Border Management (Calais)

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on management of the border in Calais.

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

Industrial action by striking French workers yesterday caused significant disruption at the ports of Calais and Coquelles in northern France. This action resulted from a dispute between local trade unions and the owners of the French ferry operator, MyFerryLink. As a result of this disruptive strike, the port of Calais was shut for a period of more than 13 hours and train departures were suspended at the channel tunnel rail port of Coquelles. Sadly, the strikers damaged SNCF railway tracks outside the tunnel, which led to the cancellation of all Eurostar services until 6 o’clock this morning. More generally, the disruption caused backlogs of traffic in the Calais area that presented existing migrants around the town with opportunities to attempt to enter slow-moving lorries.

The French and UK Governments were well prepared for this event and tried and tested contingency plans were quickly put in place. Despite the extra pressure caused by the French strikers, Border Force maintained border security by following plans to put additional staff in place to search freight vehicles passing through the affected ports during the industrial action and thereafter. All freight vehicles passing through the Calais ports undergo searching by both the French authorities and the UK’s Border Force before boarding a ferry or train. During the course of yesterday’s disruption and since, Border Force and the French authorities have successfully identified and intercepted a significant number of would-be migrants.

Last night, I spoke with the French Interior Minister, Bernard Cazeneuve. He was as grateful as I was for the strong co-operation between UK and French authorities during yesterday’s incident, and I thanked him for the French police’s efforts to maintain law and order in the Calais area. Our two Governments have been working closely and constructively in recent months to bolster security at the juxtaposed border at Calais and other French ports. Last September, Her Majesty’s Government committed £12 million to that work. This has led to the installation of fencing around the port of Calais and the approach road and improvements to the layout of the port to speed up flows of traffic and create secure buffer zones for heavy goods vehicles. This is in addition to £3 million spent on the provision of new scanners and detection technology to assist with the searching of freight vehicles and additional dog searching undertaken by contractors. At the port of Coquelles, we have already provided significant investment in upgrading perimeter security and freight-screening technology. We will continue to work with Eurotunnel and the French authorities on installing additional security measures at the site to prevent migrants from making incursions into the port.

More broadly, the ongoing situation in Calais serves as an important reminder of why EU member states need to work together to tackle the causes of illegal immigration in source and transit countries. We are already co-operating closely with the French to tackle the organised criminal gangs that facilitate the movement of migrants into and across Europe. UK and French law enforcement organisations have already had considerable success in dismantling criminal networks behind people trafficking and smuggling on both sides of the channel, resulting in the prosecution of 223 individuals, and Monsieur Cazeneuve and I have agreed to build on this important work. As the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly made clear, the most important step to resolving the situation in the Mediterranean is breaking the link between migrants making this dangerous journey and achieving settlement in Europe.

Traffic on both sides of the channel is moving again. There will, however, continue to be a significant border security operation as the backlogs of traffic are cleared at the affected ports. The inconvenience caused by the French strikers to the travelling public and lorry drivers is deeply regrettable. Though yesterday’s incident was caused by events that were beyond the control of Her Majesty’s Government, our law enforcement organisations reacted to the events extremely well. I am sure the House will want to join me in commending the excellent work done by Border Force, Kent police and others on both sides of the channel who have worked tirelessly to maintain border security and minimise disruption to the travelling public. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Hanson]

As the Home Secretary rightly says, the situation in Calais has been caused by a wider humanitarian issue across the whole of the Mediterranean and north Africa, which is in turn caused by hunger, civil war, political instability and the movement of people across the Mediterranean. Alongside the strike and the problems in Calais last night, the situation there has been causing problems for some time, as I saw on a visit in November last year, and it remains a real challenge.

Will the Home Secretary tell us what steps she is taking, following her discussions with the French Interior Minister, to ensure that the French Government assess, process, identify and take action on those at Calais? She has rightly said that they are the victims of people traffickers, but they are also in France and the responsibility of the French Government. Will she resist the calls from some quarters in France to end the UK Border Force presence at Calais, given that it is extremely important in maintaining the integrity of our border?

Will the Home Secretary tell us whether, at the European summit this weekend, the Prime Minister intends to raise the points he made at Prime Minister’s questions about the situation in Italy and southern Europe? As he and the Home Secretary have said, that situation plays a key role in determining the intentions of the people who come to Calais. Will the right hon. Lady also tell us what proportion of the £12 million that she and the Prime Minister have mentioned has been spent to date? She will recall that the £12 million relates to a three-year programme, and we are now in year one. I would like her to stop talking about the £12 million and tell us what has been spent to date, and whether further resources are required to meet the challenges.

Will the Home Secretary and the Transport Secretary advise hauliers, train operators and the public on the assessments that they should be making, and on whether compensation claims could be made in the light of yesterday’s incident? Will she also ask the Transport Secretary to make an assessment in due course of whether Operation Stack operated as an effective response yesterday in southern England?

The Home Secretary has announced a new taskforce today. Will she tell the House more about its remit and resources, and explain how she would measure any success that it might achieve? Will she also make a further commitment to tackle the scourge of people trafficking through working with our European partners and their police forces? I would like her to make a commitment to report regularly to the House on the success of the taskforce in achieving its objectives.

This is a humanitarian crisis and the Home Secretary will have the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition in dealing with it. It is important that we do so not only on behalf of those victims of the crisis, but for the integrity of our borders. The French need to take further action to ensure that they support us in both of those objectives.

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman’s questions raise a number of issues. He referred to the fact that he visited Calais last year. Indeed, at the time he said of the problems of migrants building up at Calais:

“This is not new—we saw problems over ten years ago.”

That is precisely why the previous Labour Government worked with the then French Government to introduce the juxtaposed controls. The Le Touquet agreement was important and I reassure him that we certainly intend to do everything we can to maintain those juxtaposed controls. They are an important part of our border security and we will continue to work with the French authorities, as previous Governments have done, to ensure that they are maintained and operate well.

On the issue of processing people, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in Prime Minister’s questions when asked about it by the acting Leader of the Opposition, there is a challenge to the Italian authorities. People are due to be processed and fingerprinted when they first arrive on European shores, and for the majority of those people that means Italy. My French opposite number and I have been working with the Italian Government and, indeed, other European member states to encourage Italy to do exactly that. The European Council will be looking at the question of Mediterranean migration, as did the Justice and Home Affairs Council that I attended in Luxembourg last week. One of the key messages the United Kingdom has been giving consistently—and others support it—is that the best means of dealing with the issue is to break the link. This is about ensuring that people see that if they make this dangerous journey, they are not going to achieve settlement in Europe.

We need to work to break the organised criminal gangs and the people traffickers. The new taskforce is bringing together people from the National Crime Agency, Border Force, immigration enforcement and the Crown Prosecution Service. Some of them will be based overseas and some in the UK. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that they will be working not just among those British agencies, but with the French authorities and others, to ensure that there is better intelligence and a better understanding of where the gangs are and what the routes are, so that we can take appropriate action against them. I absolutely agree with that. It was this party, as part of the coalition Government, that introduced the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which makes it easier for law enforcement to deal with human traffickers. Obviously, that is important legislation.

My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister has had a number of meetings and conversations with representatives of road hauliers about the security aspects. We believe that, overall, Operation Stack worked well. The process has been in place for some time, but the Department for Transport will continue to look at it and about half of the £12 million has already been spent.

Clandestine Migrants (Harwich)

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has approached this issue. I know of the direct stance he has taken in visiting the port and ensuring that he represents his constituents effectively. He makes a powerful point about the pitiful sight of those discovered in these four lorries and about how those seeking to exploit migrants really have no care or consideration—even at times as to whether these people will live or die. That is the callous and harsh reality of the organised crime groups to which we are responding. That is also why it is right that we have enforcement activity both in this country, leveraging with the work of the National Crime Agency, and with other European partners.

My hon. Friend highlights his concerns about the immediate aftermath of the detection, and this has certainly been a very significant detection of illicit migrants, although we have worked hard across the whole of the juxtaposed and other port controls, with just over 39,000 detections being made last year. That shows the vigilance and hard work of Border Force—both in country and elsewhere.

My hon. Friend highlights the need to work internationally, which is certainly what we are doing with the Dutch and others, and asks why people are claiming asylum here rather than in other countries. I would point to the fact that, last year, there were 200,000 asylum claims in Germany—much more than the approximately 30,000 we saw in this country—and 81,000 in Sweden and 63,000 in France. A large majority of asylum claimants are thus going to other European countries rather than here. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend on the work that Border Force is undertaking and the work we will continue to do to secure our border, using technology and flexibly deploying our resources in respect of intelligence where we need it, and ensuring that we are doing all we can to secure our border.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

First, may I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for raising this important issue here today? It remains one of the most serious humanitarian issues facing not just this Government but Europe as a whole. We must ensure that we maintain, as the Minister wants to do, the integrity of our borders. The people found at Harwich this weekend are as much victims of criminal gangs as those found on boats in the Mediterranean, or indeed at the border in Calais. As the Minister has said, we need concerted UK and EU action to ensure we stop this trade in human beings at source.

We on this side of the House warned in October that the removal of Operation Triton would lead to further pressure on European borders, and the lack of effective action taken in Calais by the French authorities and their failure to identify and to remove correctly those at the French border is leading to attempts at other borders, including those in Holland. The measures taken earlier this year by the Government and European Governments are welcome, and I also pay tribute to the armed forces for their help in the Mediterranean, but some questions remain.

First, will the Minister outline in detail what steps he is taking with our European partners and Europol to establish where the people traffickers are operating from, to follow the money raised by payment to these individuals back to source, and to establish further intelligence-led operations to close down this business? How many prosecutions of people traffickers have taken place in the past 12 months both in the UK and internationally? Will he now arrange an urgent meeting of the EU police forces and Ministers to look at this issue again, and to track, identify and prosecute those involved in this trade? Might we look particularly at the issues of north Africa and the middle east, and the Governments and regimes there, to help stop this trade at source?

Like the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, I briefly want to look at what we are doing in the UK. We need to intensify the checks on vehicles, particularly lorries at UK ports of entry. Can the Minister confirm what percentage of lorries and containers are routinely checked at UK ports of entry, and say whether the figure of 6% for Harwich is accurate? Can he confirm whether the statement of the former inspector of borders, John Vine, at the weekend that

“good intelligence and experienced staff were critical, but a lot of experienced staff were leaving and not being replaced”

is true?

Can the Minister confirm whether Border Force funding is ring-fenced from the £30 million Home Office cut announced by the Chancellor last week? A further reduction in funding, even in these hard times, will put pressure on Border Force staff. Will he indicate, if not now then in writing in the Library of the House, how many staff were in post in May 2010 and how many staff are in post now? Does he accept that the pressures on Calais and the work done is Calais are now displacing people to other ports, as we warned last year? Will he look at the issue of the Dublin convention to make sure arrangements are put in place so that those whose first port of entry is not in the UK are dealt with elsewhere?

Finally, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex has asked, will the Minister indicate what steps he is taking to work with the Government of Holland in particular, but also those in Belgium, Spain and Ireland who have direct sea routes to the UK, to put in place stronger mechanisms, as we have in France, to stop the traffickers in mainland Europe?

This is a criminal trade, and the people at Harwich are victims. We need to make sure that the UK Government work hand in hand with our European partners because we need, collectively with the support of the Opposition, to close down this vile trade.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman has asked a series of questions. I may not be able to answer all of them in the time available, but I welcome his constructive approach.

The right hon. Gentleman highlights the need to work jointly with other European countries, and I agree. That is why we have a dedicated UK taskforce in Dover which provides real-time intelligence and investigation response to all operations. For example with links to France and Belgium, 32 live investigations and 22 organised crime groups have already been disrupted since February 2014, and the total custodial sentences to date is 148 years. I hope that answers his question about the body of work.

The right hon. Gentleman highlights the work that we have rightly undertaken in Calais with the French authorities—the £12 million joint investment with the French Government to strengthen security at that port. That is on top of additional investment in screening and other detection equipment, which underlines our strong, practical response.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the number of Border Force officers—there are around 8,000. They are deployed flexibly, by which I mean that it is dependent on the intelligence that we see for a particular port at any one time. Therefore, it is not appropriate to give the breakdown or percentages that he seeks, but we rightly take a responsive stance to deal with such issues.

The right hon. Gentleman also highlighted the need to ensure adherence to the Dublin regulations that allow us to return people who may have been able to claim asylum in other countries. We take that responsibility seriously and we continue to press other European countries in that regard.

One of the key things is to ensure that those who arrive in the European Union are properly fingerprinted and that we identify those who come to our shores. More work needs to be done on that and we will continue to press other European countries to fulfil their responsibilities.

Devolution and Growth across Britain

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I will give way in a moment.

As a one nation Government, we will revise the Commons rules to make the law-making process fair, bringing about constitutional reform that serves people living in all parts of the United Kingdom. The introduction of English votes for English laws will do just that for England. Our proposals will balance the principle of English consent for English measures with the process of MPs from all parts of the UK continuing to deliberate and vote together.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State define what he means by an English-only matter, because I represent a seat in Wales that uses hospital services in England, transport in England—[Interruption.] No, it is because of geography. It uses employment in England, airports in Manchester, and it has people employed at Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port. These are big issues. Will he tell me why I cannot speak or vote on them?

[Sajid Javid]

The right hon. Gentleman should be reassured that he will still be able to speak out on behalf of his constituents on any issue he wishes to speak upon.

I am the MP for Bromsgrove; I was born in Rochdale; I was raised in Bristol; and I went to university in Exeter. I barely set a foot in London until my early twenties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Gower (Byron Davies) for their maiden speeches. They were confident, and they will play a full part in this House in due course. I also very much welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who made a very strong maiden speech and supported the position that I would take on the steel industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), in particular, has made a confident start in this Chamber.

