubt he will take the intervention from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope).

[Mr Hollobone]

Indeed, I give way to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith]

I understand that this man is still being processed through the criminal justice system. I sincerely hope that, for two assaults within a week in my constituency, this Afghan national, who is a convicted murderer in the Netherlands, will receive a custodial sentence. I only wish that my hon. Friend’s Bill were on the statute book so that this man could be deported back to the Netherlands to serve his sentence. Alas, I do not think that your Bill will make it on to the statute book in time, but I hope this case illustrates that the Bill is very necessary.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Two things. First, “pithiness personified” is normally the title that I would accord the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will want to recover that status. Secondly, he referred to “your Bill”. Debate, of course, goes through the Chair—I have no Bill before the House, but the hon. Member for Kettering has.

[Mr Hollobone]

In fairness, Mr Speaker, it is not actually my Bill. The Bill is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. However, I do have the privilege of being one of the sponsors, and I am pleased to be one of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Henry Smith]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the hon. Member for Kettering takes an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, I just remind him that the Bill contains two clauses, the first of which is the only substantive clause, containing four subsections. The second clause is simply the short title and commencement date of the Bill, and the Bill itself takes up a little over one page. As the hon. Member for Kettering has now dilated very eloquently and with great courtesy for 53 minutes, he might perhaps consider focusing, with that laser-like precision for which he is renowned in all parts of the House, upon the first clause of his two-clause Bill.

[Mr Hollobone]

I genuinely seek your guidance, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for me to suggest during the moving of the Bill’s Second Reading that additional clauses be added to strengthen and clarify aspects that some Members feel are not necessarily covered by clause 1?

[Mr Speaker]

The Bill, of course, can be amended and, therefore, notably changed in all sorts of ways in Committee, but that cannot be done today. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman considerable latitude to establish the context and to explain the background to the introduction of his Bill, and I have no regrets on that score, but I feel sure that he will have plenty of meat to present to the House in respect of clause 1. On that clause I am sure he will shortly focus.

[Mr Hollobone]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are the foremost guardian of the convention that the House of Commons must come first. My hon. Friend the Minister is a most charming and able Minister, but I have asked him why the Foreign Secretary is not here. I quite understand—he is a very busy man—if he is abroad or ill, but surely we must establish the convention that when there is an urgent question or a statement, unless it deals with a particular, small part of a Department, the Secretary of State should be here. I would hope that you make that clear to Departments.

[Mr Speaker]

I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the position is that it is for the Government to decide whom to field. My responsibility is to adjudicate upon applications for permission to put urgent questions. I do that every week, and sometimes several times a week. I cannot require any particular Minister to attend, and it must remain for the Government to make the judgment.

That said, the hon. Gentleman is a very senior and respected figure in this House, and he has just made a point that increasingly I have heard made recently by others. I have not made a statistical study, but there are suggestions that the frequency with which senior Ministers appear to answer urgent questions is declining. It is in no sense to cast an aspersion on the Minister, who knows his brief and has assiduously attended to the matters raised today, simply to note that point in passing. I would hope that senior Ministers wanted, and felt a duty, to answer questions from Members of Parliament. We do not have a separation of powers, as in the United States; Ministers sit in, and are answerable to, this House. None, frankly, should ever forget it.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Happy St David’s day. Yesterday, in a majestic performance at the Dispatch Box, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General confirmed to the House that Cabinet Ministers who oppose the European Union and support a no vote in the referendum can get access to Government documents on the EU referendum if they use the Freedom of Information Act. Today, we read on the front page of the Daily Mail that the Paymaster General is going to scrap the commission looking at the Freedom of Information Act. Mr Speaker, have you had notice from the Paymaster General that he is seeking to make a statement to the House to explain the very unusual behaviour of the Government in shelving their own commission?

[Mr Speaker]

I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman that I have received no such indication that any Minister has any such intention. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a matter of ongoing interest. He and others, who are notably terrier-like and indefatigable in pursuit of their ends, will require no encouragement from me to deploy such parliamentary devices as are available to secure the matter further attention, if that is what they want.

If there are no further points of order—the House’s palate has been satisfied on that front, at any rate for today—we can move to the presentation of a Bill.

[The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

For the benefit of those who attend to our proceedings, the convention is that a Minister nods and I note that, with some ceremony, we have received the due nod from the Minister for Security.

