Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

The reality is that we need a robust and honest approach to dealing with this problem. Opening our doors to thousands of migrants from the EU is not the solution. We need a deterrent, and that is why our agreement with Rwanda will work. It is based on what has worked in other countries such as Australia, and I am confident that we will be able to deliver our Rwanda plan as soon as possible. What is clear is that the Labour party does not even seem to know what its policy is on small boats. Previously, it had no plan; now it has tried to put a plan together, but half its shadow Ministers do not even know how it works. It is only this Government that have a plan, will deliver Rwanda, have delivered our groundbreaking legislation and will stop the boats.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

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

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)]

I will make a short topical statement. The range of threats our country faces is ever evolving, so I want to set out what we are doing to get ahead of it. We have refreshed our counter-terrorism strategy, especially by overhauling the Prevent strand so that it recognises and can counter the driving force of ideology. Our counter-terrorism operations centre is truly world class and fit for the 21st century. However, the security threat is wider than terrorism, and that is why we have passed the National Security Act 2023, which also addresses the evolving nature of the threat and contains several measures to modernise counter-espionage laws. Our comprehensive economic crime plan and legislation have cracked down hard on the Russian oligarchs upon whom Putin relies. We will give our courageous and capable intelligence and security services all the powers they need to keep us safe.

[Stephen Hammond]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that statement. She will know that there is continuing widespread concern about the threat to our national security from the whole-of-state approach that the Chinese are taking to espionage activities in our country. I urge her to ensure that our response will mirror that, and that China is in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme.

[Suella Braverman]

National security is our overriding priority as a Government, particularly at the Home Office. As Home Secretary, it is my job to oversee the protection of the UK from all types of threats to our national security. As the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report has said:

“The Chinese Intelligence Services target the UK and its overseas interests prolifically and aggressively.”

I will not shy away from calling out the threats from China for what they are or from making it clear that its agencies regularly engage in hostile activity towards the UK. We are currently reviewing the countries that should go into the enhanced tier of FIRS. There is a strong case to be made for China being put into it, but I do not want to prejudice the process by which those determinations will be made, and—

Student Visas

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a curious argument. Of course, it was as a result of leaving the European Union that we have created an entirely non-discriminatory immigration system that has enabled people to apply to come to the UK, whether for work purposes or as students, from anywhere in the world, rather than making it more difficult for those from outside the EU and having a large number of EU citizens come here. Today’s proposals will tackle this particular unintended consequence of the opening up to international students. I do not see any evidence that it will harm particular nationalities. There are some glaring examples such as the Nigerian one that I mentioned previously, but this will apply to everyone. It is an entirely non-discriminatory policy.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is completely right that we must choose who comes here and we must strike out abuse. Wimbledon has many English language schools and English language is a key part of the international education strategy. Given the specific and short-term nature of these students, and that they bring in no dependants and are not a cost on our public services, will he meet me and the leaders of the sector to discuss restoring work visas for this specific group of students?

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. As I said earlier with respect to the announcement we made today, we will be carrying out a consultation with the Department for Education that will give universities the opportunity to set out their case and refine the policy if necessary. He highlights one of the other elements of the announcement we made this week, which is clamping down on abuse. There are a small number of unscrupulous education agents who may be supporting disingenuous applications that are selling immigration rather than education. One measure we are taking this week is to clamp down on those with much more targeted and effective enforcement activity.

Illegal Migration Bill

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

As I listen to this debate I, frankly, get more and more depressed. What we hear is an artificial juxtaposition between an open-door policy of letting everybody into this country and a suggestion that we on this side of the House are cruel and callous and do not care about people. Can I deal with that second point? It is utterly, utterly wrong. As Justice Secretary, I worked very hard to make sure that the Nationality and Borders Act could make its way through this House, and I yield to nobody in my determination to make sure that those who seek to exploit others and to profit on the back of people who are vulnerable, and who are clearly not asylum seekers but economic migrants, must be dealt with. I think this party should make no apology for wanting to make sure that that issue is addressed fair and square. That is what the people who put us here expect us to do, and that is what our constituents want us to do.