I have fought seven elections in my constituency and have now been returned for the sixth time, so I pay tribute to my constituents for their continuing support in what was a Conservative seat but is now—and has been for six elections—a Labour seat. That is important, because I love this place. I love its traditions, its work, its ability to hold the Government to account and the fact that we can change people’s lives and make a difference. I am worried, however, that one particular aspect of the Gracious Speech—the proposal for English votes for English laws—will change the nature of the House of Commons dramatically. It will change it for our colleagues from Scotland—where, with 56 of the 59 MPs, the Scottish National party has, I admit, won a mandate—but it will also change the nature of the mandate we hold in this House as a whole. We will now have to have pre-qualification to speak on issues that matter to our constituents, including those in Scotland.

It does not matter whether I have a majority of 27, like the hon. Member for Gower, or of 34,000, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). Before I speak in this Chamber, nobody asks me what my majority is, how long I have served, which region of the United Kingdom I come from or whether I have been a Minister—which I have been—or whether I have been or want to be a Committee Chair or something else in the House. What gives me validity to speak in this House is the votes of people in north Wales and your calling me from the Chair, Mr Speaker. This Gracious Speech will change that situation dramatically.

This matters to me because I represent a constituency in north-east Wales. If the tide is out in my constituency, I am able to walk to England and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). That is how close we are. Constituents of mine work at Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port and receive business support grants from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I have constituents who were born in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Chris Matheson), whom I am very pleased to see in his place. My constituents use rail services in Crewe, where HS2 is extremely important, and work in the fire service, the health service and as teachers in England. However, under the proposals, the Government will decide, in a committee, through a change of Standing Orders—not even through legislation—whether I, as a Welsh MP, will be able to contribute on those issues that matter to my constituents. That is important because I feel strongly about a range of issues.

[Ian C. Lucas]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Yesterday I heard that the main road from Chester to my constituency of Wrexham will be closed for 55 hours this weekend. Will the Government’s proposals prevent me from holding to account Transport Ministers for that decision?

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I want clarity from the Government about what English votes for English laws means, because, in a border constituency such as mine, things that happen in England matter to my constituents. They work there, use services there and travel there, and their constituency is part of the United Kingdom Parliament. What happens in—dare I say it?—Scotland matters considerably to my constituency. The current funding settlement for local government in England, as well as spending on culture and transport there, matters to my constituents in Wales, because we have the Barnett formula. Yet, because of English votes for English laws, I might not be able to participate fully, as an equal Member of this House, in certain debates. That is important.

There are real problems and challenges. Devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own mandates. I understand the need to ensure that people in England cannot have a say on some of those issues, but I ask the Government to consider our election proposal for a constitutional convention to narrow down the issues and to get consensus and focus. The real concern is that, from the Conservative and Unionist party, we are driving our way forward to an increased nationalist, independent, inward-looking agenda. What would have happened to the many Members of Parliament representing constituencies in Wales or in Scotland who have served as leaders of their parties, and who in the past have led the United Kingdom and have sat in the Cabinet as Prime Ministers—for example, James Callaghan in Cardiff South East, Lloyd George in Carnarvon, Andrew Bonar Law in Glasgow Central, Gordon Brown in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, or Winston Churchill in Dundee? Are the Government saying those that Members of Parliament, elected on equal terms to every Member in this Chamber today, cannot contribute as Prime Minister in this Chamber on such issues—because they represent constituencies in Scotland or Wales, for instance, they could not answer questions on the health service in England?

This is about driving forward an agenda to divide, not to build public services. I say to the Government: please think this through, and please look at the definition of these issues, because they matter. Currently, all Members of this Parliament speak as equal Members, regardless of majority, region, experience and whatever they bring to this House. If this Government plan goes forward, we will not speak as equal Members. If the SNP wishes not to take part in debates, it is part of its democratic mandate not to do so, but if its Members are forced not to take part, this Conservative and Unionist party will be pushing Scotland—and Wales—to further independence, and it will do so over my vote and over my voice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a point about Commonwealth citizens, many of whom have come to the United Kingdom and contributed greatly. We are clear that we want to tighten the rules on people coming from inside the European Union, particularly in relation to the ability to claim benefits, which I believe will have an impact on the number of people coming here, but in order to do that we need a Conservative Government to be elected on 7 May.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Could the Home Secretary bring herself to say the words, “Net migration is 54,000 higher than when Labour left office”? Could she stand at the Dispatch Box and say that today—not tens of thousands, as she promised—and could she say to the House with no ifs and no buts that she has broken her promise made at the election?

Modern Slavery Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I want to understand what is happening with the visa and to ensure that we do not import abuse. The fact is that we need to find the evidence and we need to understand the problem. That is why we have instigated the review and why we are taking the steps that we are taking today.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Minister has just indicated to the House that the person who will look at this issue was the adviser to the Modern Slavery Bill pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. As she will know, that Committee advised the Government to accept the changes that are being proposed today.

[Karen Bradley]

The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian, but he knows that there were problems with that visa prior to 2012. We need to root out those problems. We need to find a solution, but the way to do that is not to return to the system under which the abuse occurred. The answer is to find out how to stop the abuse in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

I ask the House to focus today on the issue at the heart of the Bill: the protection of victims. I ask the House to pass this substantial additional support for overseas domestic workers who are victims of modern slavery and get the message out to overseas domestic workers that they can now come forward with even greater confidence if they suffer abuse. I am determined to work with NGOs, the Churches, the national referral mechanism and first responders to get that message out there. We will ensure that employers are aware that they could face life imprisonment if they abuse their staff.

[Mr Hanson]

I welcome this debate, which is the latest in a number of debates we have had on this issue. As the Minister knows, there have been long and detailed discussions in Committee, in the House of Lords and again today. Despite her valiant attempts today to convince the House of the Government’s position, she has not yet managed to convince those who work with the victims of overseas domestic worker abuse. She has not convinced the charity Kalayaan, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Anti-Slavery International, Liberty, Unite the union or the House of Lords, and she has not convinced me, my newly right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)—congratulations to her—or my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), whom I am pleased to see in his place.

[Karen Bradley]

The right hon. Gentleman fails to mention that I have managed to convince the Equality and Human Rights Commission. [Interruption.] It has said that it supports the Government’s position and recommends that our amendment should be accepted.

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I should congratulate the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on her elevation to the Privy Council, despite her use of the word “shocking” three times in succession just now. She has been so elevated and is now a celebrated denizen of the House.

[Mr Hanson]

I wish to speak in support of Lords amendment 72 and try once again, alongside my right hon. and hon. Friends, to convince the Government that it would be in the best interests of overseas domestic workers. Today we revisit the regulations on overseas domestic workers that the Government changed in April 2012. Although the intention behind that change can be debated, I think that even the Minister would accept that the consequences have been dire. Domestic workers who come here from overseas are now tied to an employer, which in practice means that those who suffer abuse will immediately lose their right to reside in the UK if they escape the situation and seek help away from their employer. I believe that that disincentivises them from seeking help from the authorities in the first place because they fear being deported, and that allows abuse to become widespread and perpetrators to carry on uncontested.

The charity Kalayaan has done a great deal of detailed work to support overseas domestic workers, and the Minister knows of the statistics it has collated. It found that, of the workers who contacted it, 62% of the domestic workers who came on a tied visa were paid no salary at all, compared with 14% on the original visa, 96% were not allowed out of the house unsupervised and 74% faced psychological abuse. Those statistics are a small snapshot of what is a deeply difficult experience for too many overseas domestic workers in the United Kingdom.

If it was only Kalayaan saying that, it would be an indication from a respected charity, but the Minister knows—we have had this debate before—that a number of organisations have been considering this for some time. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has echoed the call for the review that Lords amendment 72 would effectively give. It states:

“We regard the removal of the right of an overseas domestic worker to change employer as a backward step in the protection of migrant domestic workers”.

The Minister and the Home Secretary produced the draft Bill and, helpfully, established the Joint Committee on the Draft Modern Slavery Bill, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, to ensure that they looked at those issues and got the Bill right. The Committee included a number of notable peers from across the House of Lords: Baroness Butler-Sloss, the Bishop of Derby, Baroness Doocey, Baroness Hanham, Baroness Kennedy of Cradley, Lord McColl of Dulwich and Lord Warner. The Members from this House were the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough and the right hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell). That cross-section of individuals looked at the matter in detail and concluded that the overseas domestic workers visa has

“unintentionally strengthened the hand of the slave master against the victim of slavery. The moral case for revisiting this issue is urgent and overwhelming”.

It called on the Government to take immediate action.

The Opposition tried to provide that immediate action in response to the Government’s lack of response to that particular aspect of the Joint Committee’s report. We tabled an amendment in Committee and had a good discussion about it. Mr Speaker, you know how difficult it is for an Opposition to get even close to winning votes upstairs in Committee. On the day in question, the result of the vote was nine-all, so it was decided by the Chair, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who voted for the status quo, in accordance with precedent. The Government hand-picked a Committee but still ended up with a nine-all draw on an issue recommended on a cross-party basis by Members of both Houses. I think that shows the strength and integrity of the issue before us today.

[Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

Surely the Joint Committee’s point about the moral case for revisiting the issue has been taken up, because that is precisely what the Government have just ordered because of the complexity of the issue and the changes they have made. Surely the tight vote to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is evidence of the fact that both sides of the House want the issue to be looked at in great detail in the review.

[Mr Hanson]

Let me reassure the right hon. Lady that we seek to support the Lords in their amendment. If the House divides on the issue later today and the Division is lost, we will certainly support the Government’s proposals to carry forward the review, because we do not wish to see that stopped. However, I think that it is important to reflect on what the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, a former Government Deputy Chief Whip, said: there are too many victims for us to say that this is a matter for another day. The Government’s proposal would put the matter off for another day. I do not think that that other day should await the outcome of the general election; we should do it now. The Government have a clear view from the Lords, given the vote that was won by Lord Hylton, an independent peer, a few weeks ago, when the Government were defeated.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

On the subject of waiting for another day, is there not a problem with Lords amendment 72? If a victim of slavery left their current employer and that employer was able to go on to abuse more victims, both that day and another day, the Lords amendment would do little to tackle that, whereas the Government’s amendment in lieu would do that, because it would prevent victims from being left for another day.

[Mr Hanson]

There is the National Crime Agency, there is legislation against abuse and, as Kalayaan has said, there is a large number of overseas domestic workers who are currently not paid a penny. If the hon. Lady found somebody who had left their employment, was able to untie their visa and move on and who could still pass on reports on the national minimum wage or other issues to the National Crime Agency, the Lords amendment would not stop that aspect being enforced. There is a national minimum wage now and it should be enforced. There is a National Crime Agency if people are undergoing abuse. The amendment would allow people to switch employers and ultimately, if they wished to do so, make a report and recommendations to a proper authority. At this point we need to get to the basics of how to untie the visa so that individuals can leave and avoid abuse.

[Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The evidence that we took in Committee was that these are very frightened and vulnerable people who will run a long way from the authorities. Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is some merit in a mechanism whereby, if they require to take advantage of the concession, they are also required to clock on, so to speak, with the law enforcement agencies?

[Mr Hanson]

I might have been able to take the right hon. Gentleman at his word, had he not joined in the recommendation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead in the Committee. When I tabled in Committee word for word what he voted for in the draft Bill, he voted against it. With due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he had his chance to put his case in Committee. We did not get this measure through the Bill Committee because he chose to vote with the Government, rather than for what he had recommended as part of the Joint Committee.

Lord Hylton said in the debate in the other place:

“There can be no doubt that domestic workers tied to one employer and living on his premises are extremely vulnerable.”

Baroness Hanham, a Conservative, said in the same debate:

“In this 21st century it is absolutely unacceptable that people are coming in to this country tied to an employer, unable to do anything for themselves and absolutely under the instruction of the person for whom they are working”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2015; Vol. 759, c. 1690-93.]

Peer after peer, MP after MP, and my right hon. and hon. Friends in their submissions to date have said that the Government’s approach is wrong-headed and that they need to rethink it urgently.

If Lords amendment 72 is defeated, we will reluctantly not oppose the Government’s amendment in lieu. We will contribute to the debate. Should I be the Minister after May, which is entirely a matter for the electorate, I will revisit the principles that we are examining in relation to Lords amendment 72. As has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the Government’s amendment gives someone who has been determined to be a victim of slavery or human trafficking through the national referral mechanism the ability to change their employer. It does not untie the visa for all. It means that overseas domestic workers would need to meet a high threshold to prove that they had been victims of modern slavery.

[Karen Bradley]

We are debating the Modern Slavery Bill, aren’t we? What we are looking at here is how we protect victims of slavery, irrespective of their visa. If we give somebody the right to come to Britain on one of these visas and then they are abused as a slave, I want to make sure that we give them the right support. That is what we are debating today and that is what I want to achieve.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful. There is no disagreement between us, but the issue for me is still the position with regard to the tied visa. I do not think that the Government’s proposal in the long term, following the review that was undertaken effectively on a cross-party basis by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, is sufficient for the purpose.

[Chloe Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman’s words belie him. Just a few sentences ago he said he wanted to unpick that visa knot for others. With the greatest respect, it is not those others that we are discussing today; it is the victims of slavery, as my hon. Friend the Minister has just said. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to do more or does he want to do what she outlined?

[Mr Hanson]

With due respect to the hon. Lady, under the Government’s proposal an individual would have to find a way to report themselves and to activate the national referral mechanism and get involved in that, at a time when they are working for an employer. The principle that I want to support is movement on untying the visa.

[Karen Bradley]

If somebody is unable to get to an authority to report themselves as a victim of slavery when there are helplines in place, and first responders, such as people in public bodies and others who are available, how does the right hon. Gentleman think they can change their employer?

[Mr Hanson]

It is important that they have the ability to do so.

