Deregulation Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new schedule 1—Part to be inserted as Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003.

[Norman Baker]

The effect of the new clause is to create a new light-touch form of authorisation for community groups or certain businesses, such as bed-and-breakfast accommodation providers, to sell small amounts of alcohol under the Licensing Act 2003—the new part 5A notice.

It may be helpful to the House if I first give some background and explain the problem that we are trying to solve with the new measure. Last year the Government carried out an extensive public consultation on various proposals in its alcohol strategy. This of course included our efforts to tackle alcohol harms. On that front we have already achieved much. For example, we have reformed the Licensing Act 2003 and introduced new tools and powers to make it easier for local police and licensing authorities to close down problem premises and crack down on alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder.

At the same time, the Government’s public consultation last year recognised that sometimes regulation can be excessive, even needless. No one wants to stop a responsible drinker enjoying a drink responsibly. The Government’s approach is all about balance. We want to free up the police and local enforcement agencies to tackle alcohol harms while giving them greater discretion to manage low-risk alcohol sales. The Government has also made it clear that it wants to cut red tape and pointless regulations, but I stress that that must not be at the expense of necessary safeguards against alcohol harms. This new measure is about striking that balance.

--- Later in debate ---

It may be convenient if I now turn to the Opposition amendment to clause 1, amendment 72, unless, seeing Mr Speaker in the Chair, this is a moment where there is to be a break in proceedings.

[Mr Speaker]

It is very generous of the Minister to offer the opportunity of a break in the proceedings. It would be churlish of me turn down his offer.

[The Solicitor-General]

Knowing that the House wants to know the answer, I give way. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Minister, particularly for his sensitivity to the sensibilities of colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend that we do use the Dublin regulations; indeed, I defend those regulations regularly in the Justice and Home Affairs Council within the European environment. It is very important that people are returned to the first country by which they entered the European Union. Unfortunately, because of court judgments we are not currently able to return people to Greece, but we are working with the Greek authorities to improve their capability for dealing with asylum seekers so that we will be able to do so in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Ian Lucas. Not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I would have called the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) if he had been standing, but he is not so I will not.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the Minister update the House on how early morning alcohol restriction orders and the levy for late night licence holders are working to contribute to the costs of policing antisocial behaviour?

[Norman Baker]

I am very pleased by the roll-out of the late night levy, including in Newcastle, Cheltenham and elsewhere. I believe that Islington is next, and Chelmsford is showing an interest as well. We are looking at the responses from local councils on early morning restriction orders to see what feedback we have received, and we will amend the measures as necessary.

[Mr Speaker]

Some Members require heavier hints than others. Mr Simon Wright.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

16. Prince of Wales road in my constituency is the centre of Norwich’s night-time economy, and residents and councillors have launched a stakeholders forum to consider how to deal with the impact of excessive alcohol consumption in the area. The Minister has received a copy of the first report ordered by Councillor Ben Price. Will he join me in welcoming that community-led activity, and will he meet me and Councillor Price to consider how we can take forward the report’s recommendations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Kelvin Hopkins—not here.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

The Minister seems to think that community resolutions can be appropriate for violent crime, but does he think that even in those circumstances they should perhaps form part of a criminal record at least?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

But the Home Secretary’s action is not working. Fewer rape cases are going to court, as are fewer domestic violence cases, fewer child abuse cases and fewer sexual offence cases, even though the numbers of sexual offences and domestic violence and child abuse cases being reported to the police are all going up. According to analysis by the House of Commons Library, the resulting drop in convictions is the equivalent of 13,000 more violent offenders, 3,500 more sex offenders, 13,000 more domestic abusers and 700 more child abusers getting away with their crimes. This is happening on the right hon. Lady’s watch. Those are the facts. The number of cases going to court is going down in areas where the recorded crimes are going up. What is she doing about it? She is the Home Secretary. Why will she not act to ensure that victims get the justice they deserve—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must have an answer.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for pointing out that I am the Home Secretary. We have seen a higher number of cases of sexual violence being reported, and it is good that people are willing to come forward to report such cases. Some of these are historical cases, and there has been an upturn in the number of people coming forward, particularly as a result of the revelations relating to Jimmy Savile and other such cases. As I said earlier, the number of successful prosecutions by the CPS for rape and sexual violence has hit an all-time high, so I suggest that the right hon. Lady goes away and looks again at her figures.