What our constituents are fed up about is the seeming inability of the system to enforce the laws we pass in this place, to get on with the job of lawful deportation and to make sure that people who overstay their visas do not stay here. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, the main cause of unlawful migration is the overstaying of visas. That is not to minimise the small boats issue, but it is to put it into context. The small boats crisis, as we describe it, is actually the product of the successful approach we took to the control of lorries and the appalling incidents we saw in which many people lost their lives as a result of suffocation and other horrors. As a result, we plugged that loophole, and I am pretty sure that if we succeed in plugging this loophole, another one will emerge.

From all the evidence I know from asylum seekers I speak to in my constituency, and I do so regularly, this is a price-driven market. It is simply cheaper to come in on small boats than it is to come here by other means at the moment, and herein lies the source of the problem. The Government are seeking once again to use law where I believe it is primarily operations that matter more than anything, particularly the ability of this country to strike sensible agreements—not just with France, but with other members of the European Union—to have a managed system of return. Frankly, a quota system would make eminent sense in dealing with what is an international problem. We came together on Ukraine. Why on earth can we not come together on this?

That would make sense of clause 51, and the Government’s wish to have a debate in this House on a cap or a quota. I think that is a sensible measure, but it will only work if we extend safe routes of passage in a controlled and measured way. We have to do more on safe and legal routes. In fact, doing that would strengthen the Government’s case against those people who are choosing small boats. It is as plain as a pikestaff to me. However, that must happen in tandem with this legislation. It is no good passing this legislation unless we do those other operational things.

To deal with a particular clause, perhaps not in Second Reading tradition, I have great concern about clause 3 on the detention of children. I note that this is a power, not a duty. When powers are put into Bills, it is usually because policy makers have not actually decided what to do and whether to use them. It is a holding mechanism in order for the Government to make a decision. My strong suggestion to them, when we come to amend the Bill, is to ditch that clause and look carefully at the way we deal with unaccompanied children, families and women. There is nothing worse than ineffective authoritarianism and that is the danger of such provisions.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the Government were to look at proposed new section 8AA(4)(b) in clause 29, and particularly the phrase “compelling” evidence, and to bring forward criteria that defined compelling evidence, that might reassure a number of us on the Conservative Benches that the Bill would not prevent illegal sex trafficked young women from seeking provision and protection under the Modern Slavery Act 2015?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right. It is going to be vital that there is clear guidance. We have been here before. When it comes to modern day slavery, there has been a question about the interpretation of guidance. I know it is a vexed question for the Government, that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is assiduous in these matters and that he will want to get it right, but we will have an opportunity in Committee and on Report to do so. The Bill as presented is not yet in the state that it needs to be in if it is to have the effect that I think the Government want it to have.

On the interaction between the Bill and the European convention on human rights, I hope that the Bill is not being used as some sort of battering ram to make a wider political point about the validity of the European convention. The European convention is not the problem in this case and those who think it is are setting up a massive Aunt Sally when it comes to the actual issues. Whether we are in the convention or not, domestic law, our rule of law tradition and the procedures we have under various immigration Acts—some of which I was involved in passing through this House—will inevitably impose principles of natural justice on any process. The idea that, through a blanket approach, we will engineer a battle with the courts and a battle with the European convention is misconceived and a journey on which I urge the Government not to embark.

There is no need to talk about withdrawal from the convention that British Conservatives wrote. What we need to focus on relentlessly, in dealing in a grown-up and mature way with a serious situation such as this, is ensuring that, internationally, our reputation as reasonable actors and people with whom other countries can do business, and as a place where people will want to invest, is enhanced by our approach to these issues. That is why the tone of this debate is so important. I am concerned that, in some of the utterances I hear from my party, that tone is not appropriate. We have to do better. We have to rise to the level of events. We have to get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I echo the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) in saying that we need some calm and seriousness in this debate. Tone is important, even if it has sometimes been lacking. In that spirit, we should observe that it is not unlawful or illegitimate, when faced with novel developments in the means of unlawful entry into the United Kingdom, to test the legal position. That is what the Bill does, and no more at this stage. It is legitimate to do that.

I support the international convention on refugees, but we have to recognise that it was conceived in 1951, at a time when people were smuggled across borders, and there was perhaps a little bribery of local officials or some altruistic assistance for people to get over borders. That was before the time of organised criminality exploiting vulnerable people. We have to reflect the reality of that change in circumstance. The Government are entitled to look at how that might best be done. That is a case for judicial dialogue in Strasbourg, and for renegotiating some of the international treaties.

That said, some of us are able to support the Bill only because of the safeguards written into it, such as habeas corpus.