I come back to my starting point. If the hon. Lady’s position is so strong, why are Kalayaan, Amnesty International, the anti-slavery organisations, Liberty, Unite the union and other organisations involved in supporting the people whom she is trying to protect saying to her today from outside the Chamber, “The Government have got this wrong.” The Government have indeed got this wrong. They need to support amendment 72 and ensure that we deal with the issue in a fair and appropriate way.

For example, let me give the Minister one quote from Amnesty International. Anybody in the House will accept that Amnesty International is a respected organisation. Amnesty said to me in an e-mail only last night:

“We are gravely concerned at the amendment now put forward by the Government. Not only does this not provide any improvement in the position of these workers, but it would place on the statute book a regime under which overseas domestic worker victims of human trafficking and slavery would be provided with less protection than other such victims within the existing National Referral Mechanism system.”

The hon. Lady says that that is not the case. I contend that if Amnesty International is criticising the Government, if the other organisations are doing so, if the House of Lords has said that the Government are wrong and if a cross-party royal commission which has looked at the Bill has said that the Government need to change their position now, the Government need to consider that.

There will be no right of appeal against a negative decision and no legal aid. Many of the people involved have limited English, are poor and vulnerable, and are being abused by rich and powerful people. The challenges are too great to place upon them. We have an opportunity today to give the House of Lords our support, to put in place this measure which will ensure that the visa is untied and that a level of protection is available. There is still the possibility of tackling issues to do with the minimum wage and other exploitation and to take both criminal action and civil enforcement action outside this Chamber through the anti-slavery commissioner and other aspects of the Bill. The hon. Lady has the chance to do that today, and I hope she will take it.

[Karen Bradley]

The right hon. Gentleman is very generous in allowing me to intervene. He hits the nail on the head when he talks about the vulnerability of the victims. We are talking about people who are in an incredibly vulnerable situation and about their chances of making a reasonable and logical decision to move to a non-abusive employer, when the risk is that they will go back to more slavery, more abuse and more servitude, and with the employer they have just escaped from being able to put somebody else into servitude. I think that that risk is too great for us to take. We need to help those people. We need to find them. I fully accept the challenges of finding victims and bringing this crime out into the open, but we are not going to do it if we brush it under the carpet and just let the victims change employers.

[Mr Hanson]

There is a disagreement between us, as ever. That is the nature of the debate that we have in the House. I support the Government in trying to tackle long-term abuse by poor employers. I support the Government in trying to drive out abuse carried out through pay and conditions. I hope the National Crime Agency, the anti-slavery commissioner and others will work hard to do that. The difference between us today is the question of the tied visa for employment. The House of Lords, the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, and the charities and organisations outside the House that are working on this issue believe that the Government should accept the Lords amendment. So do I.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I was about to commend my point of view to the House, but I cannot resist an intervention from my hon. Friend.

[Mark Durkan]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Minister has said that the employers could go on to employ someone else and subject them to abuse? Does that not expose the risk of the tied visa system? The abuse that the Minister is referring to is an abuse that stems from the tied visa. That is what we need to eradicate.

[Mr Hanson]

I am eternally grateful that I allowed my hon. Friend to intervene and I am grateful for his support in Committee when we debated this matter. He has helpfully cemented the central argument that the tied visa is a wrong-headed approach. There were challenges before April 2012; undoubtedly there will always be challenges in this type of situation. However, the tied visa exacerbates it. We have to make this change. I hope that the Government will listen, but if they do not—

[Emily Thornberry]

Governments have been talking for years about bringing in a modern slavery Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that in the last gasp of this Government, they have brought a Bill before the House that will still not address one of the most important aspects of modern slavery?

[Mr Hanson]

I remind the House that in taking the position that they have today, the Government are rejecting the cross-party recommendation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and his Committee; rejecting the discussions we had in the Modern Slavery Bill Committee that resulted in a nine-to-nine vote with the Chair casting his vote in favour of the Government; rejecting the will of another place, where a cross-party group of MPs led by Lord Hylton tabled this amendment; and rejecting the advice of every organisation involved in dealing with this issue outside this House.

That is for the Government to determine. I am simply saying that if, by the end of this debate, they do not change their mind, I will ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the House of Lords amendment and, if that is defeated, reluctantly accept the Government’s late, compromise, dragged-out proposal.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate on amendments to the Modern Slavery Bill—a critical Bill that will have far-reaching consequences for those who seek to abuse, and indeed have abused, and those who have suffered from that abuse. I was pleased to able to serve on the Committee that scrutinised the Bill, and I can honestly say that it did so in depth and very carefully. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for her commitment to this issue and her determination to get this vital piece of anti-slavery legislation on to the statute book.

I recognise that amendment 72, tabled by the noble Lord Hylton, has the very best of intentions, but as my hon. Friend said the most important thing is to get this Bill on to the statute book before Parliament is dissolved in just over a week’s time. If we leave it any later—if the Lords continue to press these amendments—I fear we will lose the Bill altogether and its important work will be undone. Abusers will be safe from the law, while the poor and vulnerable they abuse will have less protection under it.

[Mr Hanson]

Let me assure the hon. Lady, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, that we will do nothing to stop the passage of this Bill if the Lords accept the amendment in due course.

Counter-Terrorism (Statutory Instruments)

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the statutory instruments before the House.

The Minister and the House will know that in August 2014 the joint terrorism analysis centre raised the UK threat level from substantial to severe, and that there are real concerns about the level of threat to the UK. The Minister will also know about the increased level of threat as a result of developments in Syria and Iraq in particular, where terrorist groups are planning attacks on the west. It is clear, from the discussions currently taking place on the alleged murderer Mohammed Emwazi, and the three schoolgirls who travelled from London to Syria, that there are still great concerns about movement and involvement in terrorist activity. The attacks in early January on Charlie Hebdo in Paris and the incidents in Sydney bring home to us the fact that such incidents could occur in the United Kingdom.

The Opposition support fully all five statutory instruments. In a time of heightened terrorist threat to our country, it is right that the Government take action to protect our country. The measures are proportionate and reasonable. We support the draft Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Authority to Carry Scheme) Regulations 2015. As the Minister said, the scheme specifies the classes of carriers to which it applies, and the passengers and crew in respect of whom authority must be requested. It is proportionate and reasonable.

We also support the draft Passenger, Crew and Service Information (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015. Again, we believe it is reasonable. My only comment relates to paragraph 3.1 of the explanatory memorandum, which states that the instrument was laid before Parliament less than 21 days before the proposed date that it is due to come into force. I accept and understand the urgency with which the Minister has brought the regulations forward, but I just want to put down a marker and say that it is good practice to ensure that we have confidence in statutory instruments by providing the appropriate time for discussion.

[James Brokenshire]

I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman’s important point about scrutiny. It is certainly not the normal approach of the Government to breach the 21-day rule. However, I hope he appreciates the need to act with pace in this case, given the national security issues at stake.

[Mr Hanson]

I fully accept that and make no criticism of the broad sense of it. It is important for any future Government, whether it is the hon. Gentleman or I holding this ministerial post, to give due regard to process; otherwise, it will give rise to suspicion. I welcome and support the proposal. I also support provisions relating to passport retention and travel with passports. The Opposition have no problems with those issues.

My final comments relate to the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2015. The order is helpful, as it clarifies information, gives proper powers and puts forward a proper code of practice. It provides an opportunity to clarify, in paragraph 7(1) of the Act, the type of power and when it is exercised. I am pleased that it is subject to review by David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, but given the sensitive nature of these issues, will the Minister assure me that David Anderson will be able to publish statistics on the use of the power and information on the designation areas? It is important that these statistics be presented to the House, if not the detail behind them, as the Minister has undertaken today.

[James Brokenshire]

As he has shown in his reports on, for example, the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, David Anderson clearly provides details about when the powers have been used, and I expect him to take a similar approach to the review of these powers.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister. We have a consensus on these issues. There is support across the House for the measures, and I hope that the House will support them.

Question put and agreed to.



Immigration

Resolved,

That the draft Passenger, Crew and Service Information (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 2 March, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Resolved,

That the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Code of Practice for Officers exercising functions under Schedule 1) Regulations 2015 (S.I., 2015, No 217), dated 12 February 2015, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 February, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)

Resolved,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 27 February, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)

Civil Aviation

Resolved,

That the draft Aviation Security Act 1982 (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 2 March, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)

Counter-terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our country has one of the strictest legal structures for dealing with these kinds of matters. We also have significant oversight through the role of the various commissioners and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and through the enhanced capabilities of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, which has, through its Woolwich report, shown how it can use those powers to scrutinise in detail what has taken place and report to the public. Our intelligence agencies do a very good job for us every day of the week, and we need to ensure they can carry on doing that job with appropriate oversight, which I think we have in place.

On the privacy and civil liberties board, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), there is further work to be done because we have to consider the responses to the recent consultation on it before bringing forward regulations to establish the board, but I trust the amendments we have made will reassure the House about the Government’s approach to these important issues.

The range and significant nature of these amendments demonstrates the approach that the Government have taken on this Bill. With the support of the official Opposition, we have agreed a timetable to ensure that it will be enacted at the earliest opportunity, but we have also ensured that our proposals have been subjected to robust analysis, and we have listened to the full range of views from all sides of both Houses. The Bill has certainly benefited from that scrutiny.

I welcome the fact that these measures have broad cross-party support, and I am grateful to all hon. Members, and particularly the Opposition Front Bench, for the constructive approach that they have taken throughout our consideration of this Bill.

As I have made clear previously, we are in the middle of a generational struggle against a deadly terrorist ideology. The first duty of Government is to keep the people of Britain safe and this Bill will help us to do so. The amendments made in the Lords will improve the provisions, and strike the right balance between our rights to privacy and security. I invite the House to agree them, so that we can enact this legislation without any further delay.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

We, too, welcome the Lords amendments. The Home Secretary was right to commence her remarks by reminding the House of the events in Paris and the ever-present threat of terrorist activity on these shores. It is for that reason that we took a constructive approach to the Bill; we believe there is a threat, and it needs to be effectively managed, and we in Her Majesty’s Opposition give the Home Secretary the support she needs for the work of the police, MI5 and others, which she has sought to give extra powers to in this Bill.

We are also keen to respond to the positive comments made last year by David Anderson, the reviewer of terrorism of legislation. We are grateful that the Home Secretary has listened to the comments made by Mr Anderson, and indeed by the other place.

The Bill was introduced into this House at the end of November. There was no pre-legislative scrutiny or public consultation on most of its provisions and it finished its Commons stages on 7 January. I understand why the Home Secretary has moved quickly on these matters, but the fact that 39 amendments were made in another place and have come to this Chamber shows that some serious issues have had to be reflected on during the passage of the Bill.

We welcome the thrust of the amendments made by the Government, because they are a series of concessions to points made not only in another place—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about that—but in this House.

[Julian Smith]

Does the right hon. Gentleman regret, as I do, that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord King that sought to bring back the draft Communications Data Bill, or all the elements of it, did not make it back to this House? Does he agree that we need to move forward with that as soon as possible?

[Mr Hanson]

We need to look at and deal with that issue. Five years ago, in my last year as a Minister in the Home Office, I was briefed as the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism on the need for such a Bill, so we do need to examine the matter. Whoever wins the election in some weeks’ time, the next Parliament will have to return to that issue. In fact, I think it would have returned to it in this Parliament had it not been for the Liberal Democrats—but let us not find division where there is none this evening.

We welcome the measures agreed to by the Home Secretary. We need strong terrorism powers and to accept that the rise of ISIL and associated groups represents an exceptional threat, but we also need to look at how we manage such powers within the confines of ensuring that we uphold the principles of democracy in this country. On the temporary exclusion orders, therefore, we welcome the principle of judicial oversight being accepted following amendments in another place. In this House on 2 December the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), rightly pointed out that there was such judicial oversight for terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and stated that we would be tabling amendments on that very principle. The Home Secretary said to me in Committee on 15 December that such oversight was not necessary and that for her to have the power to make that decision should suffice.

Not only Opposition Members but Government ones, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and others, made the point that we need to uphold democracy and the right of appeal and oversight at the same time as tackling the threat head on. The debate continued on Report and, indeed, the Opposition tabled an amendment to achieve the objectives that the Government are now accepting following amendments in another place. Both Government parties voted against the earlier Labour amendment, but now support proposals that, broadly speaking, do exactly the same thing. It is a significant U-turn by the Government, but welcome all the same. The case for judicial oversight has been clear all along, and the conditions now in place are welcome.

Her Majesty’s Opposition also fully support the Prevent strategy changes made by the Home Secretary this evening. Labour developed Prevent when in government, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) was key to that at the time. It is important for us to have a statutory basis for Prevent. The Bill introduces the obligation on public bodies to implement Prevent and to follow statutory guidance. We supported that in principle, but, again, we made it clear that we wanted to press strongly on the guidance, on the nature and drafting of which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) made some key comments. We tabled some amendments, which the Government have now accepted, on the guidance being subject to parliamentary approval. That amendment was drafted by the Labour party and supported by Universities UK. We also supported in another place specific protection for universities’ obligation to uphold freedom of belief. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend made those points, that Labour Members have made the points in another place, that the House of Lords has agreed the amendments and that the Government have now accepted them.

We support the creation of the privacy and civil liberties board, but there was significant confusion about its role as introduced in the Commons. Yet again, we raised that issue in this place and in another place, and the Government have now accepted some of the points made and have clarified, particularly, the interaction of the board and the independent reviewer. That will address some of the capacity problems faced by the independent reviewer.

It is also important that we have accepted the amendments on the authority-to- carry scheme. That is a vital power but most of the detail and how it will impact carriers has been left to secondary legislation. The Government have now accepted that these detailed regulations will need to have proper parliamentary scrutiny, and, again, that is welcome.