Asylum Seekers (Support)

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I just say for the record that the right hon. Gentleman certainly has the right to ask those questions, and I would not for one moment seek to stop him, but we all have to operate to time limits. I say in the most charitable possible way to him that his intervention was longer both than that of the hon. Lady who put the urgent question and of the Minister, so there does need to be some trimming on these occasions. Two minutes is allowed, not four.

[James Brokenshire]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we do not think the value of cash and non-cash support is ungenerous when taken as a whole. He talks about the position of children and families. A family of four on section 95 support would receive £178.44 per week to spend on essential needs, with their accommodation, utility bills, council tax, household equipment, health care and schooling provided. In that context, we believe the support given is appropriate.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of detailed questions. On the support provided under section 95, accommodation is provided to 22,372 people and the cash-only payments are provided to about 2,688 people. He sought to press me on whether we would seek to appeal this judgment. The judgment was handed down yesterday, it is lengthy and detailed, and it is right that the Home Office should reflect carefully on it to determine whether or not an appeal is appropriate.

The judgment does not seek to challenge the current levels of support provided; it simply seeks to comment on the detail of the review undertaken last year. I maintain that that review was properly assessed and took into consideration relevant details and matters for an assessment of the level of support. It concluded that the support should be frozen at its current level. The right hon. Gentleman gave a churlish characterisation of the steps that the Government take in their support on asylum. We work to uphold this country’s proud tradition in ensuring that those fleeing persecution can receive support and humanitarian assistance in this country. That is long standing, and we should welcome and cherish it. His comments were entirely ill-judged.

Public Administration Select Committee

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Select Committee statement. The Chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I—or the occupant of the Chair, whoever it is—will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Mr Jenkin to respond to these in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions, and they should be brief. Members on the Front Bench may of course take part in the questioning. I call the Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee, Mr Bernard Jenkin.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I would never imply otherwise. I merely highlight the enormous breadth of the right hon. Gentleman’s work and the importance of the Select Committee’s work. On that positive note—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the Minister is suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman is multifaceted, ubiquitous and selfless. Is that what he is saying?

[James Brokenshire]

I could not come up with a more eloquent description, so I will not tread on that territory.

The agreement of the House that the three organisations should be proscribed under the relevant legislation sends a strong message in respect of those groups and underlines our focus on securing this country from the threat of terrorism. I therefore commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved,

That the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 31 March, be approved.

[Mr Speaker]

I have given further consideration to the point of order that was made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) earlier this afternoon. I realise that the question he raised deserves an urgent response, given that the deportation of the young woman is imminent.

This House does not interfere with the due process of law. It is not a contempt of the House for the Administration to continue a legal process, even when there is a possibility that it will clash with the wishes of a Select Committee. Ultimately, it is not for the Chair but for the House to decide questions of privilege and contempt. That said, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that line, there are established ways of doing so after the fact, if need be. To put it simply, if he is alleging that there has been a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House, our process requires that he write to me to make that allegation. I would then consider whether the issue should be given precedence in the deliberations of the House. I hope that that is helpful.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend has highlighted, sponsors do have responsibilities, and I responded to a previous question on the notifications they provide in relation to their students. We do need to keep a clear focus on those responsibilities and it is my view that where the Home Office is receiving applications from those universities, the failure rate is high and that does need to be examined further.

[Mr Speaker]

Keeping our clear focus on Scotland, I call Mr Pete Wishart.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Of course the Minister knows the rises he pointed out in his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) are all down to the reciprocal arrangement with China. That figure is down 25% from Pakistan, and down 14% from Nigeria. This Government’s United Kingdom Independence party-based immigration policies are hurting our universities and our ability to attract students to Scotland. Why should our universities suffer because of the appalling race to the bottom between the Minister’s Government and UKIP?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I want to hear a couple more of my colleagues, but extreme brevity is now required.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

The Facewatch online crime reporting system makes it much quicker for businesses to report crime. Will my hon. Friend encourage more businesses and local authorities to follow the lead taken by the west midlands crime reduction team and introduce Facewatch elsewhere to reduce crime further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I—[Interruption.] I am terribly sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Front Benchers by answering a question about policing, since I am the Policing Minister. He will know that across the country crime is coming down and a higher proportion of police officers are on the front line. The streets of Britain are safer today in England and in Wales than they ever have been since we started recording crime statistics.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Sir James Paice.

[Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accept that there are countless employers in the food and farming sector who do not use illegal gangmasters and who instead pay good pay and provide good accommodation for their workers, and that where there is job displacement it is because British workers are not prepared to do that work, rather than because employers are somehow taking on illegal migrants on the cheap?

Ellison Review

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say to the House that we have so far had four questions in 14 minutes? We have had questions from Members with very close personal experience of these matters either as constituency representatives or holders of ministerial office. I think that the House will agree that I have therefore very properly allowed latitude, because these matters need to be treated seriously, but we have a lot of other very pressing business. I am afraid that I must now insist on short questions and short answers so that we can proceed expeditiously. I know that I will be helped supremely in this matter by Nicola Blackwood.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

The findings could not be more serious, and they cannot help but undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. This is far from the first time that the competency of the Independent Police Complaints Commission has been put in question. I welcome the steps that have been taken to strengthen the IPCC and the oversight of undercover operations, but I urge the Home Secretary to go further with the reforms so that the public can have confidence in the oversight mechanisms, and so that those mechanisms are sufficiently robust and sufficiently funded to root out police failings wherever they may be found, not just to put right past wrongs, but to prevent future wrongs.

Hillsborough

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Hillsborough stadium tragedy.

It is over a year now since Parliament last debated Hillsborough and the report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel. I hope the House will join me again in expressing my thanks and gratitude to the panel’s chairman, Bishop James Jones, and all his colleagues for their remarkable work. The contents of the panel’s report were truly shocking, and on the day it was published, the Prime Minister apologised to the families of the 96 for what he described as a “double injustice”. The first injustice, he said, was the appalling events; the second was the treatment of victims by the press.

I would like to pay tribute to the bereaved families, the survivors and all those who have campaigned on their behalf. As Home Secretary, I have met a number of the bereaved families, and I have always been impressed by the dignified way they and their supporters have continued their search for truth and justice. I would also like to pay tribute to those in the House who have campaigned on behalf of the families, including the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for Halton (Derek Twigg) and the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham).

So significant were the conclusions of the panel’s report that its publication on 12 September 2012 set in train a number of important events. By the end of that year, this had resulted in the High Court’s quashing of the original inquest verdicts and the ordering of fresh inquests, and the establishment of two major investigations. In a debate in the House following publication of the panel’s report, I said that

“after the truth must come justice; and after the apology, accountability.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 721.]

As lead Minister, it is my responsibility to ensure that the various processes of Government and the criminal justice system are working effectively and are properly resourced to ensure that justice can be done, not only for those who died, but, just as importantly, for their families and all those who have campaigned on their behalf ever since.

Today, I would like to update the House on the progress made in respect of the new inquests and the new investigations. First, I shall deal with the inquests. Last year, and within two months of the decision by the High Court, Lord Justice Goldring was appointed as coroner to conduct the fresh inquests. A number of pre-inquest hearings have already been held. The police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigations are working in support of the coroner to a timetable determined by him, and the Government welcome the fact that Lord Justice Goldring has made it clear that the fresh inquests will start on 31 March.

I have always made it clear that the Government will support the families in their quest for justice and, as part of that commitment, we are funding a comprehensive legal representation scheme. Work began on this immediately after the original inquest verdicts were quashed, and the scheme that is now in place will ensure that the families are properly represented and supported at the inquests.

In addition to the inquests, there is the investigative process, to which there are two elements. The first is led by the IPCC. This is its biggest-ever investigation, and its principal focus is on police involvement in the aftermath of Hillsborough. It is worth reminding the House that this includes not just the role and actions of the South Yorkshire police, the force responsible for policing the match, but the West Midlands police, who played a significant role in the aftermath, providing support to Lord Taylor’s inquiry, producing the report to the Director of Public Prosecutions and assisting the then South Yorkshire West coroner, Dr Stefan Popper. I can therefore confirm that the experience of survivors, again brought to public attention in the last week, is part of the ongoing IPCC investigation.