[Stephen Hammond]

Does my hon. Friend accept that a number of Conservative Members support the Bill tonight on the basis that when it gets to Committee and Report stage, the Government will confirm in more detail the legal basis of the statement that it complies with our international obligations?

[Sir Robert Neill]

I have great faith in the legal input of the Attorney General and the advice of senior Treasury counsel on the Bill. My hon. Friend is right about that. Some of us will look to improve the protections for children and families and some of the tests, such as the suspensive serious harm test and the compelling circumstances under new subsection (4)(b) in clause 29. Were it not for things such as that, it would be very difficult to support the Bill, but they are in there and we need to build on them.

I want to make it clear that legislation itself is not a solution. Left on its own, the Bill will not achieve anything, and nor will any other Bill. The real need is to operationalise the situation and to improve the lamentable performance of our asylum and immigration systems over a number of years. It is ludicrous that immigration tribunals sit empty and that fee-paid, part-time immigration judges who are used to surge capacity sit unused because the Home Office is unable to get the files in order to present before the tribunal. If it cannot get the cases through the system efficiently and accurately, the Bill will fail.

A kind of isolationist unilateralism will not solve an international problem. Many of us think that the Prime Minister’s work on Friday will be every bit as important as any piece of legislation in finding a way forward to what I hope will be a new agreement with France on security and a movement to a proper returns policy. We need a returns policy with friendly and safe countries to make the Bill work. The Prime Minister has the seriousness and the tone to achieve that.

Finally, we must ensure that we swiftly undertake a sensible approach to the international position to ensure that our reputation continues to be upheld. The rule of law matters domestically and internationally. That does not mean that we turn a blind eye to organised criminality abusing our hospitality—that is a real concern to my constituents. That is why it is important that we move forward, but the idea that any piece of legislation alone will do that, without serious operational changes and the resource to go behind them, is misleading.

Ukraine Refugee Visas

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Certainly, where there are specific issues, we will look to prioritise a case. We make the point that people do not need to wait in Ukraine for a decision: they are welcome to move or to apply from safe third countries. As was touched on in the previous urgent question, the actual challenge for many people will be getting from where they are in Ukraine to a safe neighbouring country, not least given some of the war crimes that are being committed by Russian forces against civilians, to which those travelling are vulnerable. We will prioritise where appropriate, and, certainly, if there are particular instances of where that needs to be done, I am happy to hear them.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

May I say to my hon. Friend that from my experience, I support the comments of my right hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne)? I welcome the progress that the Government are making, but may I say to him that I had a constituent in Poland at the weekend trying to help, and that, on the frontline, access to visas and applications is still far too difficult? What more can the Government do to simplify the process so that we can help these migrants from Putin’s violence?

[Kevin Foster]

We have certainly provided support, and we have a support hub out in Poland. We have also simplified the form quite significantly since the launch of the Ukraine family scheme, removing a number of parts that did not require basic security and safeguarding checks. Working with our colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, we are keen to look at what further support we can provide not only to those who are applying to our two visa schemes, but, for example, to the relatively small number of surrogate babies that will be born British in Ukraine. We will look at what support we can have available once people have crossed the border into Poland.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

I was commenting on the application of that in the context of why we have reached this decision in the UK today; that was my criticism. But I will not focus my comments on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, because we are here to talk about the terror organisation Hamas.

Comments have been made today about the targeting of British nationals and the threat to Brits, and we saw with the murder of Eli Kay this weekend how attacks from Hamas are targeted indiscriminately not just at Israelis but Brits in the country. I myself have spent time in Israel in bomb shelters as rockets have rained over from Gaza; it is not a pleasant experience, but Israelis are at least to a great degree protected from that.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

I have been listening carefully to the debate and this is an extremely complex issue, but does my hon. Friend agree that, in essence, those who incite terror are as culpable as those who implement terror, and that is really what we are discussing this afternoon?

[Andrew Percy]

rose—

Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The right hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that those scenes were distressing and upsetting. There is no question about that at all, and I have already spoken about the measures that are now in place for getting assurance about the way in which the Metropolitan police conducted its operations. It is rightly operationally independent, and the independent lessons learned review is obviously now taking place.

