European Union (Withdrawal) Act

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

That this House approves for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the negotiated withdrawal agreement laid before the House on Monday 26 November 2018 with the title ‘Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community’ and the framework for the future relationship laid before the House on Monday 26 November 2018 with the title ‘Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom’.

[Mr Speaker]

Just before I ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to open the continuation of the debate on behalf of the Government, I feel that it is important that Members are aware of the correct protocol for today and for each of the remaining subsequent days in this overarching debate on the Government’s proposed deal.

It is true that it is a debate essentially revolving around one subject. However, I should remind colleagues that there are wind-up speeches each day from the Opposition and Treasury Benches, and the implication of that should be blindingly obvious to colleagues: if you speak in the debate it is incumbent on you to turn up at whatever hour the debate is concluded to hear the wind-up speeches. Yesterday, I am sorry to say, there were a number of examples of Members who spoke, in some cases at considerable length, in the debate, but who, on account no doubt of being very busy with many commitments and very full diaries, felt that they had to be elsewhere for the wind-up speeches. I know and I think that it may well be widely accepted that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition did not come for the wind-up of the debate, and, personally, I take no exception to that at all—it would have been marvellous to welcome them, but I quite understand why they could not be here—but in every other case, if you speak in the debate, please then do me the courtesy, or do the House the courtesy, of turning up for the wind-ups. With that little homily duly completed, I invite the Secretary of State for the Home Department to continue the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. On account of the level of interest, an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will now apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. On account of the level of interest and the fact of interventions taking time, the time limit will have to be reduced to seven minutes per Back Bencher immediately after the next speaker. Mr Shapps will be the last to have the opportunity of eight minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that the time limit will now be seven minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry]

When the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to calm down, perhaps I can continue. What this debate and all the many contributions have laid bare is that on the first duty of every Government—the duty to protect the safety and security of their citizens—the Prime Minister’s deal fails. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary speaks in a moment, he will address those points that I have mentioned: access to vital security databases; our future international co-operation with the EU; our ability to tackle terrorism and organised crime; our place in the world; our shared fight against climate change; and even the future of our NHS.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer one other very specific question that goes to the heart of his responsibilities as Foreign Secretary. He was proud to announce yesterday the new embassy that his Department is opening in the Maldives, one of 12 new posts due to be opened by the Government over the next two years. However, even after those new openings, there will still be 16 other countries around the world where Britain has no direct consular representation but where other EU countries do. These countries have a combined population of 72 million people, spread across Asia, Latin America and Africa, including 10 past and present members of the UN Security Council. These are countries where up until this point, thanks to the common foreign and security policy, any British citizen visiting, working or living there who found themselves in difficulty and could not look to a British embassy for help had the right to go to other EU embassies based there and ask for consular support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked the Government last week what provision was being made in the Prime Minister’s proposed deal to continue those arrangements after we leave the EU. The answer was none. In fact, it is worse than that—the answer was that British citizens who are arrested in those countries or who are affected by a hurricane or an earthquake could no longer ask the French or Spanish embassies to help, but they could “phone the Foreign Office switchboard.” If we needed any more evidence of how half-baked, hurried through and totally botched the Prime Minister’s deal is and how reliant it is on vague future aspirations of co-operation, it is the fact that the Government have not even bothered to think about what it means for British citizens being left without consular support in dangerous situations. It is the very definition of making the British people, whom it is our first duty to protect, less safe and less secure.

That is not the only loss of security that I hope the Foreign Secretary will address in his closing speech. If the first duty of the Government is to protect the physical security of their citizens, their second duty is surely to protect the economic security of the nation, which was a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). What we have learned with this Foreign Secretary is that he is very willing, quite often, to say one thing about the economic impact of Brexit behind the closed doors of Downing Street and another when he is in the television studios or standing at the Dispatch Box. When he is trying to sell this deal to Parliament tonight, I hope that he will clear up some of the disparities between what he says publicly and what he says privately.