The second element is a criminal investigation—Operation Resolve—led by Jon Stoddart, the former chief constable of Durham. He was appointed by me in December 2012 and his key role is to investigate the deaths at Hillsborough. Working alongside both investigations is a discrete Crown Prosecution Service team, through which lawyers from the CPS provide ongoing advice.

When he was the Bishop of Liverpool and sitting in another place, Bishop James Jones said that justice was about process as well as outcomes. The unique, complex and wide-ranging circumstances of Hillsborough meant that two major and large-scale investigations had to be created from scratch, and both had to have firm foundations. Suitable premises had to be found, acquired and fitted out. This has been done. Suitably skilled and appropriate staff had to be identified and recruited. This has also been done. It was inevitable that this would take time but the investigations are now located together on one site in Warrington—close to the source of the investigation—and are making good progress.

Like a number of the bereaved families and a number of those in this House, I have been to Warrington to see both investigations for myself. I have met some of the staff from the IPCC and Operation Resolve investigations and I was struck by their dedication and professionalism. I welcome the fact that the IPCC and Operation Resolve want their investigations to be open and transparent and both investigations have welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate to families the work they are doing.

I would like now to set out to the House some of the progress being made; first, in respect of the IPCC. Over 1,600 people have now responded to the IPCC’s witness appeal. This includes over 250 people who have never given accounts before. The IPCC is conducting detailed analysis of every response and is following up the evidence provided. Separately around 400 witnesses have made requests to the IPCC to see their original statements and the IPCC is helping people to access those statements.

In addition, the IPCC has recovered around 2,500 police pocket notebooks. These pocket books had not been made available to previous investigations and are now being analysed by IPCC investigators.

The IPCC has also conducted further analysis of the 242 police accounts now believed to have been amended. In this context, it has completed more than 160 interviews and these interviews continue. Alongside the IPCC investigation, the police investigation—Operation Resolve—has, first, worked to the coroner’s priorities and timetable, meeting all the deadlines set by him; secondly, has worked in parallel on other aspects of the criminal investigation that are complementary to the work being done for the coroner; thirdly, has obtained access to the best quality audio-visual material and carried out extensive analysis and, in doing so, has drawn on advances in digital imagery and forensic technology not available to previous investigative teams; and fourthly, has now completed more than 1,000 interviews of witnesses.

The work being done by Operation Resolve is aimed at providing the fullest possible picture of what happened at Hillsborough, both to ensure that the inquest is able to answer the questions that the bereaved families still have and in support of the criminal investigation.

As Jon Stoddart has said,

“If we find there were health and safety breaches or evidence of wilful neglect, we will seek to ensure the appropriate action is taken against those responsible. If we find that, with the benefit of hindsight, there are lessons to be learned, we will endeavour to ensure that they are addressed. And if we find evidence of criminal behaviour, including manslaughter through neglect, we will seek to lay charges and put people and organisations before the courts.”

As I have said, this new phase of work on Hillsborough began with the publication of the independent panel’s report. One particularly important aspect of the way in which the panel approached its work was its consultation with the bereaved families and I was keen to learn from and build on that dialogue. So I was pleased when Bishop James Jones agreed to act as my adviser on Hillsborough, bringing with him his knowledge and experience from his time as chair of the independent panel.

Operation Resolve and the IPCC have invested significant effort engaging with families, including by offering the opportunity for families to visit their offices in Warrington. “Family forums”, proposed by Bishop James Jones and building on work done by the IPCC, the Crown Prosecution Service and Operation Resolve, are now taking place regularly. The forums provide a regular and structured opportunity for bereaved families to have face-to-face discussions with those conducting and advising the investigations, and they provide an important opportunity for the families to probe and ask questions.

Bishop James Jones, in recent conversations with me, has described the families’ position as being “encouraged” but not “persuaded.” Mr Speaker, this is a sentiment I can understand. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the tragedy, it is the sentiment that underlies my continuing commitment to do everything I can to ensure that the process of disclosing the truth, started by the panel, is followed by the process of justice.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the shadow Home Secretary and then other colleagues, it might be helpful if I emphasised to the House that the special inquest has not yet formally opened. I think there have been pre-hearings, but the hearing itself has not opened. Therefore, the matter is not sub judice. However, colleagues might think it wise to exercise a degree of restraint and to weigh their words carefully if they seek to express opinions on matters that plainly fall to be determined by the inquest. That is not in any sense intended to chill; it is simply to make the point to colleagues, who will exercise their own judgment as to how to proceed in this matter.

Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Home Secretary, in answer to my earlier question, said that it would not be the practice of the police to confirm whether or not surveillance had taken place. Chief Constable Mick Creedon did provide such information to the Select Committee on Home Affairs when allegations were raised about surveillance of the Lawrence family. May I therefore ask her, given the helpful way in which she has responded to all the comments on the statement today, to look further at the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram)?

[Mr Speaker]

It is open to the Home Secretary to respond to that point of order if she wishes to do so.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

If I may, Mr Speaker, I will provide clarification. I apologise if my language was loosely used earlier, as it should not have been. It is the accepted policy that we do not deny or confirm whether somebody has been subject to interception, which I understood was potentially part of the issue raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), but I have noted the concern that has been raised in this House and I will take that matter away.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that is helpful.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You were very helpful at the start of this statement in explaining the need not to prejudice the investigation or the inquest next month, when the legal proceedings start properly. Could you expand on that and provide further information? My concern is that the information I am being given and that some of my colleagues are being given suggests that this situation can only get worse: people thought it was bad enough with the report, but it will only worsen as information comes out. We do not want to prejudice those legal proceedings, but at the same time there may be a need for parliamentary scrutiny of or debate on issues that appear in and come out of the investigations and proceedings. Would it be possible for you to issue some clearer guidance—it could be written if you think that is appropriate—on what MPs can and cannot raise in the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his indication to me a few moments ago of his intention to raise it. The straightforward position is that once the inquest has formally opened, the matters of which it treats are then sub judice. In those circumstances, the Chair does have discretion to waive the sub judice rule, though it has to be said that no such judgment would be made lightly, for I have to be conscious of and respectful towards the resolution relating to sub judice that the House has itself passed. I am sorry if my reply today is not as informative as the hon. Gentleman would wish. However, I will keep abreast of events and I am well aware of the sensitive balance of considerations here as between the proper concern of Members with freedom of speech, on the one hand, and the crucial imperative of not prejudicing the conduct of the inquest, on the other. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will feel that I am very conscious of those balancing considerations and will attend to them keenly. If, at any stage, an hon. Member wishes to approach me for guidance as to the appropriateness or otherwise of what he or she might be minded to say, I would certainly always, guided by the Clerks, attempt to be helpful to Members.

Perhaps we can leave it there for today. It is always nice to be smiled at by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), who seems to be in a relatively cheery mood, whether with me, with the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) or with the House I do not know.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

You had better not ask me what I was saying!

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure how grateful I am to the hon. Gentleman for what he has just said, but I will take his advice. If there are no further points of order, we come now to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) has been patiently waiting.

Immigration Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 12—Power to charge fees for attendance services in particular cases.

Government new clause 18—Deprivation of citizenship: conduct seriously prejudicial to vital interests of the UK—

‘(1) In section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (deprivation of citizenship), after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—

(a) the citizenship status results from the person’s naturalisation, and

(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory.”

(2) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2) of section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 in a case which falls within subsection (4A) of that Act, the Secretary of State may take account of the manner in which a person conducted him or herself before this section came into force.’

Manuscript amendment (a) to Government new clause 18, after proposed new subsection (4A)(b) in subsection (1), insert

‘and

(c) the court gives the Secretary of State permission under subsection (4B).

(4B) (1) This sub-section applies if the Secretary of State:

(a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual in a case which falls within subsection (4A)

(b) makes an application to the court for permission to make an order.

(2) The application must set out how the deprivation is conducive to the public good and how the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted himself or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, and of the islands, or any British overseas territory.

(3) The function of the court on the application is:

(a) to determine whether the relevant decision of the Secretary of State is

obviously flawed, and

(b) to determine whether to give permission to deprive a person of citizenship in a case which falls within subsection (4A)

(4) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.

(5) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State in relation to the conditions set out in subsection (4A)(b) is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section.