There was not a great deal of division between the Government and us on the principles of the Bill before it left this place, but we did want to see some strengthening, and those strengthening measures have been put in place. I wish not only to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford for raising those issues here, but to thank Lord Rosser and Baroness Smith of Basildon for raising and dealing with those issues in another place. Serious consideration has been given in the House of Lords and this Bill is the better for it. I am pleased that the Home Secretary has accepted those amendments, and she will have our support on them tonight and on the implementation of the Bill in due course.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

The reason I made a point of that was not about the amendment, but about the principle of the amendment initially, which is important.

[Mr Heath]

That is not the way Third Reading and Report work; what we put into the Bill then is the Bill—it is not a question of principle at that stage. The principle was that the Home Secretary accepted our arguments, she has brought this back and I am grateful to her. I am also grateful to her for the changes to the privacy and civil liberties board.

The one area where we still have a mess, despite the welcome improvements, is on the draft guidance on places of higher education. Of course I welcome the explicit references now in the Bill to “freedom of speech” and “academic freedom”, but introducing those as something to which both the universities and the Home Secretary need to have particular regard means that we have an incomplete hierarchy of priorities between that and the guidance in the draft guidance. That makes it difficult for vice-chancellors and others to assess exactly where their duties lie.

The saving grace lies in amendment 14, which means that the guidance will come before this House for consideration. The reason I specifically asked the Home Secretary what changes she would make to the draft guidance as a consequence of subsection (3) of the new clause in amendment 16 is that there is a clear implication, if that means anything at all, that there will be changes made on that basis. It cannot simply be done in response to the consultation process; there needs to be something that emerges from that process. I look forward to seeing the draft guidance revisited, reissued and then coming before this House for final decision. However, I make a plea to the Home Secretary not to have something that is too bureaucratic or to have hurdles that are impossible for large universities to jump. I have to say that I would be quite incapable of telling a university at which I was speaking what I was going to say two weeks in advance—I do not know what I am going to say when I stand up to make a speech.

Commonwealth Immigration and Visas

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Members for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) for their contributions on this important subject, which is worthy of discussion with the Minister today.

The subject of the debate is the Commonwealth and visas, and it is important that we begin, as the hon. Member for Romford did, by recognising the crucial importance of the Commonwealth to the history of the United Kingdom and our close ties with countries across the Commonwealth.

Yesterday was Australia day. Today, we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz; the second world war saw members of armed forces from across the Commonwealth join soldiers from the United Kingdom in the fight against fascism. Last year, we celebrated the start of the first world war. My grandfather, who was from the Lancashire area, fought his first battle in March 1915—almost 100 years ago—alongside thousands of Indian troops at Neuve Chapelle.

We have a long history with the Commonwealth, which we need to celebrate and recognise. As a member of the executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for five years now, I know how important that link is and how valued our parliamentary democracy is by the 53 nations of the Commonwealth across the world.

As the hon. Member for Romford said, what is important is not just historical ties, parliamentary democracy or the history of empire translated into a modern partnership. The Commonwealth is also a crucial economic driver, which we need to look outwards to. I have been to Australia on holiday, and I have been to New Zealand with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. What struck me on both occasions was that those countries are beginning to look towards the east, because that is where their market is. We need to look at how we can cement and develop our ties in a strong, effective way.

With a combined population of 2.3 billion people, the Commonwealth is a significant market, and there are significant transferable skills that we may want to work with and develop. As the hon. Gentleman also said, there is also the potential for export, tourism, business, family and education links, and we should look at how we can facilitate and build on those, while maintaining the integrity and strength of our borders. The hon. Member for Romford took the route I expected—of querying why we are cosying up to Europe while partly shutting the door on our historical Commonwealth links. My view of the European Union is slightly different from his. He can speak for himself, but I recognise that we are still part of a family of nations in Europe, and have historical ties to a range of those. Portugal is our oldest ally, for example, never mind the other countries that we have worked with.

I mentioned that, 100 years ago next month, my grandfather was fighting in the trenches of France with Indian soldiers, against Germans. He would be happy today that we are part of a family of nations in Europe as well as the Commonwealth. Relatives of mine who lost their relatives in the second world war, when the Commonwealth fought side by side with us, would also welcome our present economic partnership with Europe, in addition to the fact that we look out to the wider world. The hon. Member for Romford raised conflicts in talking about tightening our relations with Europe and relaxing them with the Commonwealth, but I do not share his view. I think there is potential in both areas.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The right hon. Gentleman made the point that we are in an economic partnership with the European Union, but we are not. We are in a political union, and that is different from a simple economic partnership. If we were in an economic partnership alone, we could do other things with the rest of the world, including the Commonwealth. The fact that we are in a political union and not the economic partnership that was the original intention—or certainly the British people’s original intention—prevents us from doing more with the Commonwealth. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that point?

[Mr Hanson]

We have a large trading partnership with Europe and political union through the European Parliament and other agencies in Europe, and I do not have a problem with that. We will disagree on this issue.

We also have the potential for economic growth in Europe. The biggest employer in my constituency is a company that makes the planes that will probably take the hon. Member for Romford to Australia: Airbus. They are made by Britain, France, Germany and Spain, and free movement means that French people work in north Wales, and north Walians work in France, making the biggest plane in the world and our biggest export. That is a positive. The second and third biggest employers in my constituency are the car manufacturers Toyota and Vauxhall, and they are probably in that area for access to the European market.

There are big issues to debate, but perhaps not today, because I want to focus on how to encourage more aspiration and partnership in the Commonwealth without throwing out a valuable partnership in Europe. I am interested in where the hon. Member for Romford thinks the 1.6 million Britons currently living in France, Germany, Spain and Italy would go if we suddenly closed our borders to people from those countries. I would welcome his thoughts on that—another day, perhaps.

In preparation for the debate I looked at the Commonwealth Exchange report, which is valuable for this Government and future Governments as a way of generating discussion and positive suggestions about how to attain the hon. Gentleman’s objectives. It suggests the restoration of the youth mobility visa, and considers the idea of Commonwealth concessions for tourist and business visas. We have heard the case for “Boris bilaterals”; I would not necessarily call them that, but there is potential to examine the idea in detail. The idea of a Commonwealth component to exceptional talent visas is worth considering; another important contribution would be to think about how to make it easier for business people throughout the Commonwealth to get business visas to come to this country.

The hon. Gentleman did not focus much on post-study work visas, but they are also important. Representations have been made to the Opposition about them from people who want to come to the United Kingdom to study and then to work here for a short period afterwards—particularly those who have been sponsored. All those things are worth exploring and reviewing.

As the potential Minister in 12 weeks’ time, I am particularly drawn to the idea of the youth mobility visa. It could be very positive. If young people between the ages of 18 and 30 come to the United Kingdom and contribute to the economy and to life here, they should, after leaving to become chief executives of companies throughout the world, always remember the importance of the UK in their development. That is very important. It is worth looking at the idea of annually reviewing the case for returning more Commonwealth nations to the approved youth mobility list, and expanding it. We also need to think about how, with the immigration department, to improve our use of technology to achieve greater transparency, so that the public can be better informed on the matters in question.

The Commonwealth Exchange report makes it clear that visitors from Nigeria, South Africa and India are more significant contributors to the UK economy than Chinese tourists, because of relatives, business and historical ties. We make efforts to attract visitors from China to the UK, and we should make significant efforts to make the visa application process simple for people from the historic Commonwealth countries.

I challenge the assertion that we could drop the visa price. I do not say it cannot be done, but I should be interested in a proper review of the costings by the hon. Member for Romford or the Home Office. We need to know whether that uncosted proposal would generate a sufficient increase in visitors to offset the loss of income. Costings are important, and the hon. Gentleman would expect no less of me if I were to make such a proposal.

The hon. Member for Stafford made a cogent point about making it clear that it is easy to get business visas. It is important that people who want to invest here, or in whose countries we invest, and who do business with us, should be able to get their visas approved speedily. It is worth thinking about extending the idea of a faster track for visas for regular visitors to the UK. Business demands better, and we should not turn the best and brightest away. We need to review the matter, as part of a range of measures that we have been considering.

I still think that the central problem faced by the hon. Member for Romford is the Prime Minister’s net migration target. The Prime Minister said at the last general election that he would get migration down to the tens of thousands; to try to achieve that—which he has failed to do—he has had to consider making it more difficult for people from outside the EU to come to the United Kingdom. The target has been missed. The Government have said it will not be met. We should consider calibrating it.

For example, under a future Labour Government I would not want students to be part of the net migration target. The hon. Gentleman made the strong point that students who come here, who have historically included those from Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, African countries and the wide range of Commonwealth countries, do so because we have some of the best universities in the world, and because they feel a historic affinity to the United Kingdom and want to be educated and to work here. The net migration target has caused great difficulties in that market, particularly in India and Pakistan but also elsewhere in the Commonwealth.

With some general tweaks in policy, even without the measures that the hon. Gentleman has proposed, we could and should make it easier for people to come to the United Kingdom to study and to learn. We need a general overhaul of a policy that is damaging the United Kingdom’s £18 billion-a-year university industry. That is particularly important because people who come to study in the United Kingdom do not simply learn about and enjoy our country and receive the best education; they will, at some point in their lives, be senior doctors, senior business people and world leaders who will do business with this country.

I happened to see in the Evening Standard that 200 Australian paramedics landed in London yesterday, having been recruited from Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne and Brisbane for the London Ambulance Service. That shows that, for reasons that are not only historical but practical, we must look outwards to the rest of the world and to the Commonwealth. I support measures to manage migration in the interests of the United Kingdom, and if that means Australian medics, Indian students or Tanzanian business people, that has to be good. The positive contribution that such people make is sometimes lost in the ever-present debate about immigration issues.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I do not think that anybody in this room would disagree with what the shadow Minister is saying. The crux of the matter is that Australians have to jump through lots of hoops to be allowed into the country, but those from EU countries do not jump through any hoops; they can just walk in. Surely he can see the unfairness in how the system has developed.

We have discarded opportunities with countries with which we have the most in common and the closest connections historically. Successive Governments have made it harder and harder for citizens of the Commonwealth, and particularly those of the realms, to come into this country. At the same time, anyone from any country that happens to join the EU can just walk in unrestricted. Surely he can see that that is an unfair situation and that we need to redress that balance.

[Mr Hanson]

That is one of the conundrums of membership of the European Union. It goes with the club. However, there are probably as many Australians in the United Kingdom now as there are Greeks. We are not talking about two sides of a coin; we can look outwards to the world while recognising our responsibilities in the European Union. That is a wider debate, and I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has focused us on a narrower issue.

I want to give the Minister the opportunity to contribute to the debate, so I will draw my remarks to a close. We must look seriously at possible solutions. I am attracted to some, and I am not attracted to others. In particular, I am not attracted to separate airport queues, as the hon. Member for Romford has proposed. The key message that I take from the debate—in the spirit of friendship, I hope that it is one that I can share with the hon. Gentleman—is that we should look at how to make it easier for businesses, students and tourists to come to the United Kingdom as part of managed migration. We need to know not only when they come, but when they go. We need to know that they are coming here for the reasons that they have given, and we need to encourage historic ties to ensure that we grow our economy for tourists, businesses and students.

I still think it is important—here the hon. Gentleman and I may part company—that we are part of the European Union and part of free movement within the European Union. Although we can apply certain restrictions on benefits such as child benefit and working tax credits, we still have free movement, which allows Britons to work and live in France and Germany, and allows Poles, Italians and others to work in Britain and elsewhere. That is part of the deal, but we should not close our eyes to the wider world.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

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 2—Conditions A to E—

‘(1) Condition A is that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom.

(2) Condition B is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom from a risk of terrorism, for a temporary exclusion order to be imposed on the individual.

(3) Condition C is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the individual is outside the United Kingdom.

(4) Condition D is that the individual has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.

(5) Condition E is that—

(a) the court gives the Secretary of State permission under section 3, or

(b) the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the urgency of the case requires a temporary exclusion order to be imposed without obtaining such permission.

(6) During the period that a temporary exclusion order is in force, the Secretary of State must keep under review whether condition B is met.”

New clause 3—Prior permission of the court—

‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State—

(a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual, and

(b) makes an application to the court for permission to impose measures on the individual.

(2) The application must set out a draft of the proposed TEO notice.

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

(a) to determine whether the relevant decisions of the Secretary of State are obviously flawed, and

(b) to determine whether to give permission to impose measures on the individual and (where applicable) whether to exercise the power of direction under subsection (9).

(4) The court may consider the application—

(a) in the absence of the individual;

(b) without the individual having been notified of the application; and

(c) without the individual having been given an opportunity (if the individual was aware of the application) of making any representations to the court.

(5) But that does not limit the matters about which rules of court may be made.

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

(7) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State that condition A, condition B, or condition C is met is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section.

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

(9) If the court determines that the Secretary of State‘s decision that condition D is met is obviously flawed, the court may (in addition to giving permission under subsection (8) give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual.

(10) 1n this section “relevant decisions” means the decisions that the following conditions are met—

(a) condition A;

(b) condition B;

(c) condition C; and

(d) condition D.”

New schedule 1—Proceedings relating to Temporary Exclusion Orders—

Introductory

1 In this Schedule—

“appeal proceedings” means proceedings in the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session on an appeal relating to temporary exclusion order proceedings;

“the relevant court” means—

(a) in relation to TEO proceedings, the court;

(b) in relation to appeal proceedings, the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session;

“rules of court” means rules for regulating the practice and procedure to be followed in the court, the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session.

Rules of court: general provision

2 (1) A person making rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must have regard to the need to secure the following—

(a) that the decisions that are the subject of the proceedings are properly reviewed, and

(b) that disclosures of information are not made where they would be contrary to the public interest.