I have three questions for him to that end. In the television studios, he says that this is the best deal for Britain and we can look forward to a glorious era, where

“we become an independent sovereign power, negotiating our own trade deals”

around the world. Around the Cabinet table, presumably informed by the Attorney General’s advice, he says the opposite—that this deal will leave us in what he calls a “Turkey trap”, stuck in an exclusive trading agreement with the EU, but unable to influence any of its decisions and unable to negotiate our own deals. Will he tell us tonight what he really thinks? ?

Secondly, in the television studios, when asked to talk about the backstop, the Foreign Secretary says it simply will not happen. He says:

“Britain will be an independent nation…it is in black and white. That is the intention of the EU”.

But round the Cabinet table, he says the opposite. The backstop will become a “frontstop”, he says. “As soon as the deal is signed,” he says, “the EU will have what they want”. “They will block any progress,” he says, “on the final new trading agreement, and will turn the backstop into the only available outcome.” Will he tell us tonight what he really thinks?

Thirdly and finally, in the television studios, the Foreign Secretary says:

“We will not be significantly worse off”

as a result of the Prime Minister’s deal, but did he not used to say the exact opposite around the Cabinet table, especially about the impact on the NHS, when he warned of the need to avoid a hard Brexit?

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s remarks over lunch on Monday. She said that the Foreign Secretary was “so charming” but that there was “no consistency”, and she was absolutely right. Even more damning, however, was her explanation for the inconsistency. Excuse me, Mr Speaker, for using the Foreign Secretary’s name, but I am quoting his Cabinet colleague. “Hunt”, she says, “is all about the game-playing”. Doesn’t that sum it all up?

We have a Tory Cabinet obsessed with their own internal power games and fighting like ferrets in a sack to succeed their lame duck leader, with a Foreign Secretary who, according to his own Cabinet colleague and the evidence of this debate, has been more interested in playing leadership games than in making sure that this political agreement can maintain our future foreign policy co-operation with the EU and protect the security of British citizens, whether at home or abroad. That is the kind of Front Bench we see before us today. In the light of their complete failure of leadership and their total—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. No, it’s not boring to me. Sir Alan, you are normally a figure of dignity in one way or another. You are a little over-excitable. Calm yourself. You really need to get a grip. You are not only a knight, but a KCMG and a figure of enormous celebrity in the life of the nation. I know that you do not underestimate all that, so a tad of dignity would be greatly appreciated.

[Emily Thornberry]

That is the kind of Front Bench we see before us, and in the light of their complete failure of leadership and their total failure to deliver a new set of fair rules on immigration and to protect our country’s security, it is absolutely no wonder that this House is only a week away from rejecting their dismal Brexit deal and already holds this dismal Government in total and utter contempt.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

One of the lessons from the Brexit vote was that people wanted to see control of our immigration system—one that is designed in Britain for our national interest, and that is certainly what we will be setting out. We want a system that is based on an individual’s skills and on what they have to contribute, not on their nationality.

[Mr Speaker]

Question 13 in the name of the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) is certainly germane to the question with which we are dealing and therefore—it is not obligatory—if she wishes to rise to her feet now and give the House the benefit of her thoughts we will be happy to hear them.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

13. The UK detains more migrants than the majority of European countries and is alone in detaining indefinitely without a time limit. Does the Minister accept the findings of the Shaw review that detention is harmful to mental health and will he end indefinite detention?

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister meet me to discuss the case of my constituent Mohammed Al-Maily, a Saudi national with indefinite leave to remain who has been told that he is liable for removal from the UK despite living in the UK for 28 years with his wife? The reason the Home Office has stated is that it shredded the archives detailing whom it had granted indefinite leave to remain to, and the Saudi embassy claims to have lost his passport evidencing his right to leave to remain in the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

That is what I would describe as illegitimate shoehorning. It is quite common for colleagues to seek to shoehorn into another question their own preoccupation. To do so so nakedly by advertising another case is a trifle cheeky on the part of the hon. Gentleman, but in observation of and tribute to his ingenuity, as well as to his cheek, perhaps the Secretary of State can be allowed to answer.