I had been in touch with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on Friday and throughout the weekend, and we have had extensive discussions on planning and preparation for the vigil. I should, however, emphasise that on Friday there was legal action under way, so until that legal action had been determined—and of course the commissioner and the Met police themselves were engaging with the organisers of the vigil—there were various plans that the police were working on. I will be very clear, though: on Friday my views were known, and they were based on the fact that people obviously wanted to pay tribute within the locality.

We need to bear in mind that we are in a pandemic—we cannot forget that; we are in a health pandemic—but for people who live locally and out on a daily basis or passing through, laying flowers is absolutely the right thing to do, and we saw many people doing that. Of course, as I have said, those scenes on Saturday evening were upsetting. That is the reason why I asked the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to provide a report on the event itself and what happened, and now why we have a lessons learned review into the operational effect and the impact of what happened.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]]

Like colleagues across the House, my condolences are with Sarah Everard’s family and friends.

All women should feel safe, and no offender should think they can abuse women on the streets or anywhere else. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that all reports of allegations of abuse must be seriously and more rigorously investigated, and that there must be confidence in the justice system that it will do this and that it will support victims? Will she confirm that she intends that there will be such confidence in the justice system after the consultation on the violence against women and girls strategy?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 1
Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]]

This is an extremely wide-ranging Bill. I have raised in the House a number of times the reform of rehabilitation. This Bill will give the courts powers to give alternatives to custody for youth offenders, by piloting changes to youth rehabilitation orders. For adult offenders, a “problem-solving court approach” will be piloted for certain community and suspended sentences. This aims to ensure that there is more tailored, intensive and structured support to rehabilitate offenders in the community. Employment opportunities for reformed offenders will also be improved by the Bill.

The Bill outlines several measures that will allow the courts to return to normal as soon as possible and cut into the backlog. Virtual juries were trialled with huge success on four occasions last year by the international fair trials organisation Justice, most notably in Wimbledon. “Wimbledon juries”, as they should perhaps become known, were subject to research and authentication by the University of Oxford, and the trials proved that they were, in many ways, as effective in executing their responsibilities as juries in courtrooms. They can be inexpensive and can return juries to their historic origins, based in communities.

The Bill also makes changes to police powers over protests. I have been looking carefully at those parts of the Bill, and I know that they will be examined in greater detail in Committee. However, it is clear, especially with the background of current covid legislation, that those who enforce this legislation need to be clear as to its framework.

The language of clause 59(2) is central. The language of “distress” and “loss of amenity” is familiar to the courts, but “serious annoyance” and “serious inconvenience” are unfamiliar to the courts. I know that “annoyance” has been used in public order Acts in Ireland, I think in Austria and perhaps elsewhere, but I would welcome a very clear definition here. We need to help our police decide what these words mean, and we need to let those that they will cover know what they mean. Similarly, “noise” from a protest that could

“result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation”

needs to be more clearly defined so that it does not catch the sort of chanting that one would normally expect at a protest.

Finally, I welcome that the Home Secretary has instructed Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to investigate the policing at the Clapham vigil. I welcome confirmation from her that there are aspects to be investigated and that she intends the extended consultation to ensure that the justice system provides confidence for the victims. Therefore, one should look at this Bill in the whole and it should be supported.

Fire Safety Bill

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]]

I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 4 and the amendments tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench. I also express my support for what is colloquially coined the McPartland-Smith amendment. The common thread is to urge the Government to ensure that freeholders do not unjustly pass fire safety remediation costs on to leaseholders and residents. Too many of my constituents are living in dangerous homes, facing huge financial and legal liabilities for remediation of building safety defects not of their making. Too many are suffering anxiety and stress from living in blocks with ACM and other types of cladding, whether in New Providence Wharf, New Festival Quarter or Indescon Square, to name just a few. Residents have contacted me in despair, devastated that they have been hit with huge bills for work to make their buildings fire safe. They have described the nightmarish situation they are in, living in unsafe homes that they cannot sell, with no idea when they will be made safe. Meanwhile, developers such as Bellway and Ballymore have continued to make huge profits, thanks to Government inaction, privatisation, and deregulation of the housing sector.

The cladding scandal must end. How is it possible that so many residents are still living in blocks that are unsafe? This is the reality of what so many people are enduring on a day-to-day basis, trapped in a never-ending game of buck-passing between the Government and the developers. No one wants to take responsibility; no one wants to pay to resolve the situation; and each looks to the other to step up. However, what is clear and indisputable is that people in my constituency and all over the country bought homes in good faith to build their lives in. I urge the Government today to rethink their approach and finally do the right thing by people who are having a really difficult time, and support amendments to the Bill.