Bill Presented

Investigatory Powers Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Theresa May, the Prime Minister, Secretary Philip Hammond, Secretary Michael Fallon, Secretary David Mundell, Secretary Theresa Villiers, the Attorney General, Robert Buckland and Mr John Hayes presented a Bill to make provision about the interception of communications, equipment interference and the acquisition and retention of communications data, bulk personal datasets and other information; to make provision about the treatment of material held as a result of such interception, equipment interference or acquisition or retention; to establish the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and other Judicial Commissioners and make provision about them and other oversight arrangements; to make further provision about investigatory powers and national security; to amend sections 3 and 5 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 143) with explanatory notes (Bill 143-EN).

Police Funding, Crime and Community Safety

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Arkless]

I can confirm that that was the case, but we made our protestations abundantly clear at that time, and we also made it clear that we would campaign on the issue. There is an old saying: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the chances are it is a duck. That looks unfair, it feels unfair and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is unfair. Surely that cannot be right.

[Mr Speaker]

I discern that the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech. We are very obliged to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that those of us who work in this building every day—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) extended a generosity that it was not within his capacity to grant. It was very decent of him, but he gave time that he did not possess.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I have seen what Matthew Scott is proposing to do when, as we on the Conservative Benches all hope, he becomes the police and crime commissioner. We need to ensure that we spend taxpayers’ money efficiently and well, and collaboration is the best way forward for that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Kate Hoey.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Me?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady looks so surprised. She is rarely a shy or retiring soul. If she is, she must overcome her shyness.

[Kate Hoey]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister is well aware that the fire and rescue services collaborate well all over the country, particularly with the ambulance trusts. Why does he consider it necessary for police and crime commissioners to take control of the fire services under the Bill? Surely the two organisations are so different in so many ways that collaboration is possible without the PCC running our fire services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Because we have taken a fresh look at this, as my hon. Friend recommends, we have launched the joint taskforce; we are continuing to support the Cyber Streetwise campaign, which makes people more aware of, and therefore more guarded about, fraud; and we invested £90 million on cyber-security in the previous Parliament and will invest £1.9 billion over the next five years. We take this seriously, not least, Mr Speaker, because, as you know, in the cyber-age I am a cyber-Minister—up to the minute, up to the mark and up to the job.

[Mr Speaker]

We would expect no less of the right hon. Gentleman.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Since the cyber-Minister is up to the mark, may I ask him about the activities of a website called Bestvalid, which was discovered recently selling the stolen bank details of 100,000 British citizens? Can he explain, as an up-to-the-minute cyber-Minister, how it was possible for this website to carry on for six months before being closed down, and how much of the £1.9 billion that he is targeting on cybercrime will be used proactively to close down sites of this kind?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

23. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), will my right hon. Friend set out in more detail the importance of the transparency in supply chains provision in the Modern Slavery Act, and how it will be monitored?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, but not too much detail, given the time.

[Mrs May]

The measure has two important impacts. First, it makes companies think about whether there is slavery in their supply chains. Secondly, their declarations of the action they have taken—or of the fact that they have taken no action—will be available to consumers, who will be able to make choices about which companies to do business with as a result. We are looking at a number of options for ensuring that that information is publicly available in one place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am glad that even on this most solemn of matters, the right hon. Gentleman has been able, as always, to provide us with a poetical flourish.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Riot Compensation Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Friday 5th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 3, line 16, at end insert—

‘( ) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) or (3)(d) must provide that—

(a) the time period within which a claim may be made ends no earlier than 42 days from the date of the riot;

(b) the time period within which details and evidence must be submitted ends no earlier than 90 days from the date the claimant first made the claim.”

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 5, line 23, at end insert

“, except in the circumstances described in subsection (2A).

‘(2A) Where a claimant’s home is rendered uninhabitable, the amount of compensation may reflect costs that the claimant incurs as a result of needing alternative accommodation.”

Amendment 3, page 5, line 26, at end insert—

‘( ) considerations that decision-makers must take into account in deciding the amount of compensation payable as a result of a claimant needing alternative accommodation (and the regulations may include provision limiting the amount of time for which the costs of alternative accommodation may be claimed),”

Amendment 8, page 5, line 29, at end insert—

‘(3A) Money received by the claimant from emergency or recovery funds, whether funded publicly or privately, in the aftermath of a riot must not be taken into account by the decision maker when deciding the amount of compensation to be paid.

This amendment would ensure that money received by the claimant for the purposes of emergency relief or recovery in the immediate aftermath of a riot is not seen in the same category as compensation under the purposes of this Bill and therefore reduce the amount a claimant might receive.