[Sajid Javid]

The Home Office will take a closer look at that case.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) should be well satisfied with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is looking remarkably stoical, in the light of his team’s two-goal defeat by four goals to two at Arsenal yesterday.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T4. I will not be tempted by your tormenting me to comment on the annual ritual, Mr Speaker.During the recent al-Quds march, the police were once again powerless to take action against people displaying flags of Hezbollah and Hamas, on the grounds that they are the political wings of those illegal terrorist organisations. When will my right hon. Friend proscribe both Hamas and Hezbollah, so that we can take action to prevent those terrorist groups from displaying their flags on our streets?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, Mr Courts, we have not heard from you. Let us do so.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

What steps are Ministers taking to create an open and global immigration system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

We must of course—all of us, in every Department—do all we can to help vulnerable people, including disabled people. That includes addressing hate crime against disabled people, which is of course completely unacceptable. We refreshed our hate crime action plan recently. We are always looking to see what more we can do.

[Mr Speaker]

Succinctness personified: Mr Gavin Robinson.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Home Secretary, in developing a new immigration system, support on Wednesday the ten-minute rule Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), which would end a ridiculous situation in which terror suspects have better detention rights than those seeking to make the UK their home?

Offensive Weapons Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on his excellent speech and I associate myself with his sentiments. The Bill makes some welcome improvements to how the police and courts tackle threats to the public from offensive weapons. Given the violence and the deaths we are seeing now, it is vital that we act. I welcome some of the amendments, particularly those tabled by Labour colleagues, including new clauses 1 and 6. However, a number of details in this Bill would prove counterproductive in the fight against crime—things that are not based on evidence—so I have tabled a range of amendments. I will speak only briefly to some of them now, given the time available and the fact that other Members wish to get in.

Amendments 12 and 13 would in essence replace short-term prison sentences with community sentences. As the Bill stands, the new offence in clause 1 of selling corrosive products to under-18s is punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison. We are puzzled by this, because it directly contradicts Government policy as articulated at the Dispatch Box. The Secretary of State for Justice himself has said that short-term prison sentences do not work. He said that they should be used only “as a last resort.” Amendments 12 and 13 therefore appear to be in line with Government policy and would ensure that the offence set out in clause 1 is punishable by an effective community sentence and/or fine, instead of by an ineffective short-term prison sentence.

Amendment 14 would amend the welcome new offence of possession of corrosives by adding to clause 6 the words “with intent to cause injury”. I assume that the current wording is the result of a drafting error.

Finally, amendments 15 and 16 would remove mandatory prison sentences for a second offence of possession of corrosive substances. In other words, they would prevent this House from yet again trespassing on judicial discretion. I have never understood why Governments and colleagues think that they are capable of second-guessing the facts of a case that has not yet happened, or why this House should pretend that it makes any sense at all to bind the hands of judges, who see and hear the real facts of the case, are trained to assess the facts and are experienced in sentencing.

The House may remember when, back in 2014, a Conservative Back-Bench new clause was passed to create mandatory prison sentences for a second offence of possession of a knife. My party voted against that new clause on the principle that mandatory sentences tie judges’ hands, put more pressure on already overburdened prisons and mean that more people, especially young people, end up with ineffective short-term prison sentences. Regrettably, that new clause was passed, thanks to some Labour MPs supporting it, the Conservative Front-Bench team abstaining and Conservative Back Benchers voting for it.

To be fair, there were Labour MPs who voted with those of us who opposed the tying of judges’ hands. One Labour MP in particular made a fine speech, and said:

“There is a principle at stake here. There is a Sentencing Council and legislation on what is and is not a crime, but surely it must be for the courts to determine what is appropriate for the prisoner in front of them, rather than to have that laid down by statute.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 1041-1042.]

That MP was the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), so I hope that the Labour Front-Bench team will support our amendments to get rid of mandatory prison sentences.

