Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Clauses 34 and 35 address two discrete but important aspects. Clause 34 amends the Terrorism Act 2000, so that an offence is committed if an insurer or reinsurer reimburses a payment that they know, or have reasonable cause to suspect, has been made in response to a terrorist demand. Like other terrorist-financing offences, the measure will have extraterritorial effect. As a result of the measure, we will ensure and put beyond any doubt that UK insurance companies do not form part of a terrorism ransom chain, and that those who make payments to terrorist entities cannot be reimbursed for the payment.

Clause 35 introduces schedule 5, which contains amendments to the power to examine goods at ports contained in schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, as well as amendments to other enactments relating to that power. Those changes follow on from a number of recommendations that David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, highlighted in terms of the need for certain clarifications in respect of the specific schedule 7 power. The purpose of these changes is to clarify the legal position in relation to where goods may be examined and the examination of goods that comprise items of post, and to put beyond doubt the basis in law for this vital investigative capability.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his helpful explanation. It is right that we do not pay ransoms and that insurance companies are not allowed to do so. The Bill proposes to make it illegal to make payments on ransom insurance policies, and that is an argument I support and do not wish to argue against this evening. However, I do want to ask him a couple of questions.

Will the Minister tell the Committee how he has consulted insurance companies on the impact and implementation of these measures? The Government’s own impact assessment makes it clear that there is a risk that:

“UK insurers/reinsurers may lose business. Overseas insurers may be able to offer the same product as UK insurers but without this restriction. Based on consultation, we estimate…UK insurers/reinsurers’ annual gross premium income from kidnap and ransom insurance policies to be between £60 and £160 million.”

a year. There are two issues I want to raise. What response has he had from insurers on their potential loss of £160 million? I am particularly concerned about whether the measure will simply transfer that insurance risk to companies that operate abroad.

I want clarity on clause 34, which makes it a criminal offence for people in the UK to take out ransom insurance. If a UK citizen insured themselves through a foreign company, would the provisions still apply? The Minister has mentioned extraterritorial reach, but I want to be clear that the Bill does not deny UK insurance companies the premiums of £60 million to £160 million by simply transferring the fund to foreign companies. Will the provision apply to a company based in the UK but whose policy could be placed with an insurance underwriter based in America, France or Rome? I would be interested to know whether all those aspects are covered. I am sure the Minister will be able to allay my concerns and fears.

As an Opposition spokesman I continue to support the straightforward principle—I supported it when I was a Minister—that we do not pay ransom demands, because they simply encourage further kidnappings and associated activity. Does the Bill cover other areas, such as a kidnapped oil worker? We may not pay a ransom, but there might be insurance issues related to covering his loss of salary or his mortgage payments. I want to be clear that the measures cover the issue of ransom, as opposed to other insurance matters that a responsible company would want to implement.

Finally, the Bill has a clear definition of terrorism, but I would welcome the Minister’s view of, for example, Somali pirates. They are not terrorists, but does the definition cover the payment of ransoms in general, or is its focus on terrorism alone? If the Minister wishes to table further amendments, I would be happy to support measures that address other types of ransom, because it is a cardinal principle that we do not pay ransoms in any way, shape or form for individuals who have been kidnapped. I do not quite understand the Minister’s approach to insurance payments, helpful though it is, and I would welcome an explanation of his position on other types of kidnap ransoms.

We support clause 35, which is a sensible measure. I do not need to say anything else. I hope the Minister will respond to my comments.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. It is a sobering fact that ISIL alone made $35 billion to $45 billion between September 2013 and September 2014. There is no doubt that that has boosted its capability. Simply put, money paid to terrorists equals an increased threat to the safety of UK citizens. The right hon. Gentleman understands that, as he made clear in his speech.

We consulted leading representatives of the insurance industry and its regulators, the police and operational and international partners about the measure. We have had constructive discussions with the industry. This is a niche part of the wider insurance market and it makes up only a small part of the business of those insurers. Insurance companies have been clear that their policies exclude reimbursement of ransoms paid to proscribed groups in any case. The point of the measure is to make that absolutely clear and put it beyond doubt. Section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 centres on what constitutes arrangements and we are seeking to provide complete clarity. The measures are framed in the context of terrorism, although there are various insurance policies that operate in the market, because they are intended to prevent money going to terrorist groups.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about extraterritorial jurisdiction. The measures are intended to govern insurance companies based in the UK, so that they cannot offshore those payments; if they have some other insurance company with links to the UK, that company will be caught by the measures. It is therefore important that the legislation is framed in that manner.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 29, 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.”

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Gary Streeter)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 1 stand part.

Amendment 17, in schedule 1, 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.”

Government amendment 13.

Schedule 1 stand part.

New clause 8—Police bail for terrorism suspects—

‘(1) Section 34 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) after “offence” insert “or on suspicion of being a terrorist under section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000”.

(3) In subsection (2)(b) after “Act” insert “or section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000".

(4) After subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) A grant of bail under this section shall last no longer than six months from the date of release.”

As an alternative to the ad hoc passport seizure and retention scheme set out at Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of the Bill this new clause would make police bail, with conditions, available for those suspected of terrorism.

[Mr Hanson]

Mr Streeter, I welcome you to the Chair of the Committee. I rise on behalf of my hon. Friends to speak to amendments 29 and 17.

I hope you will allow me a little leeway, Mr Streeter, before we begin the debate. Although this Bill has nothing to do with what has happened in Sydney, Australia, I think it would be appropriate for the Committee to recognise that there has been a serious incident there and for us to express our condolences in relation to those who have died as a result. It reminds us that terrorism and terrorist activity are never far from our shores and from individuals in our communities as well. That is why it is important that we look at the new clauses and amendments before us in what will be, I hope, a positive discussion and debate.

The Government believe there is a need to legislate on counter-terrorism. There is a terrorism threat in the United Kingdom: on 29 August the independent joint terrorism analysis centre raised the UK national terrorist threat level from substantial to severe. [Interruption.]

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Gary Streeter)]

Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but a lot of background conversations are going on in the Chamber and we can hardly hear the most important speech that is being made. Will colleagues please keep the noise down?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to you, Mr Streeter.

It is important that we recognise that terrorist attacks are, sadly, highly likely. According to the Government’s own analysis in the explanatory notes:

“Approximately 500 individuals of interest to the police and security services have travelled from the UK to Syria and the region since the start of the conflict. It is estimated half of these have returned. In the context of this heightened threat to our national security, the provisions of the Bill”

are designed to address those matters.

My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and I have tabled amendments 29 and 17 because there needs to be a debate about two particular issues. If the Bill’s measures are agreed by both Houses they will become law, but there will be no end date or review date for the powers. Amendment 29 seeks to ensure that clause 1

“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.”

It goes on:

“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.”

The amendment is therefore designed to create, in effect, a sunset clause to review the legislation, which is not unusual for terrorism legislation. It would not demand that we revisit the whole clause by seeking to enact new legislation; it would simply require a resolution to allow the provisions to continue. The amendment has merit and I will willingly discuss it with the Minister.

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

Although I agree with the shadow Minister that that amendment does, in principle, have some merit and that it focuses the mind on the fact that we need consolidating legislation to deal with a whole range of different terrorism-related issues, does he not recognise that the raw logic of his proposal is that if such a sunset clause is agreed, the provisions could end up entirely unprotected if the Government did not introduce any new legislation at that point? That would not be a desirable state of affairs.

[Mr Hanson]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has looked carefully at amendment 29, which states:

“This section shall be repealed on 31 December 2016 unless both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution that it should continue in force”.

Therefore, it does not require new legislation; it simply requires a resolution of this House, which could be agreed in an hour-and-a-half debate, as has happened in the past. Indeed, clause 17(5) states:

“Subsections (1) to (4) are repealed on 31 December 2016”,

so there is already a remit for a resolution to review the provisions. Amendment 29 has a similar purpose.

Amendment 17 is slightly different. It states that, if an individual has had their travel document removed under the provisions of clause 1 and schedule 1, they

“may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on which conditions…of this schedule were met.”

At the moment there is no appeal procedure for an individual who has lost their passport, and that needs to be considered.

On amendment 29, clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which defines a number of areas and sets out a course of action relating to the seizure of a passport from a person suspected of involvement in terrorism offences. Under the heading “Interpretation”, the schedule states that immigration officers, customs officials, qualified officers and senior police officers can remove a passport from an individual. By “passport”, it means either a United Kingdom passport or one issued by another nation. The schedule defines involvement in terrorism-related activity as the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism; conduct that facilitates the commission of terrorism; conduct that gives encouragement to terrorism; and conduct that gives support or assistance to terrorism. The schedule also includes powers to search for, inspect and retain travel documents. Authorisation for that will not just be sought from a senior police officer; the schedule also includes conditions for how that authorisation will be agreed.

I refer to those points because they are definitive statements. They may or may not be appropriate or work in practice, but whatever the Minister tells us today he will accept that the Prime Minister indicated in his announcement at the end of August that the measures would be introduced. It is now December, which means that the Bill has been drafted speedily. I make no general criticism of that, but even the Bill’s explanatory notes state that there has been limited consultation on a range of aspects, even though the matters covered in schedule 1 involve serious powers.