(6) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section.’.



Manuscript amendment (b) to Government new clause 18, after subsection (2), insert—

‘(3) The court is the appropriate tribunal for the purposes of section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.’.

New clause 13—Right of appeal: Impact assessment—

‘Before the Secretary of State makes an order under section 65 (commencement) to bring into force section 11 (Right of appeal to First-tier Tribunal) he must—

(a) undertake an impact assessment of—

(i) the number of appeals effected by the provisions of section 11; and

(ii) the costs attributable to appeals to First-tier Tribunals; and

(b) lay a copy of a report on that impact assessment before Parliament.’.

New clause 15—Exceptions to automatic deportation—

‘(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 33 (Exceptions), in subsection (2)(a), for “Convention rights”, substitute “rights under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention”.

(3) In section 33, after subsection (6A), insert—

“(6B) Exception 7 is where the Secretary of State thinks, taking into account all the circumstances of the case including the seriousness of the offence, that removal of the foreign criminal from the United Kingdom in pursuance of a deportation order would cause such manifest and overwhelming harm to his children that it overrides the public interest in removal.”.

(4) In section 38 (Interpretation)—

(a) after subsection (3), insert—

“(3A) In section 32, “Convention rights” has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).”;

(b) omit paragraph (4)(b);

(c) after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) In section 33, “rights under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention” means Articles 2 or 3 of “the Convention” as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).”.’.

Amendment 74, in clause 1, page 2, line 34, at end add—

‘(7) The Secretary of State shall by order—

(a) ensure that children are not detained for immigration purposes, except in the following circumstances—

(i) where the Home Secretary reasonably believes they are a threat to national security;

(ii) in port or border cases where departure is the following day and no application for a visa or asylum has been made; or

(iii) to provide pre-departure accommodation under subsection (7)(b); and

(b) ensure that if a child requires accommodation prior to departure it is—

(i) dedicated pre-departure accommodation which is subject to inspection by HMIP;

(ii) for a maximum period of 72 hours;

(iii) following a recommendation made by the Independent Family Returns Panel, and

(iv) with their family.

(8) Where subsection (7)(a)(ii) and (iii) applies, the officer responsible must ensure that children are only separated from their parents and carers for the purposes of child protection.’.

Amendment 79, page 2, line 38 leave out clause 3.

Amendment 56, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert—

‘(1A) In paragraph 16 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal) after paragraph (4) insert—

(5) A person detained under this paragraph must be released on bail in accordance with paragraph 22 after no later than the twenty-eighth day following that on which the person was detained.”.’.

Amendment 57, page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

‘(3) In paragraph 22 (bail) at end insert—

(4) The following provisions apply if a person is detained under any provision of this Act—

(a) The Secretary of State must arrange a reference to the First-tier Tribunal for it to determine whether the detained person should be released on bail;

(b) The Secretary of State must secure that a first reference to the First-tier Tribunal is made no later than the eighth day following that on which the detained person was detained;

(c) If the detained person remains in detention, the Secretary of State must secure that a second reference to the First-tier Tribunal or Commission is made no later than the thirty-sixth day following that on which the detained person was detained;

(d) The First-tier Tribunal hearing a case referred to it under this section must proceed as if the detained person had made an application to it for bail; and

(e) The First-tier Tribunal must determine the matter—

(i) on a first reference, before the tenth day following that on which the person concerned was detained; and

(ii) on a second reference, before the thirty-eighth day following that on which he was detained.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph, “First-tier Tribunal” means—

(a) if the detained person has brought an appeal under the Immigration Acts, the chamber of the First-tier Tribunal dealing with his appeal; and

(b) in any other case, such chamber of the First-tier Tribunal as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(6) In case of a detained person to whom section 3(2) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 applies (jurisdiction in relation to bail for persons detained on grounds of national security) a reference under sub-paragraph (3)(a) above, shall be to the Commission and not to the First-tier Tribunal.

(7) Rules made by the Lord Chancellor under section 5 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 may include provision made for the purposes of this paragraph.”.’.

Amendment 73, page 4, line 23, leave out clause 5.

Amendment 1, page 8, line 19, leave out clause 11.

Government amendment 6.