Back in 2014, when the House debated similar proposals in respect of knife crimes, the supporters of tying judges’ hands said that it would send a message to the people, and that that message would reduce knife crime. That was a rather odd argument, which seemed to assume that young people especially tuned into our proceedings with enthusiasm. It had no basis in fact at the time. We now have the benefit of seeing how four years of limiting judicial discretion over knife crime has worked—how the message that Parliament apparently sent was heard.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am listening intently to the right hon. Gentleman, as always, and in a friendly way I express the confident hope that he is approaching his peroration.

[Sir Edward Davey]

Mr Speaker, you are right to be confident because I am.

There may now be more people behind bars to whom the judges might have given, on the evidence, community sentences. We may now as a society pay more in taxes to keep locked up people whom it would be better not to lock up, so we may not be able to use the money that is currently spent on prisons in other ways, such as for spending on police or youth services.

All that does not look like a good outcome from the message sent by mandatory sentences, so why are we repeating the mistake? What evidence are Ministers using to introduce more mandatory sentences? What happens if the person was coming home from the shops and he or she was holding his mum or dad’s shopping bags when stopped and searched? Surely it is for judges to act on the basis of fact, not for Parliament to second-guess it. We do not think that mandatory sentences are the right approach, and I hope that the other place will deal with the matter.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) intends to detain the House for no longer than three minutes and possibly for less.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I will do my very best, Mr Speaker.

I rise to speak to my amendments 8, 9 and 10, to which a number of colleagues have referred. I fully support the objectives of the Bill. We have a serious problem with knife crime. We need serious solutions, but we need the right solutions. Knife manufacturers in my constituency are seriously concerned about the possible unintended consequences of clause 17, which prohibits the delivery of bladed products to residential properties, and believe that it will not provide the right solution. I raised this issue with the Home Secretary on Second Reading and wrote to him afterwards. I appreciate the response from the Minister, who said that the Government do not intend to stop people purchasing knives online or to stop manufacturers selling their products online.

I have tabled my amendments in that spirit. Large retailers with regional shop networks might well be able to deal with age-verified collection easily and with little impact on cost, but smaller manufacturers, which use the internet to reach niche markets, will struggle. They are acutely aware of the risks of knife crime and they already take proactive steps and have stringent controls to tackle the issue. They are responsible companies. They are traders whom we can trust. They support measures that would make such safeguards widespread across the industry.

The Bill makes an exception for bladed products used for sporting purposes. Under those provisions, a sword could be delivered to a residential property, but one of my local manufacturers’ steak knives could not, and nor could the decorating tools that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) mentioned earlier.

Much more could be done to develop effective age verification for all sorts of online activities, but a trusted trader scheme could tackle the specific issue of knife sales. Online sales actually offer a better audit trail and record keeping than face-to-face sales. The Minister said earlier that the Government were interested in working with the industry on a voluntary basis to tackle problems in relation to retail sales in shops. If she is prepared to work with the retail sector, why not with the manufacturing sector? Will she agree to meet me and representatives of the industry to discuss how a trusted trader scheme might work, so that we can amend the Bill as it progresses? If she will, I will be happy to withdraw my amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Consideration completed. I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motion, copies of which will be made available in the Vote Office and will be distributed by Doorkeepers.

Stalking Protection Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 23rd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 16, after “police” insert

“for a police area in England and Wales”.

This amendment and Amendments 2 and 6 would allow the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police and the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force to apply for stalking protection orders and interim stalking protection orders, and to take part in related procedures.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, leave out from “police” to the end of line 27 and insert

“who applied for the stalking protection order and (if different) the chief officer of police for the area in which the defendant resides, if that area is in England or Wales.”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 6, line 2, leave out “within” and insert “before the end of”.

This amendment would ensure a person can give notice that they are going to use a new name before doing so.

Amendment 4, page 6, line 8, leave out “within” and insert “before the end of”.

This amendment would ensure a person can give notice that they are going to change their home address before doing so.