The schedule allows for the period in which the document can be removed and retained by the judicial authority to be extended from the initial 14-day period to 30 days. Paragraph 14 states:

“This paragraph applies where a person’s travel documents are retained”.

Paragraph 14(2) gives the Secretary of State a great power:

“The Secretary of State may make whatever arrangements he or she thinks appropriate in relation to the person… during the relevant period”

and

“on the relevant period coming to an end.”

The Secretary of State is also bound by schedule 1 to produce a code of practice covering training, the exercise of functions by constables, the information to be given, and how and when that information is to be given. The code of practice will be published in draft and laid before this House. All those matters are covered by schedule 1.

I have gone through the schedule in detail because it covers an awful lot of potential activity that may or may not work as the Government intend it to. The purpose of our proposed sunset clause is not to say that Her Majesty’s Opposition oppose clause 1 or schedule 1, because, although some Members might, we do not. Our amendment addresses the fact that the schedule proposes creating a complex new code of practice relating to the criteria covering individual officers and others who can exercise the powers, including removing the passports of not only British citizens but citizens of foreign countries.

If we enact that in the next few weeks, it will be a serious piece of legislation. In view of the reasons the Minister has given for introducing the provisions, it would do no harm for him to consider—this is the purpose of amendment 29—a date for us formally to allow the legislation to fall, unless the House is satisfied with the original proposal. By December 2016, there will have been a general election and the House of Commons will be composed of whoever has been elected, and whoever is the Minister will be able to review the legislation to see whether it works. They would then be able to table a motion to pass a resolution allowing the legislation to continue unamended.

[Mark Field]

The shadow Minister is making some fair points and I think the whole House would broadly support the idea that we need to consider how the Bill will be applied in practice. We all recognise that the new powers raise some legitimate concerns relating to civil liberties. Rather than having a sunset clause, has the right hon. Gentleman given some thought to the idea of imposing on the Home Office an obligation, within a year of the Bill being enacted, to produce a full report on the workings of this novel change in procedure?

[Mr Hanson]

We did consider those matters and I originally drafted an amendment that sought to do that. I could have tabled it last Thursday but I decided to focus our debate on whether the legislation is fit for purpose. I am not saying that it is not; I am simply saying that there are severe changes in the Bill that restrict individuals, give powers to police officers and others, set out a new code of practice and give a range of powers to the Secretary of State to do what they wish with detained individuals. If the Opposition are to support the clause this evening, as we will, it must be reviewed at some point in the future. The mechanism we suggest means that a Minister, whoever that might be, must review the situation and either table a motion or, if the legislation ultimately falls, table a replacement piece of legislation in time for 31 December 2016.

I am not seeking to cause difficulties for the Minister with amendment 29. I simply want him to consider in detail his proposals in clause 1 and schedule 1 and whether we should have a sunset clause. We want such a clause because one of the gaps in the legislation means that there is no mechanism for appeal in the event of the powers in schedule 1 or clause 1 being exercised against an individual. An individual's travel documents will be removed for 14 days, and potentially for 30 days, but in the meantime there is no mechanism through which they can appeal effectively against that decision. Amendment 17 allows for an appeal in the courts on the subject of

“the evidence on which conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of this schedule were met”.

The Committee will agree that the right of British citizens to travel freely, unrestricted by state interference, is crucial and historical.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)]

Given the right hon. Gentleman’s concern, would not the right approach be to accept his amendment 17 and the judicial right of appeal rather than having a sunset clause? Does he plan to press that amendment to a vote?

[Mr Hanson]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to this place, as this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I shall wait to see what the Minister says, but I am minded to say that it is important that the right of appeal is paramount. The Minister might or might not accept the amendment and I will have to listen carefully to his argument, but if he does not accept it there will be an opportunity to test the will of the Committee should we so wish.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

The shadow Minister has already said that schedule 1 is detailed and that there is a lot to contemplate in it. Would not adding the right to appeal further complicate it? People will already get their passport back after two weeks, so why this additional complication?

[Mr Hanson]

I was coming on to those points, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. It might help if I outlined some of the circumstances. If an individual’s passport is removed, it will be because there is reasonable suspicion that he is involved in some activities that mean he should not travel abroad. That suspicion might be well founded—I am trying to be fair, and I doubt that the power would be exercised if it were not well founded—but there still might be occasions when an individual was travelling to a difficult, challenging country for a family wedding, a holiday, an employment interview, or for other perfectly legitimate reasons. The security services might wrongly identify an individual; that can occasionally happen. The individuals responsible might have challenges for a range of reasons. The information supplied to the security services—for example, by a parent whose adult child is travelling—may be wrong.

The simple point is that if that power is exercised, the individual loses their passport and their ability to travel and so might well miss a job interview, a family wedding or a holiday and might be wrongly marked out in their social circles. That could happen. I am not saying that it will, but it could. Amendment 17 is meant to ensure that if that individual feels that they have been wrongly treated, they have a right to ask for a review by a court. It is reasonable to do that under UK law.

[Julian Smith]

After two weeks, the individual will get their passport back anyway. This is a really wishy-washy way of carrying on, and we should either be confident that this is a good measure or not. They will get their passport back within two weeks.

[Mr Hanson]

This is a very strong and effective power, which the Opposition support as it will ensure that measures are taken against individuals who might go abroad for terrorist purposes, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that one of the balances of strong powers is the right to strong redress. It might only be for 14 days, as he says, or it might be for only 30 in due course, but that could mean losing a £5,000 or £6,000 holiday with no compensation, missing a family wedding or a person’s own wedding or losing a job opportunity for what could be a case of mistaken identity.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I will let the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervene, because I know that he has expressed concerns about the power. In a very helpful article in The Guardian on 3 September, he said:

“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…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…people will find their travel plans wrecked.”

I agree with him and that is why, even given the 14-day period, I think that we should consider the proposal in amendment 17. I hope that the Minister will do so.

[Mr Grieve]

I expressed that concern and it remains a concern, but the interesting point about amendment 17 is that if we were to allow an appeal, as the right hon. Gentleman describes it, how quickly could such an appeal be heard and would it have a significant impact on the shortness of time in which a passport might be capable of being returned, given that we now know that there will be two weeks, or 14 days, for that return to take place? I listened carefully to what he has to say and it seems to me that he is making a good point, but I would also be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister and from the right hon. Gentleman how such a system could be made to work in reality.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Gary Streeter)]

Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, let me say that interventions should be slightly briefer than that.

[Mr Hanson]

Thank you, Mr Streeter. I take the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), but we are in opposition, which is a difficult and cold place. We do not have the officials that the Minister has. The principle is that we believe there should be an examination of the right of appeal on any decision that has been taken. The purpose of amendment 17 is to place that argument before the Government so that they can say whether they believe there should be any right of appeal or whether they believe that 14 days or 30 days is sufficient, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) and by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, and that there is no need for an appeal as it would not resolve the issue. It is inherent in any decision of this seriousness that an individual should be able to challenge a decision on the grounds of mistaken identity or the grounds of loss of service in a court.

[Mr Grieve]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise, Mr Streeter, for taking up too much time. I shall be brief and make more frequent interventions, if I am allowed them. It seemed to me when I made that point back in September that a particular concern was somebody who might be prevented from going away for a wedding or for employment reasons and who wanted a rapid review, but I am also realistic about whether such a rapid review can be made available in practice. That was why I raised at a subsequent date the other question of whether we should consider compensation if somebody were disadvantaged.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that point and we probably agree on the principle. The purpose of amendment 17 is to give the Minister the opportunity to tease out the practicalities of deliverability for any form of appeal. I take the view—it may be old-fashioned, but that is not for me to say—that if someone is effectively charged with involvement in terrorism, which is why a passport will be removed, that is a serious initial action by the state against an individual. The individual might be the subject of mistaken identity or factually wrong information might have been given, whether maliciously or not. They might be travelling for perfectly legitimate purposes, as I have said. In each of those cases, they should ultimately have the right to say to a third party, “I appreciate that these facts have been put before the passport remover, but they are fundamentally wrong and I demand my passport back.” That must be possible in a more speedy and effective way than is the case under the Bill.

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

Is it not the case, if we believe in fairness and the rule of law, that the stronger the action taken against an individual by the state, the more powerful the argument is that the individual should have the right of appeal? Without the right of appeal, the Bill gives the state excessive powers.

[Mr Hanson]

That is an important point.

As the Committee will know, under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, there is the power to stop and question individuals who are suspected of involvement in terrorism. The annual report on the Terrorism Acts by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, that was published in July this year gave facts and figures about that power. It included the number and ethnicities of the people who have been examined under schedule 7 in recent years. Although he noted that there was not overwhelming evidence that the power was exercised in a “racially discriminatory manner”, he noted:

“It remains imperative that police should exercise their considerable powers in a sensitive, well-informed and unbiased manner”.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Would the proposal in amendment 17 not be stronger if there was a time limit within which the Home Office had to reply to the application to remove a passport, so that the court would have to consider the matter in a timely manner? There is a parallel in the people who are denied entry to this country or are deported from this country and who have to appeal from a third country. The fact that there is no time limit means that the injustices that such cases often involve can go on for a very long time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

That suggestion is worthy of consideration.