(2) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings may make provision—

(a) about the mode of proof and about evidence in the proceedings;

(b) enabling or requiring the proceedings to be determined without a hearing;

(c) about legal representation in the proceedings;

(d) enabling the proceedings to take place without full particulars of the reasons for the decisions to which the proceedings relate being given to a party to the proceedings (or to any legal representative of that party);

(e) enabling the relevant court to conduct proceedings in the absence of any person, including a party to the proceedings (or any legal representative of that party);

(f) about the functions of a person appointed as a special advocate (see paragraph 10);

(g) enabling the court to give a party to the proceedings a summary of evidence taken in the party‘s absence.

(3) In this paragraph—

(a) references to a party to the proceedings do not include the Secretary of State;

(b) references to a party‘s legal representative do not include a person appointed as a special advocate.

(4) Nothing in this paragraph is to be read as restricting the power to make rules of court or the matters to be taken into account when doing so.

Rules of court: disclosure

3 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure that the Secretary of State is required to disclose—

(a) material on which the Secretary of State relies,

(b) material which adversely affects the Secretary of State‘s case, and

(c) material which supports the case of another party to the proceedings.

(2) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 4.

4 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure—

(a) that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to make an application to the relevant court for permission not to disclose material otherwise than to the relevant court and any person appointed as a special advocate;

(b) that such an application is always considered in the absence of every party to the proceedings (and every party’s legal representative);

(c) that the relevant court is required to give permission for material not to be disclosed if it considers that the disclosure of the material would be contrary to the public interest;

(d) that, if permission is given by the relevant court not to disclose material, it must consider requiring the Secretary of State to provide a summary of the material to every party to the proceedings (and every party’s legal representative);

(e) that the relevant court is required to ensure that such a summary does not contain material the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest.

(2) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure that provision to the effect mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) applies in cases where the Secretary of State—

(a) does not receive the permission of the relevant court to withhold material, but elects not to disclose it, or

(b) is required to provide a party to the proceedings with a summary of material that is withheld, but elects not to provide the summary.

(3) The relevant court must be authorised—

(a) if it considers that the material or anything that is required to be summarised might adversely affect the Secretary of State’s case or support the case of a party to the proceedings, to direct that the Secretary of State—

(i) is not to rely on such points in the Secretary of State’s case, or

(ii) is to make such concessions or take such other steps as the court may specify, or

(b) in any other case, to ensure that the Secretary of State does not rely on the material or (as the case may be) on that which is required to be summarised.

(4) In this paragraph—

(a) references to a party to the proceedings do not include the Secretary of State;

(b) references to a party’s legal representative do not include a person appointed as a special advocate.

Article 6 rights

5 (1) Nothing in paragraphs 2 to 4, or in rules of court made under any of those paragraphs, is to be read as requiring the relevant court to act in a manner inconsistent with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.

(2) The “Human Rights Convention” means the Convention within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (see section 21(1) of that Act).

6 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings may make provision for—

(a) the making by the Secretary of State or the relevant individual of an application to the court for an order requiring anonymity for that individual, and

(b) the making by the court, on such an application, of an order requiring such anonymity;

and the provision made by the rules may allow the application and the order to be made irrespective of whether any other TEO proceedings have been begun in the court.

(2) Rules of court may provide for the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session to make an order in connection with any appeal proceedings requiring anonymity for the relevant individual.

(3) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) the references, in relation to a court, to an order requiring anonymity for the relevant individual are references to an order by that court which imposes such prohibition or restriction as it thinks fit on the disclosure—

(a) by such persons as the court specifies or describes, or

(b) by persons generally,

of the identity of the relevant individual or of any information that would tend to identify the relevant individual.

(4) In this paragraph “relevant individual” means an individual on whom the Secretary of State is proposing to impose, or has imposed, measures.

Initial exercise of rule-making powers by Lord Chancellor

7 (1) The first time after the passing of this Act that rules of court are made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Schedule in relation to proceedings in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland, the rules may be made by the Lord Chancellor instead of by the person who would otherwise make them.

(2) Before making rules of court under sub-paragraph (1), the Lord Chancellor must consult—

(a) in relation to rules applicable to proceedings in England and Wales, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales;

(b) in relation to rules applicable to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.

(3) But the Lord Chancellor is not required to undertake any other consultation before making the rules.

(4) A requirement to consult under sub-paragraph (2) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the passing of this Act.

(5) Rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor under sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) must be laid before Parliament, and

(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which they were made, cease to have effect at the end of that period.

(6) In determining that period of 40 days no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.

(7) 1f rules cease to have effect in accordance with sub-paragraph (5)—

(a) that does not affect anything done in previous reliance on the rules, and

(b) sub-paragraph (1) applies again as if the rules had not been made.

(8) The following provisions do not apply to rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor under this paragraph—

(a) section 3(6) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 (Parliamentary procedure for civil procedure rules);

(b) section 56(1), (2) and (4) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (statutory rules procedure).

(9) Until the coming into force of section 85 of the Courts Act 2003, the reference in sub-paragraph (8)(a) to section 3(6) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 is to be read as a reference to section 3(2) of that Act.

Use of advisers

8 (1) In any TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings the relevant court may if it thinks fit—

(a) call in aid one or more advisers appointed for the purposes of this paragraph by the Lord Chancellor, and

(b) hear and dispose of the proceedings with the assistance of the adviser or advisers.

(2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint advisers for the purposes of this paragraph only with the approval of—

(a) the Lord President of the Court of Session, in relation to an adviser who may be called in aid wholly or mainly in Scotland;

(b) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, in relation to an adviser who may be called in aid wholly or mainly in Northern Ireland;

(c) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, in any other case.

(3) Rules of court may regulate the use of advisers in proceedings who are called in aid under sub-paragraph (1).

(4) The Lord Chancellor may pay such remuneration, expenses and allowances to advisers appointed for the purposes of this paragraph as the Lord Chancellor may determine.

9 (1) The Lord President of the Court of Session may nominate a judge of the Court of Session who is a member of the First or Second Division of the Inner House of that Court to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(a).

(2) The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland may nominate any of the following to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(b)—

(a) the holder of one of the offices listed in Schedule 1 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002;

(b) a Lord Justice of Appeal (as defined in section 88 of that Act).

(3) The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales may nominate a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(c).

Appointment of special advocate

10 (1) The appropriate law officer may appoint a person to represent the interests of a party in any TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings from which the party (and any legal representative of the party) is excluded.

(2) A person appointed under sub-paragraph (1) is referred to in this Schedule as appointed as “special advocate”.

(3) The “appropriate law officer” is—

(a) in relation to proceedings in England and Wales, the Attorney General;

(b) in relation to proceedings in Scotland, the Advocate General for Scotland;

(c) in relation to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the Advocate General for Northern Ireland.

(4) A person appointed as a special advocate is not responsible to the party to the proceedings whose interests the person is appointed to represent.

(5) A person may be appointed as a special advocate only if—

(a) in the case of an appointment by the Attorney General, the person has a general qualification for the purposes of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;

(b) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Scotland, the person is an advocate or a solicitor who has rights of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary by virtue of section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980;

(c) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, the person is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland.”

Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) The court may impose a temporary exclusion order on an individual following an application from the Secretary of State if the court is satisfied that conditions A to D are met.”

Amendment 21, page 2, line 6, after “D”, insert “or condition E”

Amendment 22, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

‘(6A) Condition E is that the Secretary of State has provided evidence, whether or not conditions A to D are met, to substantiate that the individual has, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the United Kingdom, conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom and that he has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration of allegiance to another state or territory seized, governed or administered de facto by an organisation demanding allegiance to that organisation, having given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the United Kingdom.”

Amendment 19, page 2, line 18, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “court”

Amendment 23, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, after “years”, insert “or, where section 2(6A) applies, for a period of not less than two years specified by the Secretary of State.”

Amendment 20, in clause 11, page 7, line 21, at end insert—

““the court”

(a) in relation to proceedings relating to a temporary exclusion order in the case of which the excluded individual is a person whose principal place of residence immediately prior to leaving the United Kingdom was in Scotland, means the Outer House of the Court of Session;

(b) in relation to proceedings relating to a temporary exclusion order in the case of which the excluded individual is a person whose principal place of residence immediately prior to leaving the United Kingdom was in Northern Ireland, means the High Court in Northern Ireland; and

(c) in any other case, means the High Court in England and Wales;”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

It is a pleasure to be here in this new year to deal with this important Bill. I mention the new year because, although we are now in 2015, this is effectively still 2014 for the Minister and me, as we are dealing with the matters that we dealt with just before Christmas in almost the same format, having had the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House and Report here now.

We have tabled a number of new clauses and amendments that have a reassuring similarity to the matters that we discussed before Christmas—[Interruption.] Indeed, they are almost identical, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) suggests. I am confident, given the concerns that have been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and the points that were fully debated before Christmas, that the Minister and his very able Whip, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), will have had an opportunity to reflect on these matters over the Christmas period and to understand that there is real concern not only among Labour and Conservative Members but among Liberal Democrat Members about some of these matters.

Let me start by repeating some of the givens for those of us on the Opposition Benches. It is a given for us that the terrorism threat remains high. It is also a given for us that the exclusion provisions are a valid and useful addition to the armoury of terrorism prevention, and that they have our support. I must place on record, however, the fact that there are those among the population at large who feel that the provisions go too far. For example, we have had representations from Liberty, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and others expressing concern about the measures. I believe that the measures are proportionate, but today’s new clauses and amendments are aimed at strengthening that proportionality, providing judicial oversight and ensuring that we adopt a constructive approach to the difficult and challenging issues that the Government have to deal with.

We share the Government’s policy objective of supporting the prevention of terrorism, as the terrorism threat is high. The Government’s own assessment shows that some 500 individuals have travelled to Syria and the surrounding areas in recent months, and that 50% of them have sought to return to the United Kingdom. We do not know what status they want to return under. Some might have forsaken terrorist activity; others might be returning to engage in further recruitment exercises. We do not know their status, and there is a real need for the assessment that the Government propose. The Home Secretary’s report to Parliament on the joint terrorism analysis centre’s assessment of the threat level, produced independently of Ministers, acknowledges that the level is still severe and that a terrorist attack is highly likely, although there is no evidence to suggest that one is imminent. All Members need to be cognisant of the increased threat following the assessment by JTAC in August. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, has indicated that the assessment of the Metropolitan police, on behalf of the UK police, is that five terrorists a week are now travelling, and that up to 250 are returning. The Government need to address that issue.

New clauses 1, 2 and 3 and new schedule 1 aim to introduce balance to the Government’s proposals, to ensure judicial oversight of these key issues. New clause 1 has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and me, and it seeks to ensure that the temporary exclusion orders can be introduced in the form that the Government want.

New clause 2 proposes conditions A to E. Condition A states that the Secretary of State must reasonably suspect that

“the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom”.

Condition B states that the Secretary of State should reasonably consider that the issue of the order

“is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public”.

Condition C is

“that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the individual is outside the United Kingdom.”

Condition D is

“that the individual has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.”

Condition E relates to the Secretary of State believing that action should be taken.

New clauses 1 and 2 mirror what the Government have already said. We have tabled new clause 3 because we believe that a court needs to agree to the Secretary of State’s application for a temporary exclusion order. It would allow the Secretary of State to make an application to the court to ensure that the conditions in new clauses 1 and 2 had been met. Under new clause 3, the court would have to consider the Secretary of State’s application. It may do so

“in the absence of the individual”

about whom the application is being made. It may also do so

“without the individual having been notified of the application”

and

“without the individual having been given an opportunity…of making any representations to the court”.

This would provide judicial oversight of the Secretary of State’s application to put in place a temporary exclusion order.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman accepts that there is a substantial threat, although he says that we do not know exactly what it is or what the status is of the people who might wish to return. In respect of the right of abode, does he think it is appropriate that a person should be allowed to come back here if they have formally renounced their allegiance to the United Kingdom and purported to give allegiance to another state or territory and if they are known to have the intention of committing jihadist acts of violence?

[Mr Hanson]

I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s speech in support of his own amendments in due course. These are difficult questions, and we might be straying into the area of deprivation of citizenship, which we discussed when considering other legislation last year. The Bill and our proposals would provide judicial oversight of decisions to exclude made by the Secretary of State. The issues of right of abode and citizenship are difficult, because if an individual retains British citizenship but is undertaking the type of activity the hon. Gentleman is alluding to, mechanisms are in place in the Bill and other legislation to take effective action to ensure that that is addressed in a legal framework. It is difficult to say that an individual cannot have a right of abode, because that makes them, in effect, stateless, and therefore the problem remains one for the UK passport holder, but it is not a problem within the UK. We need to reflect on that extremely carefully.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is not the nub of the matter, as raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) simply this: it is for the court to consider all the factors involved, hence the need for judicial intervention and decision making? This should not be left to the Home Secretary.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling his amendments, which have a similar hue to ours, in that we are trying to put in place judicial oversight. Given the concerns that have been raised since we discussed the Bill in Committee, I hope the Minister will again consider our new clauses. They would create a court process through which the Secretary of State would have to go to place an individual on a temporary exclusion order, as there is currently no judicial process before one can be awarded. The new clauses have not come out of the blue; they have arisen because of real concerns following the Prime Minister’s initial announcement in August that he would introduce this legislation. Those concerns have come from a number of authoritative sources. We discussed these matters prior to Christmas, but it is worth repeating the concerns.

David Anderson QC is tasked by the Government with being the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and both at the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement and in evidence given on 26 November to the Joint Committee on Human Rights he has raised big sceptical objections to the proposed TEOs against suspected jihadist fighters. He told the Joint Committee:

“The concern I have about this power—the central concern about it—is where the courts are in all of this…if the Home Secretary wants to impose a TPIM”—

the other legislative tool the Government currently have—

“she has to go to the court first, and if the court thinks she has got it wrong, it will say so...one will want to look very carefully to see whether this is a power that requires the intervention of the court at any stage, or whether it is simply envisaged as something that the Home Secretary imposes…if you are abroad when this order is served on you, it is a little difficult to see in practical terms how a right to judicial review could be exercised.”