I also express support for Lords amendment 2, which would place robust requirements on building owners or managers, and implement recommendations from phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. We need to be sure that the Grenfell Tower fire never, ever happens again. Years have passed since the catastrophe, and still no one has been called to account. When will we ever get answers? When will victims ever get justice? The truth is that decisions stretching back years have led to the gutting of the UK’s fire safety regime, and the failure to regulate high-rise residential buildings properly for fire safety.

I conclude with this: our constituents and our communities need much more decisive action than we are getting from this Government. It is absolutely not fair that leaseholders or residents are left to pay for building safety works that have not arisen because of any fault on their part, and it is unacceptable that people continue to live in their current state of limbo in unsafe buildings. I plead with the Minister today to end this impasse, and finally do the right thing.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]]

I am pleased to make a small, short contribution to this afternoon’s debate and, like so many others, wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) all the best.

For many in Wimbledon, the dream of home ownership —the aspiration to have a home—has gone from a dream to a nightmare because of these cladding and safety problems. I listened carefully to the Minister, and he is right: it is our duty to protect and provide legal certainty to leaseholders who are facing these issues through no fault of their own. As such, I warmly recognise and welcome the efforts of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Housing Minister, who have provided an extra £3.5 billion to make a total of £5 billion. I also recognise that this is for cladding, and that a number of other remedies will be required. On that basis, the principle must be that the defector must pay.

The Government have rightly said on a number of occasions that the costs must not fall on the leaseholder, and, in making the extra contribution to the fund, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was taking a risk-based approach. The approach for people living in buildings under 18 metres is supposedly similar. We are told there is going to be new guidance that will ensure that risk-based approach will happen, so that many buildings under 18 metres will not necessarily be within the scope of remediation, and that no one will pay more than £50 even if they are. However, we have no details. We have no guarantees that the banks and the insurers will respect these new assessments, and provide mortgages and decrease insurance costs. We have no guarantee that when the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors produces this guidance it will take precedence, and that the EWS1 forms will be produced.

The Government have said that the details of these schemes will be available shortly. However, until they are available, there is no certainty for leaseholders in blocks under 18 metres, and, as has already been said, they may become liable for costs earlier than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) has already pointed out that this is not an unlimited ask of the Government; it is a specific ask, saying that those who caused the defects should pay.

I listened carefully to the Minister, and I will listen again, but I say to him that the Government could have provided some certainty today by agreeing to bring forward an amendment in the Building Safety Bill, or indeed an amendment that would have given a clear hint in this Bill. Until that happens, unfortunately, lease- holders in buildings under 18 metres will have no certainty, and they deserve it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right—and yes, the Government are more than supportive of police plans to increase the number of PCSOs and their presence across towns and villages, in her constituency in Sussex and across the country. This is all about how, through our new police recruitment drive, we can do more to keep the public safe and increase police visibility.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Ind)]

16. I am delighted to hear about the increase in the numbers of police in Sussex, but will the Home Secretary also reassure me that the London Borough of Merton will see an increase in its officers? Will she support my campaign to keep the police station in Wimbledon open, so that those police officers have somewhere to operate out of?

Policing

Stephen Hammond Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. It is fair to say that there are mixed views across Scotland about the benefits of merging all the forces into one, and time will tell. However, I thank him for his welcome for the additional £50 million for counter-terrorism policing.

The hon. Gentleman talks about a flat-cash settlement. It is no such thing; we are talking about an increase of £450 million in investment and, at the local police level, a move, effectively, from flat cash to flat real.

The hon. Gentleman talks about cuts. Again, he is allowed his own opinions, but he is not allowed his own version of the facts. Overall, public investment in policing will grow from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion next year if these proposals are accepted by the House. That is not a cut in my language.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

As a London MP, may I start by paying tribute to the officers who do an extraordinary job of keeping us safe in London?

The Minister will know that, since 2015, the Met has received £2.5 billion of direct funding. There is more funding for London in today’s settlement, there is the opportunity to raise £43 million and there is an extra £50 million going into counter-terrorism. Does the Minister agree that it is time the Mayor started playing his part by protecting frontline numbers at police stations?