The official Opposition tabled an amendment to say that there should be a right of appeal for the reasons that the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield set out. That concern is shared by Members across the House. It is a basic right of appeal. We can look at how it could be exercised, as ever. We might be able to improve the amendment technically. However, if we had not tabled amendment 17, we would not be having a debate about the right to appeal against this measure. The purpose of the debate is to say to the Minister that we think there should be a right of appeal. If the Minister is sympathetic to that idea, he can take it away.

[Mark Field]

rose—

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I give way first to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mark Field]

Perhaps I do not share the great faith in the bureaucratic competence of the Home Office that was expressed by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—

[Mark Field]

I guessed that that was the case. I was being slightly ironic. One issue with the notion that we could have appeals is that if there was a great emergency and the passports of many dozens or even many hundreds of people were seized, the appeals process would become unwieldy. One hopes that such a situation will not come about. If there was a small number of individuals at any one time, it would be quite manageable, but if there was a large number, that would make it more difficult.

[Mr Hanson]

We do not yet know on how many occasions the power will be exercised. I suspect that a vast number of passports will not be seized, but we cannot anticipate that. According to the Government’s explanatory notes,

“500 individuals of interest to the police…have travelled from the UK to Syria…since the start of the conflict.”

That has happened over the past 18 months to three years. The number of individuals travelling out of the UK who may be of interest might be small, but that does not mean that they should not have the right of appeal because, as I have said, mistakes can be made.

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon).

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for referring to me as his hon. Friend. I remind my right hon. Friend that, as he would have been well aware when he was in the Northern Ireland Office, under the Belfast agreement, which was signed on Good Friday, people who are born in Northern Ireland are entitled to citizenship of the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom, and to hold the passport of the United Kingdom, the passport of the Irish Republic or both. If those travel documents were confiscated, would it be the Irish passport and the British passport for those who have both? There has to be some form of appeals mechanism if they are confiscated, because the issue is even more complicated if people are leaving or entering Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. She will see that under paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1, passport means “a United Kingdom passport” or

“a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or by or on behalf of an international organisation”.

It is imperative that we consider the issue of appeals because foreign citizens or citizens of the UK might have two passports.

If information is provided about an individual, this measure will allow the serious act of removing their passport and stopping them travelling. Although it will no doubt be very well researched, very well executed and very well managed by the security services, the police, immigration officers and others who are allowed to undertake these matters under schedule 1, the possibility of wrong or disputable facts will always be there. Those wrong or disputable facts will mean that a UK citizen loses their liberty, their passport and their ability to travel. We need to be cognisant of that issue.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Further to the point that was made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), if a passport that was issued by a state other than the UK was seized, does my right hon. Friend envisage that that state would seek to join the appeal against the seizure? Does he believe that Ministers have fully taken account of the diplomatic implications of that?

[Mr Hanson]

Again, that demonstrates why the issue of appeals is important. Paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1 refers to

“a passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom”.

I can envisage a situation in which an individual who is the citizen of and holds the passport of not, dare I say it, the Irish Republic, but another country in the European Union or even a country outside the European Union, but who is resident in or travelling from the UK, is suspected for a range of reasons of involvement in terrorism-related activity under paragraph 1(10) of schedule 1. Again, the UK would be in the difficult situation of depriving an individual from another country of their passport on the basis of a range of suspicions that may or may not prove to be factual. I am in danger of repeating myself and am being careful not to do so, but we need to examine such facts carefully. The purpose of amendment 17 is to stimulate a debate about that.

[Julian Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I am trying to wind up my remarks, but I will give way.

[Julian Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what is his mechanism for appeal? Surely the measure allows border control officers to take a passport without giving too many reasons and, after two weeks, for a judicial review to take place. How would his appeal process work? How would we avoid giving away intelligence during the appeal that could jeopardise the United Kingdom’s security?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

That is a valid point, but judicial review is not what I would call a cheap and easy process. It could not be accessed quickly and easily by an individual who had lost their passport in the circumstances set out in schedule 1. The hon. Gentleman will see that we have included in amendment 17 a reference to appeal “in the courts”. That is intended to stimulate debate—it could be a magistrates court, a court sitting in private or a Crown court. We simply say that the appeal should be in a court. The schedule allows the Secretary of State to produce a code of practice, which could indicate which court should deal with such matters and whether it could sit in private. It would be reasonable for the code of practice to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

For the relevant document to need to be retained, the provisions in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 must remain outstanding: there must be consideration of whether the Secretary of State would use the royal prerogative, whether there are charges to be brought against that person, or whether there are other measures that may be relevant. The requirement still needs to be satisfied, which is why we have brought in the 14-day provision to ensure direct oversight and checks and balances through the mechanisms in the schedule.

On cost, following further discussions with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, it may be helpful to clarify and expand on the evidence I gave to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 3 December, on the availability of legal aid for those subject to the proposed temporary passport seizure powers and to provide clarity on the potential scope of legal aid in this context. I have written to the Chair of the Joint Committee today on this issue.

Legal aid would potentially be available for the magistrates court proceedings provided for in the Bill, but at present that would be a discretionary decision for the director of legal aid casework. The Government are considering whether it would be proportionate to bring those proceedings within the scope of the general legal aid scheme to put individuals’ access to legal aid, subject to the statutory means and merits tests, beyond doubt. Legal aid is available under the general civil legal aid scheme for judicial review challenges by those subject to the temporary passport seizure power and the temporary exclusion order power, subject to the statutory means and merits tests.

Returning to the provisions, a code of practice will provide clear guidance on how police and Border Force officers will exercise the powers. The Government will carefully review all responses received to the consultation that we propose to undertake in respect of the code, to ensure it contains effective guidance and provides clarity to officers on how the new powers should operate. The power is a proportionate and prudent response to the threat we face. It will allow the police to disrupt travel at short notice when there is reasonable suspicion that someone is travelling for terrorism-related purposes.

Let me now turn to the amendments before us. I shall deal first with those from the Opposition. Amendment 17 seeks to provide a process for individuals to appeal to the courts against the decision to remove their travel documents at port. As I have described, the Bill already provides a specific court procedure. In addition, the individual can decide, at any time, to seek a judicial review of the initial passport seizure in the High Court, where closed material proceedings may be available to allow consideration of any sensitive material. I do not believe, therefore, that the amendment adds a significant additional safeguard to the use of this power.

Amendment 29 seeks to introduce a sunset clause to the temporary passport provisions. Doing so may send an inadvertent message to would-be jihadist travellers of our lack of intent to deal with the threat they pose if they believed that the powers would end in two years’ time. Terrorism-related travel is a serious and ongoing issue. Our law enforcement agencies need to have a range of tools at their disposal to deal with it in a necessary and proportionate way. I wish we could be confident that the conflicts that attract these individuals will be resolved in two years, but it would be imprudent to plan on that basis.

[Mr Hanson]

If that is the case, why does clause 17 have a repeal date of 31 December 2016?

[James Brokenshire]

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman raises that point. The parallel I think he seeks to draw is not relevant in this context. As he well knows, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, to which this provision relates, contains a sunset clause because of the need to have further and wider debate on communications data. What we are talking about here is a specific and focused power to deal with the immediate operational needs of our police and law enforcement agencies at the border to disrupt terrorist travel. Therefore, the parallels he seeks to adduce between the two clauses do not actually stack up.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady has made that point several times, and she has been consistent in advancing her case, but there is a balance of risk, and we judge that bail in these circumstances would not be appropriate because of our fundamental focus on protecting national security. Furthermore, the Bill provides appropriate safeguards in several different ways to ensure that it is proportionate and meets the issues of necessity.

Finally, the Government are making a technical amendment in relation to the code of practice. Amendment 13 would

“make it clear that the Secretary of State can comply with the obligations”

in paragraph 19

“to publish a draft of the code…to consider representations, to make any appropriate modifications”

in the light of those representations

“and to lay the draft before Parliament by doing so before the Bill receives Royal Assent.”

Without the amendment, it could be argued that such things would only be valid if done after the Bill becomes an Act. The amendment removes any doubt about that.

With the assurances I have given, I hope that the right hon. Member for Delyn and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion will be minded not to press their amendments.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations and for reminding me that I have form on police bail as a Minister in the last Government. He will be pleased to know that although I gave the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) the opportunity to make her case, we do not support it, having listened to it. We might have form on this issue, but that form is consistent with our approach to the matter.

Our amendment 29, on a sunset clause, and amendment 17, on the right of appeal, still bear merit. The Minister has not convinced me that a sunset clause would be damaging in the long term to the Bill. Neither, given the concerns of Members such as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others about appeals, am I persuaded not to press amendment 17.