Amendment 5, in clause 10, page 6, line 30, leave out

“whose home address is not”

and insert

“who does not have a home address”.

This amendment would cater for the possibility that a person might not have a home address.

Amendment 6, in clause 14, page 8, line 9, at end insert—

““chief officer of police” means—

(a) the chief constable of a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996 (police forces in England and Wales outside London);

(b) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis;

(c) the Commissioner of Police for the City of London;

(d) the chief constable of the British Transport Police;

(e) the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;”

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Amendment 7, in clause 15, page 9, line 4, leave out from “force” to the end of line 5 and insert

“two months after the day on which this Act is passed.”

[Dr Wollaston]

This week we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first woman taking her seat in this House. I am immensely proud, as a Devon MP, that that woman was Lady Nancy Astor, and I think all of us in this House owe her an enormous debt of gratitude for the work she did, particularly in fighting on behalf of women and girls. I am proud that this Government have continued that work. Indeed, Members from across this whole House have done so much to advance this cause.

Of course, stalking does not just affect women—it affects men as well, and it is a vile crime of an insidious nature. I am very grateful to all those, both within this House and beyond, who have contributed to the passage of this Bill, including with advice, which has caused me to table some important amendments. They are minor in nature, but I think they will greatly improve the Bill.

Amendments 1, 2 and 6 would enable the chief constables of the Ministry of Defence police and the British Transport police to apply for stalking protection orders and interim orders, and to initiate related proceedings in connection with the variation and renewal of an order. That is because stalking occurs across a range of contexts and situations, with devastating consequences, and it is essential that a stalking protection order is available to police in a variety of situations. There may be circumstances in which the British Transport police or MOD police are best placed to seek an order, for example if the stalking conduct has taken place on the railway network or a perpetrator lives or works in MOD premises.

Amendments 3 and 4 would modify the notification requirements on a person subject to a stalking—

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point, which we could consider in the House of Lords as the Bill continues its passage.

Amendments 3 and 4 would modify the notification requirements on a person subject to a stalking protection order. Under the notification requirements, as drafted, a perpetrator must notify the police within three days of a change taking place. These amendments simply enable the perpetrator to give such notice in advance of a change taking place, and I hope that colleagues from across the House will recognise that that is a small, technical, but important change.

Finally, amendment 5 also relates to notification requirements. It caters for circumstances where the subject of a stalking protection order has no home address. In such a case, the amendment provides that the perpetrator can instead notify of a place where they can regularly be found. That simply mirrors notification requirements related to registered sex offenders. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) also has an amendment in this group, but I do not see him in the Chamber today, so I think we will assume that he does not wish to press that amendment. For now, I commend the amendments standing in my name to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Has the hon. Lady completed her speech?

[Dr Wollaston]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

We are immensely grateful to her; she has been the epitome of succinctness, which serves as a useful model for other colleagues.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Ah, a veritable slew of colleagues wishing to take part. I call Mr Alex Chalk.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

What a pleasure it is to say a few words in this debate.

Before I move on to the specifics, it is important to look at some of the context, because of course it was not until fairly recently that stalking was made a crime. Before 2012, the concept of stalking was perhaps not taken terribly seriously at all—it was almost considered something of a joke—but over the past decade there has been a recognition that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, stalking is an insidious and wicked crime. I pay tribute to her work to ensure that society’s response truly fits the scale of the threat.

Stop and Search

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Eltham appears to be experiencing some pain, but he is a brave fellow and I am sure he will bear up stoically and with fortitude. Let us hear what he has to say.

[Clive Efford]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have pulled a muscle in my back.

Intelligence-led policing starts at community level, so is it not therefore a shame that there was no money in the Budget to increase investment in community-led policing? They are the people who know who to stop and search at local level, and we need to see a return to effective local policing and more police in local neighbourhood teams.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

May I, through you, Mr Speaker, congratulate my hon. Friend on his service and experience? We are absolutely determined to make sure that the police have the resources and the powers that they need. The Home Secretary keeps this matter under constant review, and I am sure that he will take his comments extremely seriously.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) ever stopped and searched his own constituents. Further and better particulars on that important matter should be vouchsafed to the House at an appropriate time. It is always good to be reminded of his service as a special constable as well as a member of the Kettering Borough Council.