Those are key issues, because what the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said is that under the TPIM legislation designed by this Government, the Home Secretary has to go to court to get a TPIM before one can be imposed on an individual. A TPIM restricts severely an individual’s movement in the UK and imposes a range of conditions on that individual. The TEO will have the same legislative impact, in that it will severely restrict an individual’s movement. As I said, that restriction might well be perfectly valid—it may well be in the interests of terrorism prevention and be a positive measure to protect British citizens—but it needs to have judicial oversight to ensure that an individual is able to challenge it without the right of judicial review. I agree with David Anderson QC and I want the Government to respond today to his concerns, as well as those of right hon. and hon. Members.

[Sir William Cash]

I have looked through the minutes of evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Wednesday 26 November and I can find no reference, either in the questions asked or the answers given by the reviewer, to the text of the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness and, in particular, article 8(3). That was not even raised, and I do not think it is possible to have a coherent discussion about the nature of either the right of abode or the implications of what we have just been discussing without making reference to the convention. No reference was made to it there whatsoever.

[Mr Hanson]

Let us look at those issues in due course. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a contribution and the Minister will respond. I am trying to focus on our new clauses, which are about putting in place a reasonable level of judicial oversight. I have cited what the independent reviewer said because when the Prime Minister launched this policy those concerns were stated outside this House much more severely and harshly than they were when the independent reviewer appeared before the Joint Committee. The point he makes is that the Government’s defence at the moment is that there is an opportunity for judicial review, which is an expensive, long and time-consuming process and which may not be able to be exercised from outside the jurisdiction of UK shores. Under the TPIM legislation, Ministers have to go to a court, whereas under the TEO proposals, as currently put forward, they will not. Our main proposal in the new clauses is to put in place a regime that mirrors that of the existing TPIM legislation. This is not a new, fanciful procedure; it is one the Government have drawn up, as it mirrors their proposal, and I hope they will consider it seriously.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister accept that these temporary arrangements have a level of urgency that is often not quite there in the TPIM-type arrangements, which is why the Government perhaps feel that adopting judicial oversight as opposed to a judicial review process would be unwise? Perhaps he would go into some detail on the underlying urgency issues relating to the temporary seizure of passports, which we are going to be discussing in the next two days.

[Mr Hanson]

I accept that there will always be an element of speed required on occasion to examine issues such as the temporary exclusion of an individual, but this will not always be an urgent matter. The Government will know of and will be tracking individuals seeking to return; they will have intelligence on that and will be able to prepare and take action on individuals. I know from my experience of being a Minister in a range of Departments that if speed on legal requirements is needed, it can be done. I have often as a Minister authorised legal action to be taken in the morning that is taken through the courts on the very same day. I have done that in the Ministry of Justice in regard to prison strikes and in the Home Office in relation to a range of other measures—it can be done. The question is: is the Home Secretary’s decision on these matters the fount of all wisdom? It may well be—let us not put too fine a point on it. There will be occasions when the Home Secretary is making a perfectly rational and valid decision based on evidence that someone is a potential threat to the UK and therefore needs to be excluded. The question for the House is simply this: should there be an opportunity for someone other than the Home Secretary—the courts—to make a judgment as to whether the Home Secretary has acted proportionately and within the law, and has justifiable reasons for so acting? That could be done in camera or in public—that is for us to consider—but we are making our proposal because the same provision is in place for TPIM legislation. If TPIM legislation is dealing—and I know from personal experience that it is—with those at the very sharp end of the potential terrorist threat, where evidence is around but necessarily cannot always be shared in public, then that can also be done in the case of temporary exclusion.

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

I welcome Labour’s conversion to judicial oversight in the matter of temporary exclusion orders. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has moved so far to reach this place, will he and the Labour party now support such oversight for other counter-terrorism measures?

[Mr Hanson]

As someone who had the privilege of holding ministerial position in the previous Government, I can say that we often had judicial oversight of a number of measures or sunset clauses. We are not late coming to this matter. This is a rerun of a debate that we had in Committee in December. I am grateful that the Minister has had Christmas and new year to reflect on these issues and to hear some wider argument from his own Members.

It is clear that the Government face difficult challenges not just from the Opposition but from Members on their own Benches. In Committee on 15 December, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said that he had some concerns about this provision not having judicial oversight. In a long intervention, he said:

“I had not intended to speak today…What concerns me today is the issue of the Home Secretary herself exercising the power. I am concerned that it comes about without prior judicial approval or, indeed, without being a power of the court, which would be my preference.”––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Security Public Bill Committee, 15 December 2014; c. 1219.]

Those are the words not of the Opposition but of Government Back Benchers. I notice that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) is in his place. [Interruption.] I hope to be able to attract his attention. I am not sure which source he spoke to, but his words are quoted in the Independent on Sunday so they must be true. He said that he was “sympathetic” to the amendments and “would find it hard” to vote against them. I hope that he reflects on those points today. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), who until very recently was Solicitor-General, said:

“There is disquiet about a few aspects of this Bill in its detail.”

Our new clauses back up the concerns of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which he expressed before the Bill went into Committee. There is real disquiet from a number of Members. Indeed, I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) in his place. According to the Independent on Sunday, he said that he would

“listen to all the arguments with some care”

before deciding which way to vote. Undoubtedly, he is listening to the arguments with some care before deciding how to vote. I know that he is a good colleague of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I wish to place it on the record that concern over these matters is growing. In fact, a late entrant to this festive party appears to be the Liberal Democrats.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

What about Second Reading?

[Mr Hanson]

Perhaps they were there on Second Reading. I might be a bit old fashioned, but I thought that one of the purposes of Government committees—when I was a Minister I served on many such committees in the backrooms and bowels of government—was for Ministers to thrash out what should be in a Bill before it is presented to the House. Today’s edition of The Guardian has an article on this matter—again, it must be true. It says:

“A fresh coalition row has broken out after Nick Clegg told the home secretary, Theresa May, that she will face a parliamentary defeat on the government’s counter-terrorism bill unless judges are given oversight of plans to impose temporary exclusion orders on some terrorist suspects returning to Britain.”

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Is that the best the right hon. Gentleman can do—reading out bits of newspapers?

[Mr Hanson]

Well, it strikes me that when The Guardian newspaper reports that the Deputy Prime Minister is challenging the Home Secretary behind the scenes about judicial oversight, it is an important matter to bring before the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I regret that I have no access to the bowels of government however unsavoury they might be. I made my own position plain on Second Reading. Indeed, I agreed with the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) that this was an issue that had to be considered. Unhappily, I was indisposed during the Committee stage of the Bill, otherwise I would have been here. But I am here today to reflect my continuing unease, which I hope I eloquently put before the House on Second Reading. I shall continue to do that. Up until that part of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, I was about to say how much I agreed with him. He must be careful, because he might disturb my sense of acquiescence.

[Mr Hanson]

Let me gently stroke the right hon. and learned Gentleman and try to keep him in the tent. I think that he will find the tent to be most comfortable. The question today is: do we have judicial oversight of the temporary exclusion orders? A number of Government Members have indicated that they feel that judicial oversight should be present. To be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we heard on Second Reading—and today this has appeared as being the position of the Deputy Prime Minister—that we should consider putting that in place. All I am saying is that there is a mechanism today for the Government to listen to that. They could even agree with our proposals without us forcing a Division, which would potentially put Members on the spot, forcing them to decide between loyalty to their party or to their principles. The Government could take this matter away and say that they agree with us.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about carnage and defeat. I have been around this place during many rebellions, and I do not get the atmosphere in this Chamber of carnage and defeat. I do not feel a tremendous wave of anger against the Government. Could it be that most Members of Parliament think that if it is a choice between judicial oversight or their sons and daughters being blown up on a London tube, they would rather let the Secretary of State take action, and take action quickly?

[Mr Hanson]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the start of my comments when I said that this is a proportionate power. There are real issues of potential threat where this action should and could be taken. The question is whether we should have judicial oversight, as we have in other legislation. He says that there does not seem to be an atmosphere of massive rebellion in the Chamber. Let me reflect on that for a moment. We have a number of right hon. and hon. Members from the Conservative Benches who have expressed their disquiet publicly. They did so on Second Reading, in Committee and when the Prime Minister announced the proposal in the first place. They have also gone to the trouble of commenting on their concerns in the press at the weekend. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife has genuine concerns, expressed on Second Reading. Now the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Deputy Prime Minister, representing the 50-plus Members of Parliament whom he leads in this Chamber, is apparently saying that he will seek these changes in the other place when the Bill goes down the corridor. There is disquiet from the official Opposition and our 250-odd Members, as well as from Members of other parties. It strikes me that even now there is potentially a majority in this Chamber to put judicial oversight in place.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I am listening sympathetically to some of the strong arguments that the shadow Minister is making, but I am trying to work out whether this is a principled position or an expedient one. Is he saying that in future cases and debates he and the Labour party, which has introduced a lot of draconian legislation, will adopt the principled presumption in favour of judicial oversight of the accretion of Executive power, or is this just a tactical one-off? Can he give me some reassurance on that point?

[Mr Hanson]

I hope that I can. It is perfectly reasonable to have judicial oversight of such matters. As I have said, I have introduced it as a Minister in the past and we have supported it for TPIMs. Indeed, some of the issues relating to sunset clauses, which we will discuss later, have been supported by me and by the Government of whom I was a member.

To take the point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), there is a reasonable argument to be made that these are serious issues, with difficult people trying to do things that are damaging to the UK’s national interest, and we should be cognisant of that. Part of the great power of this country is that we allow the rule of law to have some judgment over ministerial decisions. In this case, the Home Secretary’s decision will be what determines whether we can have a temporary exclusion order. I am not stopping that happening and I am not trying to shorten it. I am simply saying that there should be the opportunity to have oversight of the Home Secretary’s decisions.

[Mr Winnick]

In case the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) was asking what the position would be if a Labour Government did not provide for judicial oversight, may I tell my right hon. Friend that in those circumstances there would be a great number of Labour Back Benchers who would make their views perfectly clear and would stand by the principle about which he is speaking?

[Mr Hanson]

That is reassuring. I will look forward to my hon. Friend’s support post-May in the happy event of my standing at the Government Dispatch Box arguing for the Government of the day. I am sure that we will continue to have the same level of support that he has given to those on the Labour Front Bench over many years in this House.

I hope that I have made the case sufficiently for the Government to consider the issue now and to give us some indication in this regard, saving us the potential difficulty of ping-pong, further discussion and further debate between both Houses in the short period before the measure reaches the statute book. I want to ensure that the Government are subject to that judicial oversight. It would not in any way impact on the ability of the Minister to make decisions effectively on intelligence about who needed to have a temporary exclusion order placed on them, but it would reassure the community in which we also serve. It would also ensure that the Home Secretary’s decisions were subject to some checks and it would, I think, help to enhance our international reputation in dealing with these issues. I commend the new clauses to the House.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I was reflecting as I listened to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) putting the case for the Opposition that, when I first came to the House, it was suggested in a maiden speech by a then Labour Member that we should concertina the consideration of Bills because it was quite clear that the overwhelming majority on the Labour Benches at that time would have meant that they had to go through anyway. All I can say is that I am very grateful that we have not taken up that option.

The process on which we have embarked—in a sense, this leads me to try to avoid repeating the speech I made on Second Reading and again in Committee—enables us to go over the same ground again but, each time, to examine it from a slightly different angle. The issue being debated this afternoon, of which new clause 3 constitutes the kernel, is in fact quite narrow. There seems to be general agreement that it is necessary to have a process of managed return, and it is perhaps slightly unfortunate that we started off the process with statements that suggested that we were embarking not on a process of managed return, but on a process of excluding people for ever who had gone abroad and were suspected of having committed terrorist offences but were in fact British-born nationals. That was very properly abandoned and the Home Secretary has now proposed a perfectly sensible package, endorsed by David Anderson, the terrorism reviewer, that will be useful in enabling us to meet this undoubtedly real problem.

The question is therefore about the detail. In this case, that means the difference between the Home Secretary’s taking an executive and administrative act, then allowing it to be judicially reviewed if there is disagreement with it by the individual concerned, and having some kind of judicial oversight. Scrutiny, except in exceptional cases in which there has to be rapid administrative action, would normally be triggered by going to a court and getting a judge’s permission in the same way as we do with TPIMs.

Throughout this process, I have favoured the principle of judicial oversight. I appreciate that the granting of a passport to an individual is an act of the royal prerogative and therefore one that is normally carried out by the Executive. For that reason, the Home Secretary has been able, in some exceptional circumstances, to withdraw and remove the passports of nationals abroad who are also dual nationals and subsequently to have that challenged through a review process.

It is worth bearing in mind that passports have taken on a rather different significance from 101 years ago when, effectively, the vast majority of British nationals travelling abroad did so without passports at all. Indeed, a passport was an exceptional document that one was granted for the purpose of having one’s bona fides attested to by the state. Nowadays, a passport is a pretty essential tool not only for travelling in and out of this country but for travelling when abroad and avoiding some of the problems that might beset someone whose passport is deemed invalid.

For those reasons, although I understand where my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is coming from when she wishes to preserve the principle that this is a prerogative power and that the removal of the passport and its cancellation when the individual is abroad should be subject to judicial review, the power is so exceptional that that judicial oversight is by far the most prudent course. It is not just by far the most prudent course and helpful for the individual concerned but, ultimately, helpful to my right hon. Friend as that would give it the validity it needs to be effective, without which I fear that we might well end up in rather more complex and lengthy litigation and, above all, with a sense of grievance sometimes creeping in for people who consider that they have been treated unfairly.

I appreciate that the subject is emotive. Indeed, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) makes clear and highlights the anxiety, which is, I am sure, shared across the House, that people should behave in a way that is utterly incompatible with their British citizenship, in some cases going abroad and openly proclaiming both their renunciation of allegiance in some form and their allegiance to a power that appears to us to be utterly repugnant in its behaviour. Those feelings are understandable and very strong.