[Julian Smith]

I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think carefully about pressing his amendment. What sort of message will it send to terrorists and people who threaten our country if he goes down this wishy-washy path of supporting the Bill but saying we should review it in 18 months’ time?

[Mr Hanson]

Having been counter-terrorism and policing Minister in the last Government, I know the extent of the threats we face, perhaps even more so than the hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that anybody has ever accused me of being wishy-washy on these matters—in fact, I have often been accused of being a little too harsh. However, it is right and proper, when we give powers to remove passports from individuals, that the House of Commons at least commits to reviewing those powers in two years—possibly to see whether we need to make them stronger; it might not mean we want to make them weaker. If he had his passport taken off him at Heathrow or Dover on spurious grounds, he would wish to have an appeal process in place. It is one of the basic tenets of this House of Commons.

So, not being wishy-washy, but being committed to tackling terrorism at its core and taking firm and effective action to reduce the threat to this country, I still believe we need to review the Bill in two years’ time and give people the right to argue their case, should they so wish, and question the grounds on which their passport has been taken from them. On that basis, I would like to press amendment 29 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, given our relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the operation of the common travel area. I can assure her that we work very closely with the Irish Government on the necessary information exchange between us, to ensure that the common travel area could not be—and, in general, is not—a means by which people can access the UK when we do not wish them to do so.

As I was saying, this is a necessary and proportionate power and, given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, it is entirely appropriate to introduce a power that will enable us to disrupt and mange the return of a number of individuals who have been involved in terrorist-related activity outside the UK.

[Mr Hanson]

I should like to speak to the amendments and new clauses standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her explanation of the measures in the Bill, which are worthy of discussion today. We have tabled new clauses 4 and 5 to provide a supportive narrative to the one that the Home Secretary has put forward. The new clauses and amendments taken together form some of the options that could support the control of terror suspects who are at our border in the UK rather than at a foreign port. They provide a mechanism for the issuing of a notification and managed return order, which would be similar to the measure proposed by the Home Secretary but with a slightly different emphasis.

It is important that we recognise the threat posed by British citizens travelling abroad to participate in terror camps or to join the fight with ISIS in the middle east. The threat from ISIS is serious, and the Government need to do more to prevent young people from being groomed and radicalised to go and fight, and, using the measure in clause 1, to deal with such people when they try to return, having left the country to take part in such activity.

That threat is still live. On 21 October, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, was quoted as saying that five Britons were travelling to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS every week. The Government’s own information states that more than 500 Britons have travelled to Syria and that as many as 250 are now seeking to return. Self-evidently, we need a mechanism to protect the British citizen and to deal with those who wish to return. It is also vital that we are able to deal with people we know to be involved in these activities but who are unaware that we know about them. There is a synergy between what we are trying to achieve and what the Government are proposing. We particularly think there may be practical difficulties with the Bill in relation to individuals at foreign ports returning to the UK, and I would welcome the Home Secretary’s view.

The blanket exile proposal—I know the Home Secretary has not used that phrase—was referred to by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, as an

“announcement waiting for a policy”

when it was made. He was worried, and still has some worries, about whether it is legally and practically workable. We now have plans before us that, at first sight, appear closer to managed return than exile, but I wonder how they work in practice. If the aim of the policy is to keep dangerous individuals out of the country and then, ultimately, to manage their return, we need to explore real issues about that, not least what happens when individuals do not choose to apply for consent to come back—or indeed when they do choose to do that. The Home Secretary has touched on this, but what happens to individuals in particular countries? Would Turkey be happy to detain, potentially for months on end, a Briton suspected of illegally fighting for a terrorist organisation if he or she turned up at Ankara airport but was banned from departing to the UK? What options are in place for that? It is not clear whether the British Government have negotiated agreements with particular countries and whether they intend to do that on a case-by-case basis. What provision is in place—if it is not detention—to stop an individual who finds themselves faced with an order at the airport taking an alternative course of action, either returning to the host country in a different way, or returning and leaving for another country, not the UK? There is a practical argument as to what happens under the Bill to individuals in whom the Government have an interest.

Our new clause 4 seeks to examine an alternative model, which could work in parallel with the Government’s proposals but gives an opportunity for a managed return. We have tabled new clauses 4, 5 and 6, and the consequential amendments, which we are happy to look at and to reflect on, given what the Home Secretary has said about them. There is an argument to be made that the Government’s measure is too blunt a tool, in that it either prevents people from coming back or allows them to return. A more graduated response would give the security services and the Government much greater choice in how they want to approach each individual. Our notification and managed return orders proposal provides an alternative that gives security to the Government and takes effective action against individuals in whom the Government have an interest, but does so by allowing them to return to the UK and be managed in the UK, as opposed to leaving us facing some practical difficulties elsewhere.

Our approach would require carriers to provide advance notice of travel bookings for certain named individuals in whom the Government have an interest, and that is well and good. It would allow the British authorities to have advance knowledge and notice of suspects’ travel plans so that arrangements could be made for police interview or arrest at the port or border immediately on their return to the UK. If that model were used as well, it would in part transfer the procedure that the Government are trying to achieve in a foreign port to a UK port. At that point, interviews could be undertaken and action could be taken against an individual, and we could also ensure that we had dealt with an individual of interest to the UK Government in the UK That could be an alternative model.

[Mr Grieve]

Is not one potential problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal, which is in many ways perfectly reasonable in structure, that it does not prevent the individual from continuing to travel abroad between third countries? If the UK Government reasonably suspect that somebody is involved in terrorism, ensuring that person’s managed return—an act of a responsible Government—to this country is perhaps a priority. Is there not a danger that the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal would enable such a person to continue using their passport abroad, because the carrier would have no responsibility to give notification of travel between different countries?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, which touches on one reason why we are presenting alternative, parallel models. I am not saying that the provisions in new clause 4 would be appropriate in every circumstance, but I do not believe—if the Home Secretary can convince me otherwise, we will look at that—that provision is in place for a formal managed return, as under our proposals; we simply have the Home Secretary’s proposals for a request to come back or for detention at a foreign port of entry to prevent someone from returning. We are seeking to give her a menu of options, and our approach could be a better way of managing individuals. Judgments will be made by Ministers and the security services as to how this could be managed, but the concerns expressed by David Anderson QC and by Liberty, which I thank for its assistance in helping us to table these provisions, give rise to a potential alternative that could be examined.

[Julian Smith]

How would the right hon. Gentleman get around the Home Secretary’s comments about the security implications of his model—giving out data to carriers that could compromise British national security?

[Mr Hanson]

We would be looking to do that in a number of circumstances anyway; data are already given to carriers about individuals. Under the Government’s model, information would also be provided to the carrier that the individual was of interest to the UK Government.

[Mrs May]

On the face of it, this may not look like a significant point, but it is. There is a very real difference between giving a list of a large number of people to a carrier and saying, “If any of these people travel, please tell us” and looking at the carrier’s information and saying, “This individual shall not be allowed to travel.” The amount of information about individuals that the carrier holds is very different under the Government’s proposal; much more information about individuals would be held by the carriers under the Opposition’s proposal, and that provides less protection for the individuals.

[Mr Hanson]

Again, these are matters of genuine debate and interest. The point I make to the Home Secretary is that this is entirely in her gift. Under the model we are proposing, her model is not being deleted from the Bill. It is still there to provide the ability to say to carriers, “If Mr X or Miss X turns up at Schiphol airport, we wish you to take action against them and exercise the powers in the Bill.” I could have turned the television on at any time in the past month and seen the names of individuals that we know have travelled abroad—individuals that are publicly travelling abroad and that relatives have said have travelled abroad. It is quite possible for the Home Secretary not to make these two possibilities mutually exclusive. The issue is simply—[Interruption.] If the Minister for Security and Immigration wants to back up his boss and intervene, I am happy to allow him to do so. The debate is about the practical difficulties of the Home Secretary’s proposals, which are to have people sign to say that they will come back under managed return, to have detention or to stop carriers at ports. Are they the sole way to deal with every case that is brought before the Home Secretary’s notice? We are trying to provide at least one alternative for consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith]

The rights being removed under the exclusion orders are nowhere near the same as those being removed under TPIMs, so the need for executive dynamism and an ability to move quickly should trump the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making.

[Mr Hanson]

It is still a big deal to refuse a British passport holder access to the United Kingdom. It is a very big step to take. I am not saying that it is the wrong step to take, but it is a big step. The powers under current TPIMs and, potentially, under the revised TPIMs, involve restrictions on movement and contact. The Bill as proposed could involve detention in a foreign country, pending return to the United Kingdom under a managed process. Charges may not have been made. A person could be held simply on the basis of evidence that has been gathered by the security services. Although those measures are not the same, an element of judicial oversight is something to which we should aspire. As a fair man, I am tabling these issues so that the Home Secretary can reflect on them because I am aware of the concerns that exist outside and inside this House. Undoubtedly, there will be heavy scrutiny of these sections of the Bill and their implications when the Bill reaches the House of Lords. It is important that we flag them up here to say that we should have in place a mechanism whereby the Home Secretary has to make her case to a relatively small cohort of individuals in order to progress the matter. I do not want to have the Home Secretary tied into a long-winded or unresponsive channel for application. I do not want the Home Secretary to have a slower processing ability that means she cannot enable counter-terrorism activity to take place in a speedy and effective manner.