Police Pension Liabilities

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us see whether we can get everyone in by 1.15 pm, which is when we need to move on.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I fully support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). Will the Minister assure us that he will look carefully to ensure that the promised increases in police officers in Staffordshire and elsewhere are taken forward, because council taxpayers were promised that back in April?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

As he is a distinguished former broadcaster, I am sure the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) can demonstrate his mastery of the one-short-sentence question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

The House will have noticed that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) has perambulated. He was over there!

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I am trying to get your attention, Mr Speaker. What does the Minister suggest Gwent police do: cut 100 police officer jobs or make local precept payers make up the difference?

Leaving the EU: Rights of EU Citizens

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

The immigration Bill will be coming forward—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is rather unseemly. Members must not harangue the Minister. She is addressing the House with great courtesy; let us hear her answer.

[Caroline Nokes]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think “unseemly” is a perfect description.

As I said, we will be bringing forward the parliamentary timetable for the immigration Bill shortly, and further details will be set out in due course, which I am sure will give the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) satisfaction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

As I have said, the parliamentary timetable for the immigration Bill will be coming forward in the next few weeks. Our White Paper will set out the future skills-based immigration system, as the Prime Minister indicated at the recent Conservative party conference, which will be based on people’s ability and what they can offer to our country, not on where they come from.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the good doctor, Dr Julian Lewis.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Minister share my surprise at recent press reports suggesting that EU citizens living in the United Kingdom after Brexit would be offered full voting rights in Westminster parliamentary elections? Will she confirm that that is not going to happen?

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Before I ask the Minister a question, Mr Speaker, I want to bring something to your attention. There are many EU citizens in Parliament today who were keen to hear this urgent question, but they are being told that the Gallery is full and that they cannot get in to watch proceedings. The Gallery is obviously not full, so I wanted to make you aware of that to see whether we can get a message to the Doorkeepers.

[Mr Speaker]

The Gallery is manifestly not full, and it would be much better if it were full. I hope that it will speedily become full in conformity with the wishes expressed by the hon. Gentleman, which I think would be endorsed across the House.

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed, many of those EU citizens are here today because of the complete chaos and their worry about their futures, many of them having contributed to our society for decades. They are concerned about their immigration status, their right to work and their families here. Will the Minister admit that she gave incorrect evidence to the Home Affairs Committee the other day? Will she tell us how many EU citizens have already left the UK due to uncertainty around their status?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

It is right, of course, that this Government do more to welcome all communities and help them to integrate. That is why the Government published—I published it when I was Communities Secretary—an integration Green Paper, which we will build on. It is also worth commending the work that World Jewish Relief does to help all communities to integrate.

[Mr Speaker]

In the light of the terrible tragedy in Leicester, it is with particular feeling that I call Mr Keith Vaz.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for the comments that he made following the death of Khun Vichai and four others in the helicopter in Leicester. Khun Vichai was an amazing man—someone who spent so much time in Leicester and did so much for the club—and he was adored by the people of Leicester. He will be greatly missed, and it is kind of the Home Secretary to mention him today.

On the substance of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), the issue is not just English language lessons but the right to work, which goes hand in hand with being able to speak English. Will the Home Secretary look again at the rules to make sure that those who are waiting can get their right to work quicker and asylum seekers can be fully integrated in our society?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

The fact remains that the system simply is not working. This lawlessness is having a corrosive effect on local communities, and there have been catastrophic consequences for local government finance. Will the Home Secretary please listen to the suggestion that I have made many times before? We should use the number plates of these gleaming, glistening chariots that invade our open spaces and prosecute these malefactors through the identification of their vehicles.

[Mr Speaker]

Will the Home Secretary heed Pound?