[Mike Wood]

May I convey my sympathies and add to the tributes that you paid to Harry Harpham, Mr Speaker? I know that the sympathies of all right hon. and hon. Members will be with his family and friends at this difficult time. Even from the short time in which we saw Harry in this House, it is clear what a loss he will be.

Amendment 1 is a consequence of amendments that were tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) but not voted on in Committee, and it seeks to clarify and extend the time limit allowed for someone to communicate their intention to make a claim, and the provision of details, evidence and support of such a claim following a riot. Following concerns raised in Committee, the amendment would allow a 42-day period as originally set out in the Bill, but it clarifies that that is from the date of the riot. As Ministers have made clear, that time limit should come with some flexibility, and I hope that in interpreting the date of the riot, authorities will have the good sense to show flexibility in making that date start at the end of the riot where appropriate, rather than necessarily the date on which the damage was suffered.

The main change in amendment 1 relates to the second period: the 90 days from the date the claimant first made the claim. That would mean, potentially, a minimum of 132 days from the date of loss in which we expect businesses or residents to submit details of their claim and to provide the evidence to support it. I hope that that will provide some reassurance to Members who raised concerns in earlier stages.

Amendments 2 and 3 were tabled following comments made on Second Reading and in Committee, and representations made directly to me outside the Chamber, in particular by the right hon. Member for Tottenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). As I made clear on Second Reading, while there are very good reasons for excluding consequential losses from the claims that can be made against the police in the event of a riot, concerns were raised about what would happen if people’s homes were left uninhabitable following a riot. Social tenants would usually be rehoused, and for owner-occupiers with building and contents insurance, the insurance would normally pay for the additional costs of rehousing. However, that would still leave a significant number of people, particularly in the private rented sector, who could find themselves, through absolutely no fault of their own, having to find new housing. They could struggle to find new housing at the same cost as their current mortgage or rent, and that is what amendments 2 and 3 intend to tackle. They seek to cover the costs of alternative accommodation, whether in a bed and breakfast, a hotel or other short-term rent. Amendment 3 clarifies that and allows the regulation that could include in the provision time limits for such additional costs.

During the passage of the Bill, in particular on Second Reading, Members on all sides brought to the attention of the House heart-wrenching stories of hardship as a result of the 2011 riots. Those stories explain the thought process behind amendments 2 and 3. I still do not believe that consequential losses should be covered, but it would not be just if people were made to suffer unnecessarily in their hour of need. I am certainly not prepared to see people effectively rendered homeless while they wait for their homes to be inhabitable once again. I must stress, however, that covering a consequential loss in this way must be the exception, not the rule. It is intended only to assist individuals to recover costs incurred while staying in alternative accommodation following a riot. The details of the provisions will be clarified in regulations.

I turn to amendment 4 tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham. At every stage of the Bill, he has raised a number of valid concerns. He has been an extremely effective spokesman for his constituents and for businesses in his constituency. Ministers made it clear on Second Reading and in Committee that we would not expect payments made through charitable funds, or other appeals of that kind, to affect the payments made through the compensation scheme. It would certainly not be right for such payments to be deducted from compensation due under the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I tabled a named day written parliamentary question to the Prime Minister for answer today. That question was whether the Prime Minister himself had seen a copy of the draft childhood obesity strategy document, which we suspect the Government have long-grassed. I received a letter from No. 10 Downing Street today advising me that the Prime Minister had asked for the question to be transferred to the Secretary of State for Health for answer. Surely the Prime Minister knows whether the Prime Minister has seen said document. In my 10 years as a Member of the House, I have never been treated with such contempt. Can you advise me whether it is in order for the Prime Minister to refuse to answer a very simple question?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise it. My initial reaction, off the top of my head, is that it is not disorderly, though it might be considered unhelpful. In my experience, it constitutes a somewhat odd transfer. Transfers are commonplace, but where the question is as specific as his, it is an odd, perhaps unconventional transfer that might have been requested by people acting on behalf of the Prime Minister who are perhaps not as well versed in our procedures as the hon. Gentleman is or as the Chair likes to consider himself to be. I advise him to make the short journey from the Chamber to the Table Office to seek guidance on how he can take the matter forward. Knowing him as I do, I think it improbable in the extreme that he will allow the matter to rest there.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Hon. Members will be aware that Croydon was hit very hard in the 2011 riots. Many members of the public, seeing the damage caused to local businesses, homes and property, wanted to help those seeking to recover and deal with the losses incurred, and they generously gave money to a fund set up by the mayor of Croydon for precisely that purpose.