Amendment 80, in clause 12, page 10, leave out lines 18 to 33.

Government amendment 7.

Amendment 81, page 11, line 32, leave out clause 13.

Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 12, line 22, at end insert—

‘(za) first, to the best interests of any child affected by a decision as specified in section 117A(1).’.

Amendment 3, page 13, line 11, leave out ‘qualifying’.

Amendment 4, page 13, line 12, leave out ‘reasonable to expect’ and insert

‘in the best interests of’.

Amendment 62, page 13, leave out lines 14 to 39 and insert—

117C Cases involving Foreign Criminals

(1) No decision of the Secretary of State under section 33(6B) (Exceptions) of the UK Borders Act 2007 may be questioned except on appeal to the High Court.

(2) For the purposes of determining whether to give permission to appeal and determining any such appeal under subsection (1) the High Court must apply the procedures and principles which would be applied by it on an application for judicial review.’.

Amendment 58, page 13, leave out lines 19 to 39 and insert—

‘(3) The promotion of the best interests of children is in the public interest.’.

Amendment 5, page 13, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 14.

Government amendments 23 to 26, 45 to 53 and 27.

Amendment 61, in clause 65, page 50, line 27, at end insert—

‘( ) Section 1 and Part II of this Act shall come into force on a day to be appointed, being no earlier than the day on which an order made by the Lord Chancellor under section 9(2)(a) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2013 in respect of civil legal services in connection with removal under section 1 and appeals under Part II comes into effect.’.

Government new schedule 1—Sham marriage and civil partnership: administrative regulations.

Amendment 60, in schedule 1, page 54, line 13, leave out paragraph (5).

Government amendments 28 to 44, 8 to 16, and 54.

Government motion to transfer paragraph 44 of schedule 8.

[Mrs May]

It might be helpful, before I comment on new clause 11, to set the context in which the amendments and new clauses are being moved.

This is an important Bill. It has, I think, widespread support outside this House, and will ensure that the Government have greater ability to make it harder for people to live in the United Kingdom illegally. It will make it easier for us to be able to remove people who are here illegally and will streamline the process for appeals, reducing the number of appeals from 17 to four. It will also, crucially, enable us, in certain circumstances, to deport individuals before they have their appeals, so that their right of appeal is outside of this country. It also introduces a variety of measures, one of which I will be coming on to speak to, because it relates to some of the technical amendments ensuring that people who come to this country for a temporary period contribute to our public services, as I think every hard-working family would expect them to do. It is this Government who are putting that through in the Bill.

The Bill is important because it will enhance our ability to deal with a number of immigration matters, although that is against the background of our success in reducing net migration into this country and particularly in dealing with the abuse of certain immigration routes, notably student visas. That is the context of these amendments. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the number of amendments, but many of them are very technical and minor amendments.

Government new clause 11 is intended to ensure that the marriage and civil partnership provisions work as effectively as possible. Importantly, part 4 of the Bill will establish a new referral and investigation scheme to prevent sham marriages and civil partnerships from gaining an immigration advantage. Increasingly, sham marriages are being used as a back-door route around immigration rules. The ability to do that has been extended by the Metock case in the European Court, which has enabled people from outside the EU married to someone within the EU to gain free movement rights. There is concern about sham marriages not only in the UK, but in other parts of the EU, and the UK is leading work across Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I strongly support the Home Secretary on the extension of the time period so as to make it more difficult for those who wish to engage in sham marriages and illegal enterprises of that sort, but will there be a provision to shorten the period in exceptional circumstances? For example, what about someone serving in Her Majesty’s armed forces who is about to be deployed overseas, or someone suffering from a terminal illness? I am concerned about this. Will the Home Secretary expand on the response she gave a few minutes ago? I have heard of several examples—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that what might be called by a lawyer the gravamen of his point has been heard. I do not think that a judge in one of the courts in which the hon. Gentleman has served would have allowed him to bang on for the length of time I have allowed him.

[Mrs May]

To clarify, the Bill increases the marriage and civil partnership notice period from 15 to 28 days in England and Wales for all couples, and allows it to be extended to 70 days where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a sham. But we will be retaining the ability in emergency cases such as those set out by my hon. Friend to require the notice period to be shorter than is being provided for.