[Sajid Javid]

I dare not heed Pound, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The consultation’s purpose is to look not just at what is happening at the moment, but at what new powers and sensible policies should follow to deal with this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid there is strong pressure on time today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

A sentence perhaps; Lloyd Russell-Moyle.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

23. Organised crime often leads to bad drugs on our streets, and one way to stop that is through drug testing in festivals. The Minister agreed that he would write to police forces about the legality of that. What is the response?

--- Later in debate ---

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

In the light of the horrors of Pittsburgh, will the Government provide assurance—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This really is a matter of the utmost sensitivity, and the right hon. Lady’s question must be heard with solemnity and respect.

[Theresa Villiers]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

In the light of the horrors of Pittsburgh, can the Home Secretary provide the reassurance that both the Government and the police will always take very, very seriously the security of the Jewish community and other minorities who may be subjected to hate crimes and violence?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

I am delighted to be visiting my hon. Friend on Friday to see for myself the hard work that she does in taking care of her constituents, working alongside her local police force. This Government support greater collaboration and have placed a statutory duty on police, fire and ambulance services to keep collaborative opportunities under review and enter into them in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness.

[Mr Speaker]

A single sentence of Hobhousian liberalism—Wera Hobhouse.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T6. Small and medium-sized businesses are the lifeblood of most of our economy, including in my Bath constituency. However, they face many challenges in recruiting the talent they need, so will the Minister consider reforming the tier 2 visa system to make it easier and remove the prohibitive costs for smaller employers to recruit highly skilled overseas graduates from UK universities?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that sentence contained quite a lot of semi-colons.

[Caroline Nokes]

I share the hon. Lady’s admiration for small and medium-sized businesses the country over. The immigration system already facilitates recruitment of foreign graduates of UK universities by waiving many of the usual requirements. We will shortly be setting out our plans for the future immigration system, following the recent report by the Migration Advisory Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

The seasonal agricultural workers pilot scheme was warmly welcomed both by farmers and by agricultural bodies across the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Will the Minister update farmers in my constituency on when further detail will be released? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I hope the Minister heard her hon. Friend.

[Caroline Nokes]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

She did. Otherwise we would have to have a reprise.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I was delighted to go to her constituency over the summer to meet soft fruit farmers who made a compelling case for a seasonal workers scheme. She will no doubt be delighted that the Government are having a pilot in the horticultural sector to make sure that it can access the labour that it needs.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Where is that new young Member, John Spellar? Ah, there he is. Let’s hear the fella.

Police: Financial Sustainability

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Well—

[Chris Elmore]

Two Whips, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed. I call Chris Elmore.

[Chris Elmore]

South Wales police has seen a 30% cut in central Government funding since 2010 and faced a 12% cut overall. Remarkably, that represents only the second smallest set of cuts across the UK, and I am unsure whether the Minister thinks that south Wales MPs should be grateful for that. The reality is that we have a capital city in Cardiff and another large city in Swansea, and major events lead to real-time pressures, but the Government still have not increased budgets. Police and Crime Commissioner Alun Michael has called for additional funding, because undue pressure is being placed on rural policing and the policing of smaller communities, such as Ogmore.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)]

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 amendments 1 to 5 and 15 to 18.

Amendment 13, in clause 18, page 19, line 14, at end insert—

“(8) After section 39 (Power to amend Chapter 2), insert—

‘39AA Review of support for people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism

(1) The Secretary of State must within 6 months of the passing of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2018 make arrangements for an independent review and report on the Government strategy for supporting people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism.

(2) The report and any recommendations of the review under subsection (1) must be laid before the House of Commons within 18 months of the passing of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2018.

(3) The laying of the report and recommendations under subsection (2) must be accompanied by a statement by the Secretary of State responding to each recommendation made as part of the independent review.’”

[Mr Wallace]

Today is obviously the anniversary of 9/11, a devastating terrorist attack that happened on the soil of our ally the United States and ended in the deaths of 77 United Kingdom citizens who were working in New York at the time. Today is also one of the first days of the inquest into the Westminster Bridge attack, when we lost PC Keith Palmer and four other people.