However, if the Government believe that the TPIM regime is not unduly cumbersome when trying to control terror suspects in this country, there seems little reason why it should not be appropriate for use on individuals in other countries, particularly as the Home Secretary will often know who they are and have a close interest in them. The current stipulation is that the Home Secretary simply has to reasonably consider whether someone is involved in terror-related activity. That is a very low bar, and one that I think should be subject to judicial oversight.

In conclusion, I think that the Government should at least look at the alternative model set out in new clause 4, which has widespread support. I would also genuinely like to hear from the Home Secretary why she feels—she has already indicated as much—that the arrangements for TPIMs are not appropriate for what is still a severe restriction on liberty, which might be the right thing to do, under the proposed TEO notice. I look forward to hearing other Members’ contributions.

[Mr Grieve]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who has put forward some alternative proposals, by way of probing amendments, on how this matter might be approached. Having listened to the comments from both sides of the Committee, it seems to me that there is actually a substantial measure of agreement that it is proper for the Government to take action to deal with the question of the managed return of individuals who have gone abroad from this country and whom the Home Secretary reasonably considered might be involved in terrorism.

It is slightly unfortunate that we have become mired in the title of temporary exclusion orders, because it seems to me, having read the Bill, that what we are really talking about is managed returns and how that process is properly to be done. In that context, the approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seems perfectly logical. As I pointed out in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Delyn, one of the problems with his proposals is that as the passport remains with the individual whom the Home Secretary reasonably considers to have committed an offence, that individual could use the passport to travel between third countries at will. If the United Kingdom wishes to act responsibly, particularly as we currently have a system whereby we remove passports from individuals trying to travel abroad in some circumstances, it seems rather odd that we should preserve that mechanism.

On the other hand, there is an issue that I think the Committee has to consider. A point was made earlier about how notification of the removal or revocation of a passport might take place. In some cases it might prove impossible in practice to communicate the revocation to the individual concerned and to indicate that a managed return must take place, because the temporary exclusion order is now in place, through the person contacting the consulate. That raises the prospect of an individual turning up at an airport, having purchased a ticket, only to be turned away at security. I might be wrong about that, in which case it would be useful to know how the Home Office envisages that working in practice. That in itself might not matter at all. If we are dealing with a country that is a trusted partner—my right hon. Friend indicated that there were discussions with France and Turkey—that might not be a problem. The individual’s return might simply be delayed until they have gone to see the British consulate and been interviewed.

However, the proportionality test that has to be applied to these cases means that my right hon. Friend will have to assess whether an individual—notwithstanding the fact that she might reasonably consider them to have been involved in terrorism—might be put at serious risk of having their human rights infringed, for example by being detained or tortured, if revocation of their passport would lead to their being exposed as a person who could be viewed as a terrorist in circumstances in which the Government would feel unable to share that information with the Government of that country because they were concerned about the risks that would be attendant on their arrest.

There is an issue of practice and practicality that needs to be thought through, and I hope that as a result of this debate my right hon. Friend and the Home Office may be in a position to provide reassurance as the Bill goes through the House that they have that subject very much in mind. Having listened to my right hon. Friend talk about proportionality, I am reassured that this is a matter of which she is well aware, as I know from the experience of working with her as a colleague; she knows it can sometimes be an issue. Subject to that, the process that she has adopted, which requires the individual to go to the consulate and get, in essence, a one-way ticket back to this country so that we know when the individual is returning, seems perfectly proper as long as the delay period is not too long, and as long as there is not some subtext intention of causing that individual problems in the country in which they happen to be located—a point that I made earlier.

That brings me to a further point raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn, which is about judicial process. I raised on Second Reading and again subsequently my question why it is so difficult to have a system in which there is not a judicial process to initiate it. I appreciate that there is a difference between a TPIM and the temporary exclusion order proposed—a difference in terms of the restrictions that may be placed on the individual when they return, which are capable of being challenged by judicial review anyway, and because the revocation of a passport is an exercise of the royal prerogative, which is different in nature and quality from a TPIM. It is nevertheless a draconian sanction.

As my right hon. Friend will confirm, removing passports from individuals in this fashion is not a process that has previously been carried out, certainly not in circumstances where the individual when they are abroad does not have the possibility of accessing a different nationality, for example. I continue to wonder whether a judicial process might be valuable. My right hon. Friend may have powerful arguments to make against that, but I have not yet had explained to me in quite the detail I would wish the Government’s reasoning on this point. The point has been made that a temporary exclusion order may have to be issued as an emergency or rather quickly. The current TPIM system allows for a TPIM to be issued without a judge’s sanction—an imprimatur—if necessary, so that could be included in this process.

However, it strikes me—perhaps I am wrong, and I am always prepared to be persuaded that I am wrong—that in this process there is likely to be a slightly more leisurely approach anyway, because the Government will know that an individual is abroad and likely to come back to the United Kingdom, and unless that return is likely to happen very quickly, I would have thought it might normally be possible to apply ex parte to a court for the order to be sanctioned and for some scrutiny to be carried out as to the reasons why it is to take place. If that were to happen, it would also allow for a measure of judicial scrutiny as to whether the issue of the temporary exclusion order might endanger a person’s fundamental rights because it would expose them to risk in their present location.

Those are my thoughts on this matter. I should make it clear that I put them forward in an entirely probing spirit because the principle of what my right hon. Friend is doing seems to me, as I indicated earlier, to be utterly unexceptionable, even though it is an unusual power. However, in the context of the risk and threat that the United Kingdom faces which, as I have said on several occasions, I believe to be a real threat, this is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to a legitimate goal that the Government are trying to achieve. I hope that as the Bill goes through the House we will have an opportunity to examine the proposal, which will enable us to get the right outcome on the provision. If we get the right outcome, history has shown that it will cause my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary far less trouble with court challenges thereafter.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Under existing regulations and requirements, existing Eurostar and freight services through the channel tunnel are already obliged to meet security requirements on screening and other steps. The intent behind the provisions in the Bill is to look to a future where we have open access, and ensure we have the ability to impose similar controls, assurances and protections in relation to security. It is precisely for that future-proofing that we are introducing the provisions. I hope that explanation is helpful to the Committee.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

There has been a change on the Opposition Front Bench, while the Minister has had to continue, but I assure him that he will have our support on this group.

There is a substantial and severe threat of terrorist attack in the United Kingdom and the Opposition support the broad thrust of these measures. The Minister did not explicitly say it, but the explanatory notes indicate that about 500 individuals have travelled to Syria and Iraq because of their wish to join terrorist organisations, in particular ISIL. The measures are designed to enhance legislation—section 124 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, put in place by the previous Labour Government, and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Authority to Carry) Regulations 2012—in response to the changed circumstances. We support the broad thrust of the measures.

I have a few questions for the Minister and I hope he will reflect on them. They relate mostly to consultation, cost and scope. The Minister said that clauses 18 and 19 form the main provisions for the changes to authority-to-carry schemes, and that clause 20 and schedule 2 amend the law on the provision of information from carriers to the Secretary of State. The explanatory notes state that the Minister has undertaken a consultation, but I think he will recognise that the consultation was swift, if I may say so, and relatively short. I would welcome information on who responded to the consultation and what the responses were. If he does not have that information today, perhaps he could write to me.

I raise those issues because the Government’s impact assessment makes it clear that the measures, although welcome, relate to border security and will cost UK-registered businesses about £2.1 million net cost a year, with start-up costs approaching £10 million, at £9.7 million. The Minister has information relating to 11 scheduled registered carriers, but he will know that 144 carriers were not included in the assessment. Many carriers do not currently have the systems, which are referred to in previous legislation, in place. Scheduled carriers may be required to install interactive systems that would mean no-fly alerts and passenger screening requirements provided directly into carriers’ systems. The impact assessment makes it clear that while there are 11 registered carriers, of which only one already uses the system the Government want, there are 144 carriers operating scheduled flights into and out of the UK that are not UK-registered, of which only 11 use the system the Government want to introduce. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister not just as to the discussions he has had with the registered carriers, but on what assessment he has made of the wider costs for those carriers that are not registered. For a non-interactive carrier, the estimated cost of implementing an interactive system is £975,000, with annual maintenance costs of £125,000. That means that there could be costs of around £139 million to non-UK carriers who do not have those systems in place.

The impact assessment says:

“The consultation to gather relevant data was brief. Whilst data was provided by a sample of UK carriers we cannot be sure they are fully representative. In addition different carriers may face different costs dependent on their size or their existing systems. In the absence of this data we assume that carriers are all affected in the same way.”