At the same time, however, it is right that there are essential principles of our common law that individuals enjoy the benefit of the presumption of innocence and that free-born British subjects may come and go without let or hindrance in their own homeland. If they have committed serious offences while abroad, including treason, they should be brought to justice here on their return. We do not have the principle of excluding people from their own land, quite apart from the breaches of international law that that would involve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I hesitate to speak in the company of such distinguished lawyers, as I am just a former common or garden practitioner in the criminal courts, but I would like to give the view, as I understand it, of most members of the public. I very much hope in respect of what the public want that the Government will be firm today and will resist amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). I accept that he is entirely sincere and consistent in his views, and would indeed resist the amendments tabled by the Labour party. I commend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), which I signed. I fully understand that the Government might not be able to accept them today, but I hope they will take them away and look further at these entirely sensible amendments.

I wanted to speak today because I believe we need a sense of balance in this debate. We have heard reference made to “carnage”, “atmosphere”, “revolts” and the House of Commons being “up in arms” about this. Judging from how the debate has developed and from the number of Members attending it, I am not sure that that is necessarily the case. As I said in an intervention, I suspect that most Members of Parliament—and, more importantly, most members of the public—support what the Government are trying to do, and we will see what happens in the vote later.

We have these debates, and I quite understand where my legal friends are coming from, and liberty is entirely important. We are using language relating to Magna Carta, habeas corpus, and the God-given rights of free-born Englishmen; that is all very well, but I think the public view the issue in a different way. They are absolutely outraged that people who come here and are given British passports, which should be a tremendous honour and privilege—or indeed people who are raised here and have British passports—feel that this gives them the right to go abroad and fight for an extremist cause. These people not only hold views, but practise views that are wholly alien to everything this country has stood for for hundreds of years. These people are not even like Sinn Fein. At least Sinn Fein in their worst years, even if they were blowing up Members of Parliament, soldiers or innocent members of the public, presumably saw some sort of logic in their own eyes in what they were doing. We are talking about people who are religious fanatics whose idea of fun and aggro is to cut off the head of an aid worker.

The Government are not going to act in a vacuum. The Home Secretary is not going to act unreasonably. We need look only at what the Bill, which I support, says. It refers again and again to the Secretary of State needing to

“reasonably suspect that an individual is, or has been involved in terrorism-related activity”,

and to her “reasonably considering” that action is

“necessary for a purpose connected with protecting members of the public”.

The Secretary of State, furthermore, must

“reasonably consider that the individual is outside the UK”.

She has to act “reasonably”. Surely we must trust our Government and our Secretary of State to protect our people. If the Secretary of State acts unreasonably, we can surely trust the courts in a judicial review system to provide oversight and, if necessary, overturn it. I do not think for a moment that the Secretary of State would act unreasonably.

For the sake of argument, I refer to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall North. As I understand it, he wants to replace the system whereby the Secretary of State has to act reasonably, presumably on the basis of intelligence, which may be nuanced, with a full court procedure. His amendment 18 states:

“The court may impose a temporary exclusion order on an individual following an application from the Secretary of State if the court is satisfied that conditions A to D are met.”

I have tried to understand how the amendments from the Labour Front-Bench team are more nuanced, but let me develop the argument. Those who oppose what the Government are trying to do are saying that there should be a court hearing in which all these factors can be discussed and through which we can assess whether a person—he may have gone to Syria, been a jihadist and all the rest of it—is a real threat to the United Kingdom.

I do not know a lot about intelligence, but I suspect that much of what will motivate the Secretary of State in her actions to exclude an individual will be based on intelligence. We are not talking about depriving somebody of their liberty. We are not talking about a free-born Englishman who goes abroad, gets in a spot of trouble, comes over here and is locked up. We are not talking about anything like that. We are talking about excluding somebody—temporarily, as I understand it—who the Secretary of State is reasonably satisfied has gone to fight jihad and engage in terrorist activity, and there is a real danger of them coming back here to blow up our children.

I suspect that a member of the public is not overly motivated by complex, legalistic arguments about judicial oversight, judicial review, delay and the rights of people to claim unfettered return. I suspect that a member of the public will be primarily, fundamentally and, indeed, probably wholly concerned about the safety of themselves and their family, and they will have trust. I trusted the last Labour Government. I know that the Governments of Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) received a lot of stick over this, but I think they were right in wanting to protect the public. I realise that it went against many of their instincts, but they rightly took the view that such was the nature of the threat that we were fighting a war. It is a situation rather like the one we faced in the second world war, in which some sort of deprivation of traditional liberties has to take place, although we are not actually depriving anybody of their liberty here. We are not putting people in prison. We are simply saying, “You have gone abroad to fight an extremist cause, and if you want to come back here, we think the Secretary of State has the right to exclude you.”

[Mr Hanson]

Given the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, does he believe that we should remove judicial oversight for the current TPIM regime?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think we are talking about something slightly different. As I understand it, TPIMs deal with someone who is here and whose freedom of movement and operation in this country is being controlled. That is rather different from facing someone who has gone abroad to fight jihad. Presumably, intelligence suddenly arrives that these people are on their way back, so the Secretary of State has to act extremely quickly. I agree that the decision may be based on intelligence and that the sources of intelligence may not stack up in a court of law, but we are not trying to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these people are guilty of jihadism. We are simply saying that there is evidence, based on the available intelligence, to suggest to the Secretary of State that there is a real possibility that these people have fought jihad, have been brainwashed, are extremists, and, ipso facto, are a threat to our people. I think that is a bit different from TPIMs or indeed any other part of the judicial review system.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I hear the point my hon. and learned Friend makes, and the issue came up when we considered this in Committee, but I think it is right to describe it as a temporary exclusion order because although it clearly facilitates return—it manages return; it manages the control of an individual once they have returned to the UK and consent has been granted—it is exclusionary in its nature during the period prior to return. It seeks to prevent someone from returning without that permission being granted, because there is that other aspect: if someone does seek to return to the UK when they are subject to one of these temporary exclusion orders, it is potentially a criminal offence unless they can show due justification as set out in the Bill. I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend would like to describe this in a particular fashion, but the focus is on the substance of it, and I hope he will understand the approach we are seeking to take, and how this is intended to operate in practice.

The Bill as currently framed would allow judicial review to be brought. That has been used by people to challenge decisions of the Secretary of State in other contexts from abroad. We frequently receive challenges of this nature from individuals abroad in relation to the use of other powers. It is important to recognise that.

Amendments 18 to 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), go even further than the amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench, and would give the courts the power to impose a TEO following an application from the Secretary of State. The Government do not consider these amendments to be appropriate for the reasons I have outlined. I highlight to the House that requiring the Secretary of State to apply to the courts before a TEO can be made could create undue delay and decrease the operational value of the power. It is sometimes important that we are able to act quickly to obtain the maximum benefit from the operation of the powers, to meet the goal of keeping the British public safe from terrorism.

The Government are committed to the appropriate and proportionate use of the temporary exclusion power, but I note the views of David Anderson, the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation. I have a great deal of respect for him and the contributions he has made on a range of matters, including the issue of judicial oversight of the process of granting a temporary exclusion order. Although this issue arises at a late stage in the Bill’s passage through this House, it is important, as has been reflected in many of the contributions. The House has not had the chance properly to consider the Opposition amendments. I hope they will be minded to withdraw them at this stage, and I can assure the House that the Government will look very carefully at the constructive suggestions from David Anderson and return to this issue in the other place.

On a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), the Government have listened to the arguments made both in Committee and—with, I think, sincerity—in today’s debate, and also to the comments of David Anderson. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will reflect on them and that the next stage when we would be able to respond to them is in the other place. No discourtesy is intended. Rather, we want to get this right and to reflect on the views that have been put forward. That is why I judge that this is the most appropriate way of addressing the issues highlighted today.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister must recognise that our amendments are exactly the same as those we tabled in Committee three weeks ago. He has had three weeks to consider these matters, yet today he still asks this House to accept that he is not able to endorse the proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise the strength of feeling that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have on the need to ensure that we are acting appropriately to address the threat of terrorism and the dangers and harm that may be caused by jihadists who have travelled abroad and who may wish to return to this country. This measure is about precisely that, which is why it is framed in this manner and why we have legislated for prosecutions to be brought where people return to the UK after committing acts abroad that would justify prosecution in this country. I recognise my hon. Friend’s points, but our judgment is that the Bill properly reflects that and gives the appropriate power.

With those comments, I hope right hon. and hon. Members will be minded not to press their amendments.

[Mr Hanson]

This has been a useful debate, which is reflected in the fact that it has been longer than I expected. Significant concern has been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Back Benches, by Liberal Democrat Members and by Opposition Members, including members of the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) did not table any amendments to the Bill, so to criticise the Labour party for doing so is slightly unnerving.

Deep down, the Minister knows that he has lost the argument on this issue. The Government will return in another place with an amendment that will be broadly similar to what we have proposed today and that will have the approval of the Liberal Democrats and his own Back Benchers. That amendment will come back to this House and we will have another debate in a few weeks’ time in which we will once again agree that this is the right thing to do.

I wish to withdraw new clause 1, but the essence of this debate is new clause 3, on the appeal mechanism, so I wish to support new clause 3, give the House an opportunity to vote for what it will ultimately agree when another place has determined it and let this House today determine this policy. Therefore, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in support of new clause 3, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Prior permission of the court

‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State—

(a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual, and

(b) makes an application to the court for permission to impose measures on the individual.

(2) The application must set out a draft of the proposed TEO notice.

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

(a) to determine whether the relevant decisions of the Secretary of State are obviously flawed, and

(b) to determine whether to give permission to impose measures on the individual and (where applicable) whether to exercise the power of direction under subsection (9).

(4) The court may consider the application—

(a) in the absence of the individual;

(b) without the individual having been notified of the application; and

(c) without the individual having been given an opportunity (if the individual was aware of the application) of making any representations to the court.

(5) But that does not limit the matters about which rules of court may be made.

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

(7) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State that condition A, condition B, or condition C is met is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section.

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

(9) If the court determines that the Secretary of State‘s decision that condition D is met is obviously flawed, the court may (in addition to giving permission under subsection (8) give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual.

(10) 1n this section “relevant decisions” means the decisions that the following conditions are met—

(a) condition A;

(b) condition B;

(c) condition C; and

(d) condition D.”—(Mr Hanson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division, and Madam Deputy Speaker having directed that the doors be locked—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As there was a reason for the delay and a large number of Members were held up coming into the Chamber, we will unlock the doors.

Whereupon the doors were unlocked.

--- Later in debate ---

Seizure of passports etc from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to move amendment 9, page 1, line 8, at end insert—

‘(2) This section shall be repealed on 31 December 2016 unless both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution that it should continue in force until a future date.

(3) The date specified in a resolution of both Houses of Parliament under subsection (2) may be modified by subsequent resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.’.

This amendment would require a vote in Parliament to renew the power to temporarily seize passports.

I hope that our discussions on this amendment will be shorter than those on the previous group, because it is fairly straightforward. It would put in place a closure date of 31 December 2016 on the power to seize passports, unless both Houses of Parliament passed resolutions that it should continue in force until a future date. As Members will be aware, the Bill sets out the power to seize travel documents from individuals who are thought—this is intelligence-led—to be travelling outside the United Kingdom for purposes relating to terrorism. Those measures have the broad support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and myself; we did not oppose them on Second Reading or in Committee. However, if passed today in their current form, the measures would be in place in perpetuity, pending any amendment or removal by a future Government.

The point I wish to bring to the House’s attention is that the new powers being introduced today, as I think the Minister accepts, were subject to limited consultation prior to publication of the Bill. They give a range of potential powers, under schedule 1, for immigration officers, customs officials, qualified officers and senior police officers to ensure that passports are decommissioned for a period of 14 or 30 days. They allow the Government, under schedule 1, to bring forward a code of practice, which we have not yet seen and which is not yet in place.

There are powers set out in paragraph 14 of schedule 1 that allow the Secretary of State to make whatever arrangements he or she thinks appropriate in relation to the person during the relevant period or on the relevant period coming to an end. There are powers in place that, as we discussed in Committee, could lead to a range of mistakes and challenges and a serious deprivation of liberty. Again, although we support the broad thrust of those powers, the simple question before the House today is this: should the powers be in place in perpetuity, or should we have a sunset clause?

If the amendment were accepted, the sunset clause would allow for the powers to fall in December 2016. That would mean that the Government could introduce new legislation with amendments, taking into account the experience of those two years of operation. It could equally mean that in the run-up to December 2016 the Minister or Secretary of State, whoever that was, could hold a formal review, as we would expect, and introduce an order extending the life of the powers for a further period. It would require only a one-and-a-half-hour debate in the House of Commons under the affirmative resolution procedure. It is normal practice and has been done on a range of matters. Until recently, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, for example, always contained a sunset clause and was renewed annually. It is a reasonable thing to do.

I propose that because the powers are new and extensive and have not yet been subject to wide consultation. We accept that the threat is current and severe, leading individuals to travel abroad, as we discussed on the previous group of amendments, but we do not know what it will be like in two years’ time.

[Mr Heath]

I am curious to know why the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment applies only to clause 1, unless I have misread it.

[Mr Hanson]

As ever, we are picking arguments and discussion on a range of issues. We could table an amendment applying to the Bill as a whole, but the power relating to passports is new. We are revisiting amendments that we tabled previously to try to strengthen the Bill. We are testing the Minister’s view on a sunset clause in relation to passports. I am happy to consider a sunset clause on other aspects of the Bill.