I rise to speak in favour of amendment 8, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I am sorry I missed the start of his contribution, but I heard the end, and it was typically magnificent. I would like those who give generously to help their neighbours who have suffered a loss to have the reassurance that the money they contribute will not subsequently be deducted from official compensation payments, but tragically that is exactly what happened in Croydon in 2011. Money was donated to the mayor’s fund and was then distributed to individuals and businesses that had suffered a loss, but those generous payments were then deducted from the official compensation payments that were made. That is clearly wrong and a disincentive to people to give generously, as they did in Croydon to help their friends and neighbours. It is entirely wrong that such generosity should be discouraged by the deduction of those contributions from official payments. I strongly support my right hon. Friend’s amendment, which I hope will have the support of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The most important thing is that we define the charitable purpose for which contributions have been made, rather than reflecting on the manner in which those moneys have been given. It is about the fundamental purpose, although my hon. Friend makes an interesting point that people will want to examine as we introduce the regulations. I hope that my comments have helped in our consideration of the amendments.

[Mr Speaker]

Does the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) wish to contribute further?

[Mike Wood]

No, Mr Speaker.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 8

Amount and payment of compensation

[Mr Lammy]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 5, line 19, leave out from “compensation” to “that”.

This amendment would remove the £1 million compensation cap.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 6, page 5, line 19, leave out from “maximum” to “per”.

Amendments 6 and 7 together represent an alternative to amendment 4 and to amendment 5. They would make determining the compensation cap subject to parliamentary approval and also provide for its review and revision on the same basis without recourse to further primary legislation.

Amendment 5, page 5, line 19, leave out “1” and insert “10”.

This amendment is an alternative to amendment 4 and would increase the £1 million compensation cap to £10 million.

Amendment 7, page 5, line 20, at end insert—

‘(1A) The compensation cap (the “cap”) under subsection (1) must be determined, and revised every three years, by regulations made by the Secretary of State, with the following elements:

(a) the cap may apply differently, or be set at a different level, in different areas; and

(b) the Secretary of State must publish:

(i) the methodology used; and

(ii) the first draft determination of the cap for public consultation within a month of the day after the day on which this Act is passed.

(1B) The Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons a draft of the regulations making the final determination or revision in a statutory instrument alongside a statement of whether and how the responses to the public consultation were taken into account.

(1C) A statutory instrument under subsection (1B) must be laid in draft before the House of Commons and may not be made until approved by resolution of that House.

(1D) Notwithstanding section 12, section 8 shall come into force on the day after the day on which this Act is passed for the purposes of subsection (1A).

(1E) Until a determination has been approved by the House of Commons, no cap shall apply.

Amendments 6 and 7 together represent an alternative to amendment 4 and to amendment 5. They would make determining the compensation cap subject to parliamentary approval and also provide for its review and revision on the same basis without recourse to further primary legislation.

Amendment 9, page 6, leave out lines 16 and 17.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 4 and on amendment 7.

[Mr Lammy]

The amendments address the issue of the £1 million compensation cap. It is important for the House and for individuals beyond it who, unfortunately, may find themselves caught up in a riot that we interrogate how the Government reached that figure. In Committee, I raised the issue of the cost of running a business and the fact that it varies across the country. The price of running a newsagent, off-licence or small gift shop in Yeovil is different from the cost in Northumbria and different again from the cost in Tottenham, yet this £1 million figure exists for all those businesses.

I was grateful that the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice, who led for the Government in Committee, wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who also served on the Committee, in response to some of the points I had made and that he shared that with members of the Committee. The letter stated:

“In finding a solution it was important for the Government to come up with a balanced approach that protected the public purse from unlimited liability whilst also ensuring that significant numbers of businesses would not be inhibited from making claims. A further key issue was to minimise the bureaucracy around the administration process.

A number of respondents to the consultation suggested an alternative, and more simple administrative approach, of a cap on the amount of money…We examined data provided by forces and found that 99% of claims from businesses and insurance companies made after the 2011 riots were under £1m.”

It is important to stress that we do not know when there will be another riot. We hope there will not be one, but we are here this morning because we suspect there will be, given the history of our country and the fact that from time to time these things happen. It is important to emphasise that the fantastic nature of our policing model, with policing by consent and our police not routinely carrying guns, means that the public stand alongside them. When that consent is withdrawn and a riot happens, it is not the fault of the business or the homeowner, who have paid their taxes and expect to be protected. Therefore, setting a £1 million cap is an important moment, particularly given the nature of our economy at the moment and the cost of a property in a city such as London. The average price here is now running at half a million, so the average shop front on a high street in Tottenham is about the same and the £1 million cap is an important figure to understand fully.