That is the Government’s own impact assessment and it is really important that, as part of our consideration this afternoon, we have some indication from the Minister of the consultation responses. He may well already have published these—sometimes things pass one by in opposition—and if so, I would be grateful if he could refer me to where they are. If not, I would be grateful if he published the responses to the consultation.

It is also important—the Minister has touched on this—that the clauses ultimately include rail, maritime and non-scheduled aviation traffic as part of the regime that he is seeking to introduce. But I believe—I would welcome his confirmation—that there has been limited, or dare I say nil, consultation with rail, maritime and other suppliers. The Minister has indicated that there will be affirmative resolutions on these matters, but I would welcome him confirming at what stage he intends to undertake further consultation on costs and implementation with rail and maritime providers.

I have had a helpful brief from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which has raised a number of issues, some of which the Minister will be able to answer. But it is important that we are clear that the Minister’s aspiration—one shared by the Labour party—to have exit and entry checks undertaken at the earliest opportunity is separate from the measures in the Bill, particularly given the difficulties we have had with the e-Borders programme recently, the cancellation of e-Borders and the progress that the Government seek on an entry and exit check by April 2015. Helpfully the Minister has today answered a parliamentary question to indicate that that is still the Government’s objective but I just wanted to examine the relationship between the proposals in the clause, which may not be in law until February or March next year, and the wider exit and entry checks the Government are seeking to introduce.

I would particularly welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the measures in the Bill are fully compatible with EU law and with the laws of other states that passengers will travel to and from and with whose laws carriers must comply. It is important that we put in place measures in our own legislation, but I would welcome the Minister’s consideration of the compatibility between them and our obligations to our European colleagues and elsewhere.

The Labour party supports the measures because of the threat and the need to monitor and to take effective action against not just those coming to the UK, but those leaving the UK. The need to ensure that we prevent individuals leaving these shores from undertaking terrorist acts is paramount. The Minister will not find a cigarette paper between us on dealing with that issue, but I hope that he is able to reflect on the points I have made today on three issues: cost, compatibility with other legislation in Europe and beyond, and the key question of implementation, not just in terms of current carriers but in terms of the carriers who are not registered but who do currently travel both to and from the UK.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood]

While endorsing everything my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) has said and in restating some of the issues around costs and capability, I think it important in considering this part of the Bill not to experience the same things that we have experienced before. I am thinking of Abu Rumaysah who unfortunately made his way across the sea to join ISIS, putting on his Twitter account:

“What a shoddy security system Britain must have to allow me to breeze through Europe to the Islamic State.”

I am sure that we all want this part of the Bill to work to prevent that sort of thing from happening. In doing so, however, we must ensure that we provide proper consultation and enough time to deal with this properly.

There are concerns about how we look at the problem, particularly in respect of what notice carriers have when people can book tickets on their phones, their iPads or any other electronic instrument and can get straight to the port, sometimes by rail and sometimes by air. There are important issues about the speed with which people are able to get to the port after booking at the last minute. How do we move forward and improve that system? Answering that means contending with some very serious issues.

I want to bring to the Minister’s attention some of the reasonable work that has been done on this issue, particularly by Sussex police. The police there have a programme called the “BIG MAC”, but unfortunately this does not mean that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is having a late lunch. In fact, it refers to evidence-based risk factors for assessing people when they travel to or exit a port. It is based on “identifying, assessing and referring”, and as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said, this entails having sufficient staff and security personnel at the border. She said she was prepared to commit additional staff to deal with this issue, and I would fully endorse that sentiment.

BIG MAC is based first on behaviour, the B. It is assessed during an exam, and looks at the person’s mental health, physical health, reaction when they are stopped, and their beliefs when they are questioned at port. The next aspect is identifying, the I, and meaning and belonging, and the attitudes expressed when the following issues are raised: family, friends, society, cultural change, integration and diversity, dissatisfaction with life, and seeking change, adventure and excitement.

Then there is a section on grievances, the G, which involves injustice, threats and vulnerabilities. This covers the “them and us” thought process; the dehumanising of identity, beliefs, culture, society and religion; people’s place in society, culture and religion; any history of violence, whether victim or offender; and setting events such as past police interventions, bullying, abuse at home, drinks, drugs and so forth. The next part deals with motivations, the M, either personal or externally driven, and covers religious, political, ideological, cultural, single issues or personal issues; financial aspects; and family or friends. It then deals with attitudes, the A, towards criminal offending, harmful means, being dominant, controlling or submissive and susceptible, and activism and participation.

Finally, the C in BIG MAC means capability factors, and these cover knowledge, skills and competencies such as fighting, training, ideologies, occupation-related skills, IT, medical and so on; access to these through equipment, networks, clubs, individuals and IT; criminality and intervention factors, including the use of violence and attitudes towards violent means; and travel history. This BIG MAC process allows security personnel to do their job in accordance with strategies that have been developed. I would be pleased to pass this information to the Minister if he wants to understand how the Sussex police are dealing with the problem.

The particular person associated with the project is Detective Sergeant—perhaps he should be Superintendent —Mike Redmond. He is based at Gatwick and has done a huge amount of work on psychological assessment in relation to these issues. He has put this plan forward, and is working with the port authorities and security personnel to ensure that these sorts of recognition factors are in place so that people can be stopped and dealt with properly and formally. It is very important that we look at these sorts of factors, but that will only happen if we have the processes to do it.

Home Department

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Ministerial Corrections

Asylum: Deportation

[Mr Hanson]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been removed from the UK under the Dublin Convention in each year since 2010.

[Official Report, 13 May 2014, Vol. 580, c. 450W.]

Letter of correction from James Brokenshire:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) on 13 May 2014.

The answer was given as follows:

[James Brokenshire]

The information requested is shown in the following table:

EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I appreciate the fact that we have had this debate. The Labour party, Her Majesty’s Opposition, called this debate because we believe that the House of Commons should be given a chance to speak, to debate, and ultimately to vote on and, I hope, endorse the principles behind the European arrest warrant. The Government Front-Bench team might disagree with this, but we did have a shambles of a debate not one week ago. By calling this debate in Opposition time, we have served a purpose. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) for acknowledging that; we are here to help. The Government and the Liberal Democrats agree with the motion. Half the Conservative Back Benchers agree with the motion, as do the vast majority of Opposition Members, so it is important that we proceed with the policy.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I have only a few moments to speak so, if I may, I would like to make some progress.

Getting to this point has involved a long and tortuous procedure, as the Home Secretary recognised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in the Chamber, said that his Committee published a report on the matter on 29 October 2013, and we are now only 12 days away from 1 December 2014. The matter has been debated by the Justice Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).

The process by which we have got where we are today has been a shambles. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) reminded us of his contribution to last week’s debate of claiming to move “That the Question, That be Question be not now put, be now put,” which is second in parliamentary history only to when I wore a top hat on the Opposition Back Benches to make a point of order during a Division some 20 years ago.

Hon. Members have set out several reasons why we should not sign up to the European arrest warrant and the other measures. They have said that doing so represents a transfer of power and that that subjugates UK law. They have said that UK standards of justice will not be met, that the warrant has the word “European” in its name, and that extradition should be dealt with in individual treaties. We also heard the serious point that innocent people may face an unfair procedure in a foreign court, which was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who has a great deal of experience of these matters, as well as the hon. Members for Stone, for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), who is also no longer in the Chamber, pledged UKIP’s 100% support for opposing the motion—it was extremely satisfactory that he agreed with himself.

Such strong points demonstrate that there are genuine issues, which I do not decry. It is important that we consider them, but I disagree with the points made. I take the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), as hon. Members would expect, but I also respect the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who all pointed out that the measure is about bringing criminals to justice.

I confess that I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), but he made the valuable point that changes have been made. I can let him into a secret: we supported those changes during their passage through Parliament and we did so because we know, like the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and others, that the measure means that foreign national criminals will be deported back to their home countries to face justice, that criminals will face trial here, and that there will be justice for victims against whom heinous crimes have been committed. I welcomed the contribution of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who put his latent Euroscepticism to one side for a moment to recognise that the issue is about crime, not Europe, and about bringing criminals to justice to ensure that they spend time in prison, not on sun loungers in Spain.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hanson]

With respect, my hon. Friend has not been in the Chamber throughout the debate. I have only two more minutes in which to speak, and as I did not take an intervention from the hon. Member for Stone, who has been present for the entire debate, I hope that my hon. Friend understands that I must be fair and not give way.

The Labour party believes strongly in retaining the European arrest warrant and the other measures to keep our communities safe, to protect our borders and to stop criminals from fleeing justice. More than 1,000 foreign criminals were deported last year under the European arrest warrant for drug trafficking, murder, fraud, child sex offences and rape. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, this is about co-operating with European partners to ensure that people who have committed these serious crimes do not get away with them. Senior members of the Association of Chief Police Officers and police officers working for international agencies such as Interpol recognise the importance of dealing with such crimes. Fugitive teacher Jeremy Forrest, who fled to France with a schoolgirl, was extradited to England on a European arrest warrant in September 2012. Hussain Osman, who tried to blow up the centre of London in a terror attack, was brought back from Italy and is now serving 40 years in prison as a consequence of the European arrest warrant. Jason McKay, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West mentioned, was extradited from Poland within two weeks of murdering his partner—justice for a murdered woman.