Let me deal as succinctly as I can with the Government amendment in this group, beginning with new clause 2. Since the phenomenon of UK-linked individuals travelling to join terrorist organisations in Syria and Iraq began in earnest in 2014, the Government have kept under review various options for banning or requiring notification of travel to conflict zones overseas, underpinned by criminal sanctions. The essential feature of new clause 2 is to make it an offence for a UK national or resident to enter or remain in an area overseas that has been designated by the Home Secretary. The designation of an area will be given effect by regulations, and any such regulation would necessarily need to come into force quickly, but we recognise the need for full parliamentary scrutiny of any designation. Accordingly, such regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Once an area has been designated, there will be a grace period of one month, enabling persons already in the designated area to leave before the offence takes effect. Of course, there will be individuals who have a valid reason to enter and remain in a designated area, such as to provide humanitarian aid, to work as a journalist, or to attend a funeral of a close relative. To cover such cases, we have provided for a reasonable excuse defence. Once such a defence has been raised, the burden of proof, to the criminal standard, will rest with the prosecution to disprove the defence. The new offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, and it will be open to the court to impose an extended sentence.

The new offence is necessary for two primary reasons. First, to strengthen the Government’s consistent travel advice to British nationals, which has advised against all travel to areas of conflict where there is a risk of terrorism. And secondly, breaching a travel ban and triggering the offence will provide the police and the Crown Prosecution Service with a further tool to investigate and prosecute those who return to the United Kingdom from designated areas, thereby protecting the public from wider harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Access to a solicitor—

“(1) Schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 7 leave out “Subject to paragraphs 8 and 9”.

(3) In paragraph 7A—

(a) leave out sub-paragraph (3),

(b) leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—

(c) in sub-paragraph (7) at end insert—

(d) leave out sub-paragraph (8).

(4) leave out paragraph 9.”

This new clause would delete provisions in the Terrorism Act 2000 which restrict access to a lawyer for those detained under Schedule 7.

Government amendments 6, 7, 19, 8 and 9.

Amendment 26, page 36, line 7, schedule 3, at end insert—

“(6A) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) must be informed when a person is stopped under the provisions of this paragraph.

(6B) The Commissioner must make an annual report on the use of powers under this paragraph.”

Government amendment 10.

Amendment 27, page 46, line 17, leave out “and 26”.

Amendment 28, page 46, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

Amendment 29, page 46, line 33, leave out sub-paragraph (6) and insert—

Amendment 30, page 46, line 37, at end insert—

“provided that the person is at all times able to consult with a solicitor in private.”

Amendment 31, page 47, line 29, leave out paragraph 26.

This amendment would delete provisions in the Bill which restrict access to a lawyer for those detained under Schedule 3 for the purpose of assessing whether they are or have been engaged in hostile activity.

Amendment 14, page 47, line 31, leave out “and hearing” and insert “but not hearing”.

Government amendments 11, 12 and 20 to 25.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

New clause 1 would make our continued participation in the European arrest warrant a negotiating objective of the Brexit negotiations. There can be little doubt about the value of the EAW to this country. The Security Minister will be aware, for example, that it was vital to apprehending the man who helped to organise and co-ordinate the London bombings of 7/7. According to the National Crime Agency, between 2010 and 2016, the UK issued 1,773 requests to member states for extradition under the EAW and received 78,776 from member states. Of those the UK issued, 11 related to terror offences, 71 to human trafficking, 206 to child sex offences and 255 to drug trafficking.

According to the Government’s own White Paper, more than 12,000 individuals have been arrested, and for every person arrested on an EAW issued by the UK, the UK arrests eight on EAWs issued by other states. Without the EAW, extraditions can cost four times as much and take three times as long. The Security Minister will of course be aware that in counter-terror investigations speed really is of the essence, and it is therefore vital that we set the objective of continuing to play a key role on the European security scene.