[Mr Heath]

It is curious, though, to table an amendment that deals with the one thing that, in another form, is already on the statute book. Passports can be seized from persons suspected, for example, of football hooliganism to prevent them from travelling. Perhaps this is purely a probing amendment, in which case that is perfectly fair at this stage in the Bill, but if it is to be a substantive amendment, it seems illogical, if I may say so, for it to apply only to clause 1.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Logicality is a matter of judgment. We have chosen on this occasion to table an amendment introducing a sunset clause, as we did in Committee. We voted on it in Committee and we have chosen to revisit the issue because we think it is worth revisiting, particularly because, as we shall discuss in a later group of amendments, there is no appeal mechanism in place—[Interruption.] The Minister says there is. Our view is that there is not, but we will discuss that on the next group of amendments.

We believe that there should be a sunset provision in place. The Minister has the opportunity again to discuss that, having previously rejected the principle. Were the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on the Opposition Benches and were I on the Government Benches, I suspect that he would be arguing for such a proposal, though perhaps not just on clause 1. We will be happy to consider extending it in due course, if that is what the Minister wants. For today, we believe that a sunset clause should be in place. It is a fairly straightforward issue and should not detain the House for long. I commend the amendment to the House.

[James Brokenshire]

We discussed this matter in Committee, and I do not intend to detain the House for a great deal of time given the succinct way in which the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) highlighted his case.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 1 and schedule 1 would allow the police to disrupt travel at short notice when there is a reasonable suspicion that someone is travelling for terrorism-related purposes. The power contains a number of robust requirements that will ensure that it is used appropriately and judiciously. In the context of the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, it is important to note that it is subject to a code of practice. I do not know whether his concerns are based on a perceived uncertainty and lack of consideration, and that is what is preying on his mind, but the code of practice has been published and is in the House Library. It is open for consultation until 30 January. In it—if he has not seen it already, I am happy to send it to him, given that it has been available since 18 December —he may see the level of detail that he may be concerned is lacking. It is open for consultation until 30 January and, as I said, available in the House Library.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister issued a consultation document on 18 December, which was either the last day or the second-to-last day the House was sitting, and expected Members to know that at the time. He did not have the courtesy to inform me, although we had a debate on these matters. He needs to reflect on that fact. A consultation over Christmas? Perhaps he could do it in a better way.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman was very clear to us about the need for consultation documents to be produced prior to Report stage, and that is precisely what we have done on this and on other matters. Equally, he should reflect on the fact that the Government have not, as has happened previously, waited until Royal Assent before publishing a number of these codes. We have absolutely adhered to the requests that were made in Committee by publishing consultation documents and drafts to enable a proper consideration of the relevant provisions. If that is preying on his mind in seeking to advance his request for a sunset clause, then I draw his attention to the fact that the code of practice has been published and the detail he may think is lacking is in fact available.

The power is subject to scrutiny through an initial review by a senior police officer and a further review by a senior police officer of at least chief superintendent level within 72 hours, with notification to the chief constable, and then, as we will debate in the next group of amendments, the ability, if the police wish to retain travel documents beyond 14 days, for a court review. Clear safeguards have been placed in the Bill. This will give the police, or Border Force officers directed by the police, an important power to seize travel documents, including passports and travel tickets, at a port to disrupt immediate travel based on “reasonable suspicion” that an individual is travelling for terrorism-related activity. The passport is not cancelled. The document can be held for up to 14 days, or up to 30 days if the retention period is extended by a court. As I said, we will discuss the detail of that in the next group of amendments. It would be a criminal offence for a person to refuse to hand over their travel documents when the power had been exercised. Crucially, the power gives the authorities time to investigate the individual involved and provides an opportunity to take alternative, more permanent disruptive action if appropriate. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman indicated, as he did previously in Committee, the broad support of Opposition Front Benchers for this measure, recognising the utility of the power set out in the Bill. The safeguards we have established should ensure that the power will be used in a fair, reasonable and lawful manner.

Introducing a sunset clause may send an inadvertent message to would-be jihadist travellers of our lack of intent to deal with the threat they pose. I know that that is not the right hon. Gentleman’s intention, but it could have that impact if they believe that the powers would end in two years’ time. Indeed, the proposal would inject an element of uncertainty into a measure that has been clearly framed and drafted, that is limited in scope and time, and that has clear oversight of police scrutiny measures and the court-related process set out in the Bill. The House has scrutinised the measures over several days of debate, both in Committee and, indeed, in the House this afternoon, and it is our judgment that those are not the usual circumstances in which a sunset provision would be contemplated.

[Mr Hanson]

Does the Minister think that a sunset clause in prevention of terrorism legislation gave succour and comfort to those people for whom it was intended, such as terrorists in Northern Ireland? I do not think it did and I resent the suggestion that we are trying to give succour to terrorism.

[James Brokenshire]

If the right hon. Gentleman was listening, he would know that I was clear that I do not believe that to be his intention. I said that it may be an inadvertent consequence. Often, it has become customary for sunset clauses to be inserted when legislation is passed by both Houses over a small number of days. That is not the context of this afternoon’s debate. We have had many hours of debate and discussion on the provisions, so it is our judgment that those circumstances do not apply.

Terrorism-related travel is a serious and ongoing issue and I think we will see an enduring threat of terrorism from Syria and Iraq for the foreseeable future. That is the reality of the challenge we face. The proposal is to inject a two-year sunset clause, but I think we will face continuing challenges during that time and law enforcement agencies need to have a range of tools at their disposal to deal with the threat in a necessary and proportionate way.

We cannot be confident that conflicts that attract these individuals will have been resolved in two years’ time. It would not be right to plan on that basis. That is why the Bill Committee overwhelmingly rejected a similar amendment when it was pressed to a vote. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. I appreciate that he is seeking to probe to ensure that the Bill’s provisions are scrutinised and challenged appropriately. I entirely respect that. Clearly, it would be open for a new Government to repeal the provisions if they saw fit and judged that appropriate changes were required if there was a subsequent review of counter-terrorism legislation. That would be the right time to do it, so I hope the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Hanson]

I have heard what the Minister has said, but the Opposition still wish to examine the issue in detail and it would be useful for the other place to know that we believe that consideration should be given to a sunset clause. Perhaps it could also take on board the concerns of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). I therefore wish to push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to move amendment 10, page 30, line 14, schedule 1, at end insert—

“(c) the individual subject whose travel document has been removed may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this Schedule were met,

(b) the Secretary of State must by regulations make provisions about—

(i) the relevant court;

(ii) a time limit by which an appeal must have been heard;

(c) the power to make regulations under this section—

(i) is exercisable by statutory instrument;

(ii) includes power to make transitional, transitory or saving provision;

(d) a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

This amendment would create the right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport, and requires the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a relevant court and time limit by which an appeal must have been heard.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 11, page 30, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) the individual subject whose travel document has been removed may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this Schedule were met,

(b) the appeal must have been heard within seven days of an application,

(c) the Secretary of State must by regulation make provisions about the relevant court,

(d) the power to make regulations under this section—

(i) is exercisable by statutory instrument;

(ii) includes power to make transitional, transitory or saving provision;

(e) a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

This amendment would create the right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport and require the appeal to have been heard within seven days.

[Mr Hanson]

The power to seize a passport is set out in clause 1 and schedule 1. For the sake of clarity, I reiterate that we support the general principle of seizure, provided there is sufficient evidence to warrant such action being taken by the officials listed in schedule 1. The question today, which we discussed in Committee, relates to proportionality and to the opportunity for individuals to make representations to officials on the reasons why the temporary seizure has been made. The decision to seize a passport is taken on evidence and on intelligence.

In Committee, we discussed—I hope we can revisit the discussion speedily today—the range of intelligence that could be linked to third party intelligence on the movement of an individual, or to intelligence secured by the agencies. There are a whole range of reasons for such intelligence to be gathered, but that does not necessarily mean that it is correct. There may be a range of reasons for mistakes or for concerns about intelligence. As we discussed in Committee, people may have legitimate reasons—weddings, business, tourism and so on—to travel abroad to areas with difficult challenges. I accept that it would be the exception and that if the Government or a qualifying officer seized a passport, it would be based on strong intelligence, but the purpose of the amendments is to provide a couple of options to put in place stronger oversight and appeal mechanisms for individuals who feel aggrieved. Amendment 10 would ensure a

“right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport, and requires the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a relevant court and time limit by which an appeal must have been heard.”

Amendment 11 would do pretty much the same by creating

“the right for an appeal in court following a temporary seizure of a passport and require the appeal to have been heard within seven days.”

It is not only the Opposition who are concerned. In an article on 3 September, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) wrote in support:

“Allowing police to confiscate passports at the UK border to prevent an aspiring young jihadi from leaving for Syria via Istanbul may be justifiable on good intelligence and a sensible extension of the home secretary’s powers. But unless there is some rapid means of review there must be the likelihood that mistakes will occur as the use of this administrative power increases and perfectly innocent young people will find their travel plans wrecked. We would be wise to insist on oversight, rapid review processes and compensation where justified.”

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If someone is going abroad with a British passport, either on business or for humanitarian reasons—to support a charity, for example—would it not be sensible, prior to departing the country, to drop a line to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, saying, “I’m going there for this reason”? That might help and be a good guide when people come back that they were not out to do mischief.

[Mr Hanson]

I suspect that that would be a recipe for chaos in the Foreign Office and for difficult decisions having to be made across the board. If everybody who travelled to one of the countries or to a third party country first—such as Istanbul on the way to Syria—it could mean thousands of letters a day pouring into the Foreign Office saying, “I’m going to a particular country.”.

We need secure, targeted, intelligence-led activity to seize passports. That is what I expect and what I am reassured the Government will do. The purpose of our amendments is simply to provide that if someone feels aggrieved, mechanisms are in place for them to challenge the decision in court, should they so wish. There are such mechanisms in place now—for example, allowing people to challenge TPIMs—but mostly people do not challenge them, because they know their grounds are valid and that the Government have made the right decision. It is important, however, that we put mechanisms in place to cover those bases.

[Mr Heath]

I am not seeking to undermine the right hon. Gentleman’s cases and I am interested in what he is saying, but will he accept that the drafting of amendment 10 simply does not work? Were it placed where he wants it placed, schedule 1 would read:

“If an application for authorisation is granted…the Secretary of State must make regulations”.

It does not work. It is grossly defective in drafting terms. Whatever he does, I hope he does not press the amendment to a Division, although he may, of course, make sound arguments for why something similar should be in the Bill, which I hope can be addressed at a later stage.

[Mr Hanson]

The standard excuses are, first, speed and, secondly, the fact that we do not have a Home Office behind us. However, it is the principle of the amendments that I wish to discuss. I might disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because I will consider dividing the House, depending on the outcome of our discussions with the Minister. I am also working through a heavy cold, so I am sure this will be a marvellous day to consider the amendments, given his sympathetic eye for our dilemmas.

This is important. I still think we need a mechanism allowing an individual whose passport has been seized to appeal, if they so wish. I expect, as I have said, that the Minister’s grounds would be solid and that this particular power would not be undertaken lightly, but the appeal remains important.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Clearly, the police officer must hold the reasonable belief at that time, as I think my right hon. and learned Friend has accepted. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states that the paragraph applies where

“a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person—

(a) is there with the intention of leaving”

the UK

“for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity…or

(b) has arrived…with the intention of leaving”

again, for such purposes. Therefore, there is a requirement for that to be assessed. As I say, those issues can be considered as part of the consultation on the code of practice. I note the specific points that my right hon. and hon. Friends have made in that regard.

I turn back to the specific amendments. Given that the appeal is against why the police officer formed a reasonable suspicion about the individual’s travel intentions and exercised the power under the provision, the hearing would not take into account what the investigation had subsequently found about the individual’s intentions and whether that information strengthened the original decision or damaged it. That could result in a finding that the original decision was flawed and, regardless of the fact that the investigation has subsequently found evidence to strengthen the decision, the appeal is upheld and presumably the travel documents are returned. That is a risk that the Government are not prepared to take. Again, the right hon. Member for Delyn may wish to reflect further on that issue, taking into account some of the more detailed drafting issues that he has been alerted to in the debate.

Given the points that I have raised, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman’s initial indications, I hope that he will feel able, in the context of the safeguards in the Bill and the code of practice, to withdraw his amendment.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister has tried to reassure the House that the clause and schedule provide sufficient safeguards. I still worry about the safeguards that are in place for those people who are aggrieved and feel they have a case that they wish to draw to the attention of the authorities.

Under amendments 10 and 11, an individual may have their appeal heard in court within seven days of an application. In most cases where the passport is seized, that right would not be exercised by the individual because I suspect that the Government would have taken sufficient steps to ensure that there were good grounds to seize the passport in the first place. However, I still think it is right and proper that individuals have the right to make representations effectively. Even if there are amendments that we can look at in due course, it is worth while the House sending a signal to the other place that this is an issue of principle for us and that we wish the issue to be revisited by the Government or by the other place in due course.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As the Home Secretary has already said, we have got a grip on the issue. We are taking further steps through the operation of the Immigration Act 2014 to ensure that if there are appeals, they are heard outside this country’s jurisdiction, and that article 8—the right to family life—does not trump the ability to remove someone from the UK. It is that work and work across Government that are making sure that we are able to remove foreign national offenders from the UK.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I join the Minister in paying tribute to John Vine for his work as chief inspector of borders and immigration.

The chief inspector’s latest report on British citizenship applications shows that, on the Minister’s watch, scant regard was given by the Department to checks on criminal behaviour, fraud or immigration status. Since that report’s publication, what steps has the Minister taken to check histories and remove citizenship, if appropriate? Will he instigate proper investigation and record keeping? If he will not, a future Labour Government will.

[James Brokenshire]

Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman just stated, the chief inspector was clear that criminal record checks had been carried out in all cases that were examined. We have reminded caseworkers of the need to ensure that the appropriate guidance is adhered to, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the issues identified by the chief inspector arose in large measure from decisions of the last Labour Government to grant leave to people without going through the full requirements. We are still clearing up the mess that they put us in and we are focused on turning the ship around.