[Mr Raab]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hanson]

Ordinarily I would, but I have literally one minute left.

We support joint investigation teams, the exchange of criminal records, Europol, combating international child pornography and tackling international football hooliganism. Those are the measures that we have put before the House in the motion. Members, even those who have spoken against the European arrest warrant, must recognise that the Metropolitan police have dealt with 1,457 cases under the European arrest warrant over the past four years. For my local police force, North Wales police, the figure is 33; for the local force of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, Humberside police, it is 83; and for the local force of the hon. Member for Stone, Staffordshire police, it is 52.

This is not a tool for having an argument about Europe. The points made by Members who oppose the European arrest warrant have a validity that needs to be examined and discussed, but they are points that need to be got over, because this is about crime, bringing people to justice and ensuring that this House sends a strong signal to criminals that we support the European arrest warrant and will sign up to those 35 measures before 1 December.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree that all child abuse is a particularly abhorrent crime and, obviously, that which takes place online is no less abhorrent than that which takes place offline. That is why the Government have put a particular emphasis on dealing with online child abuse. A number of steps have been taken by the Government, led by the Prime Minister. I am pleased to say that next month the Prime Minister will also lead an international conference on online child sexual exploitation, endeavouring to further increase our ability to deal with these issues.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Given the importance of the European arrest warrant in bringing people to justice and reducing crime, will the Home Secretary explain to the House why today’s motion in the House of Lords gives peers a chance to vote on and specifically endorse the European arrest warrant, when last week, as you will recall, Mr Speaker, MPs were denied such an opportunity?

[Mrs May]

I was very clear about that. In fact, we spent a considerable amount of time last Monday discussing the Government’s motion. We were very clear that that motion would be binding on the Government in relation to the package of 35 measures. The regulations are now being discussed by the House of Lords. Sadly, of course, this House did not have a full opportunity to debate those matters last week, because the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), chose to move a closure motion to stop debate.

Business of the House (Today)

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Let me simply say, for the convenience and awareness of the House, that the Home Secretary will wind up the debate on the business motion in order to clarify the Government’s position. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman regards that as helpful. In the spirit of fairness and propriety, the Opposition Front Bench will also have a wind-up speaker, who I believe will be the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson).

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It looks like it, Mr Speaker.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to you for the suggestion that you have just made. Would it not be even more convenient to the House if the Home Secretary did that now? We could then curtail this debate, and get on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to focus the Home Secretary’s mind, if I may. I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) when he says that every Member came here tonight expecting to be debating 35 measures; Members in all parts of this House believed that to be the case over the weekend. I also find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) when he says that this business is being done in an underhand way, because all Members of this House expected to come here this evening to debate this matter and the issue of the European arrest warrant.

Strangely, I also find myself in agreement with the Home Secretary, in that I am led to believe that she wants to debate and vote on the European arrest warrant. Let me let you into a secret, Mr Speaker: so do we. We would like to vote on the European arrest warrant and to give the Home Secretary our support, and I believe the Liberal Democrats would like to support her, too. We happen to take a view that murderers, child pornographers, bank robbers and fraudsters should be brought to justice in this House—[Laughter.] And perhaps elsewhere.

I disagree strongly with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), and the hon. Members for Stone (Sir William Cash), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and, I suspect, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). They do not want to sign up to the European arrest warrant for reasons that we need to debate. I thought that today was about that debate. Over the weekend, I was expecting to have that debate today, as I am sure did all Members of this House. It now appears that that is not going to happen. Let me offer the Home Secretary a way out.

[Mr Redwood]

The right hon. Gentleman might wish to correct the record. I can assure him that we, like him, wish nasty people to be locked up after proper prosecution. The argument is over who has the ultimate control over our criminal justice system to do so.

[Mr Hanson]

Well, let us have that argument. First, let me offer the Home Secretary a way out. For the purposes of today’s debate, we will vote against the programme motion, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has said. I invite those Members who are dissatisfied with today’s proceedings and—dare I say it—the Liberal Democrats who do not hold Government positions, to join us in that.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I will give way in a moment.

If we do that and the programme motion is defeated, we will, as the Lord Chancellor has said, be in a position to debate this motion for one and a half hours this evening. That is probably sufficient to debate the 11 measures that are down before the House today. Let us defeat that programme motion, and use the 90 minutes on the 11 measures. Let the Home Secretary go away from this House, listen to what people have said from all parts of the House, bring back a formal motion to debate the other measures, including the European arrest warrant, and let people, such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham who takes a different view from me—[Interruption.]

[Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Hanson]

I see the Chairman of the 1922 Committee nodding his head. Let those Members have that debate. Let them exercise their vote and let this House express its will before 1 December on what we should do. This is a problem of the Home Secretary’s own making. She needs to sort it out, and sort it out now.

Modern Slavery Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 16—Accommodation operated by gangmasters—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall within one year of this Act being passed bring forward regulations to require gangmasters providing, or soliciting a third party to provide, accommodation to a worker to—

(a) agree and keep of a copy of a tenancy agreement with the worker;

(b) provide and keep copies of receipts for any rent paid by the worker to them; and

(c) keep a rent book recording rent due and paid.

(2) In section 7 of the Gangmaster (Licensing) Act 2004 after subsection (5) insert—

“(6) It shall be a condition of holding a license under this section that the gangmaster provide on request to the Authority or a local authority the documents required under regulations made under section (Accommodation operated by Gangmasters) of the Modern Slavery Act 2014.”

(3) The Authority and police shall have the right of inspection of tenancy agreements held by letting agencies where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a number of properties are let or sub-let by the same individual to multiple workers.”

New clause 17—Gangmasters: offences, financial transactions—

In the Gangmaster Licensing Act 2004 after section 13 (Offences: payments to or by gangmasters) insert—

“13A Offences: gangmasters, financial transactions

(1) This section applies to a person who is acting as a gangmaster in respect of a worker (“W”).

(2) The person commits an offence if whilst acting as set out in subsection (1) they make a payment to W that is not made either—

(a) by a cheque which under section 81A of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is not transferable, or

(b) by an electronic transfer of funds (authorised by credit or debit card or otherwise), or

(3) The person commits an offence if—

(a) whilst making a payment to W in respect of work they do not keep a record of the payment and the hours worked for which the payment is due, or

(b) if they do not produce such a record when required to by either the Gangmasters Licensing Authority or the police.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (2) to permit other methods of payment.

(5) In this section making a payment includes payment in kind (with goods or services).

(6) If a gangmaster pays a worker in breach of subsection (2), each of the following is guilty of an offence—

(a) the gangmaster;

(b) if the payment is made with the knowledge of the person to whom the gangmaster is supplying W, that person; and

(c) any person who makes the payment acting for the gangmaster.

(7) It is a defence for a person within subsection (4)(a) or (b) who is charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person—

(a) made arrangements to ensure that the payment was not made in breach of subsection (1), and

(b) took all reasonable steps to ensure that those arrangements were complied with.

(8) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

New clause 18—Provision of fixed penalty notices for gangmasters—

‘(1) The Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 12 (Offences: acting as a gangmaster, being in possession of false documents etc.) after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for fixed monetary penalties to be applied for an offence under this Act where—

(a) the offence is of a lower level of severity, and

(b) slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour is not a contributory factor in the offence.

(4B) Regulations made under subsection (4A) shall be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless laid before in draft and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.””

New clause 19—Investigation of modern slavery offences by Gangmasters Licensing Authority—

‘(1) In section 1 (The Gangmasters Licensing Authority) after “holding licences under this Act,” insert—

“(c) investigate offences under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2014, and related offences of fraud, where those offences involve gangmasters,

(d) investigate offences under section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2014, and related offences of fraud, where those offences are alleged to have been committed by a person licensed under this Act, whether or not the offence was committed in their capacity as a gangmaster,”

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations confer powers on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority in order to investigate offences under this Act.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) shall include provision to require financial institutions to disclose details of financial holdings to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority or the police in pursuit of an investigation of an offence under this Act.

(4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless they have been laid before in draft, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.”

New clause 2—Protection from slavery from overseas domestic workers—

‘(1) All overseas and domestic workers, including those working for staff of diplomatic missions, shall be entitled to—

(a) change their employer (but not work sector) while in the United Kingdom;

(b) renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa for a period up to 12 months as long as they remain in employment and are able to support themselves adequately without recourse to public funds; and

(c) a three month temporary visa permitting them to live in the United Kingdom for the purposes of seeking alternative employment as an overseas domestic worker where there is evidence that the worker has been a victim of modern slavery.”

New clause 6—Procuring sex for payment—

‘(1) A person commits an offence under this section if he or she procures sexual intercourse or any other sexual act, whether for himself or for another person, in return for payment.

(2) A “payment” includes—

(a) payment that is promised or is given or promised by another person; and

(b) provision of non-financial benefits, including, but not limited to, drugs or alcohol.”

New clause 7—Strategy on assistance and support for exiting prostitution—

The Secretary of State shall, at least once in every year, publish a strategy to ensure that a programmes of assistance and support is made available to a person who wishes to leave prostitution.”

New clause 22—Prostitution and sexual exploitation—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of the links between prostitution and human trafficking and sexual exploitation in England and Wales.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the extent to which the current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales acts as an effective deterrent to demand for sexual services from exploited persons;

(b) the extent to which the current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales enables effective enforcement action against those trafficking people for sexual exploitation; and

(c) the extent to which alternative legal frameworks for governing prostitution adopted by other countries within the European Union, including Northern Ireland, have been effective at reducing sexual exploitation and the number of people trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

(3) The review under subsection (1) must be completed and a copy must be laid before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent.”

New clause 23—Consultation on prostitution, sexual exploitation and trafficking—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must initiate a statutory consultation on the introduction of legislation prohibiting the procurement of sex for payment.

(2) The consultation in subsection (1) must seek to ascertain the degree to which the prohibition of sex for payment would—

(a) reduce the number of people sexually exploited in England and Wales;

(b) reduce demand for sexual services from sexually exploited persons in England and Wales;

(c) reduce the number of people trafficked into England and Wales for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

(3) In undertaking the consultation in subsection (1) the Secretary of State must—

(a) seek the views of those who work with trafficked and exploited persons in England and Wales;

(b) seek the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Association of Chief Police Officers; and

(c) allow submissions from members of the public.

(4) The consultation must be completed and a summary of the results laid before Parliament within six months of the date of Royal Assent.”

Amendment 1, page 45, line 21, at end insert—

“Street Offences Act 1959

‘(10) Omit section 1”

[Mr Hanson]

New clause 1 and the other amendments in this group address a wide range of issues that are linked by the terminology of exploitation but cover different aspects of concern. They include my suggestions on gangmasters; comments and suggestions on the same topic by the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay); how we deal with overseas domestic workers; and a wide ranging group of amendments on how we deal with the sensitive, difficult and challenging issue of prostitution. I will cover a number of issues, and I hope I do justice to them and set out the official Opposition’s position.

New clause 1 revisits an issue that we discussed intensely in Committee: the role of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. We considered a number of things to do with extending the role of that authority, and in the light of those discussions the new clause simply establishes that

“The Secretary of State may by order amend section 3 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004”

to include other areas of work should a future Secretary of State determine that exploitation, modern slavery or trafficking was taking place. It gives the Secretary of State power to do that by order, rather than having to introduce new legislation.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in Committee the Minister said that she would continue to keep the GLA’s remit under review to ensure that it met the needs of the modern slavery strategy? Does he think that was a reasonable comment to have made?

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister said:

“The case has not been made for extending the GLA’s remit at this stage beyond the core areas the Act sought to address.”––[Official Report, Modern Slavery Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2014; c. 480.]

She has recently undertaken a review into gangmasters legislation, and determined that there should be no extension of its remit. I am saying—I hope the hon. Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) will take heed of this—that new clause 1 simply gives power to the Secretary of State to extend that remit, should they seek to do so. Were I to be Minister in a few months’ time, I would want to consider extending the scope of the gangmasters legislation because widespread views from trade unions, charities and academics suggest that many people are underpaid or exploited in areas not covered by current legislation.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

As I understand it—forgive me if I have the wrong end of the stick—new clause 1 is simply to make it easier should a future Minister determine that it is necessary to widen the scope of section 3 of the 2004 Act. Will the shadow Minister give the House some indication as to what difference that would make in terms of time scale and bringing forward that legislation?

[Mr Hanson]

I will address the hon. Gentleman’s points in the course of my remarks.

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) introduced legislation on gangmasters in 2004. I pay tribute to him, because that is effective legislation. It has protected workers in three key sectors—agriculture, shellfish collection and horticulture. It has done something all hon. Members should be proud of: it has driven out poor standards, protected work forces, and ensured that we do not undercut legitimate workers in those sectors.

My argument in new clause 1 is that we should give the power to the Secretary of State to extend that. Following the Government’s triennial review, they said:

“There is no change to the remit or funding of the agency”,

yet there is ample evidence that the agency should have its work extended, particularly following the Joint Committee on the Draft Modern Slavery Bill, on which a number of hon. Members present in the House served. The Committee considered a number of issues in detail, including the role of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. In paragraph 189 of its report, the Committee states:

“There was consensus from our witnesses over the excellent reputation of the GLA…the GLA has been held in high regard as an example of good practice.”

In paragraph 190, it states:

“We heard from the Authority itself that there are limitations to what the GLA can currently do. Its Chief Executive, Paul Broadbent, told us that the GLA’s underpinning legislation was ‘good up to a point’, but did not provide for the GLA to carry out what he described as ‘hot pursuit’”.

The Committee said:

“Several witnesses made the case for widening the industrial remit of the GLA to other sectors where forced labour is prevalent”,

and that:

“The weight of evidence we received suggested that expanding the GLA’s powers and industrial remit would yield positive results.”

The Committee was comprised of Members of both Houses from all parties, but the TUC report, “Hard Work, Hidden Lives” concluded:

“The GLA needs to be extended to hospitality, construction and catering as these are usually small businesses that are open to abuse.”

Oxfam, which hon. Members will agree is a well-respected charity, has said:

“Gangmasters have diversified into sectors beyond the reach of the GLA where there is less regulation of labour standards.”

It concluded that

“the GLA’s remit must immediately be extended to the sectors of construction, hospitality, and…care”.

[Stephen Barclay]

When breaches by a gangmaster operating in a regulated sector such as agriculture are found by the GLA, would it be reasonable to assume that that same gangmaster operating in the hospitality sector is carrying out the same abuses, which therefore deserve to be investigated?

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the point the Opposition made in Committee. Gangmasters are diversifying. They are moving into horticulture, catering and the care homes sector. I do not want to ruin his reputation, but the amendments he has tabled have the Opposition’s support, because he has indicated that measures can be taken to tighten up how we operate the current gangmaster legislation.

In his original Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North sought to protect people who are exploited, but such legislation is also about supporting legitimate businesses working in those sectors who find themselves being undercut by people who are operating sharp practices. What is good for the horticulture, agriculture or shellfish collection sectors should be good for other sectors, such as care homes and construction. New clause 1 does not specify that, but simply says that the Minister has the power to extend legislation. I hope we can give her the power and make the case, both up to the election and I hope in my case beyond it, for introducing changes to improve how the legislation operates.

[Stephen Barclay]

One reason why the Government have resisted such a measure is the view of the Secretary of State for Defence, who, as a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills felt that we would be adding additional red tape. Aside from the fact that targeting criminals who abuse people is not the sort of problem on which the deregulation challenge should focus, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that going after those people is not red tape, because many of the large businesses would welcome the fact that they are not being undercut by those abusing the market?

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman sits on the Government Benches, so I am not sure it is in order for us to agree again. The British Retail Consortium supported our proposals in Committee. This is not some kind of mystical issue; this will help to protect the work force, stop undercutting and protect legitimate businesses working in specific areas. What is good for the three sectors currently covered should be good for others too.

I do not just pray in aid Oxfam, the TUC and the Joint Committee. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said:

“Many have called for extending the authority…of the GLA to cover all industries where there is known risk of exploitation and forced labour associated with labour providers. The evidence from the JRF’s programme points to the same recommendation.”

In Committee, I prayed in aid Andrew Boff, who is not a member of my party but the Mayor of London’s representative and deputy. In a report on slavery in London, he recommended strongly the extension of gangmaster legislation. That is very important, because we need to send a very strong signal on exploitation.

An answer to a recent parliamentary question revealed that the number of criminal investigations under the current gangmaster legislation has dropped from a high point of 134 in 2011, to 76 in 2013 and 65 to date in 2014. This information has come to light since the Public Bill Committee last sat. The Minister said in Committee that this was a growing problem. I would welcome her view on why the number of investigations into gangmaster activity has dropped over the four-year period.

The National Crime Agency, the general secretary of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the leader of the Conservative group on the London Assembly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the British Retail Consortium and the Ethical Trading Initiative have all said we should consider extending gangmaster legislation. New clause 1 would give the Minister the chance to do that speedily. I pressed her on this in and outside Committee. With due respect to her talent as a Minister, I do not think she has made an effective case for why we cannot extend it to the areas suggested by me and the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire.

I think there is a general consensus outside the House that exploitation is exploitation, be it in relation to shellfish or care work. We therefore need to look at this in an effective way. This is not, dare I say, a fly-by-night issue for the hon. Gentleman. He has pursued it over many months. His amendments do not deal directly with the matters addressed in new clause 1, but we sat on a Bill some time ago in the mists of this Parliament and he raised the same issues then. He has a real opportunity to ensure that his amendments enhance the 2004 legislation and build on the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. He has our support, and if he wants to use that on his election address in due course I am sure that will be even better for him.

New clause 2 addresses protection from slavery for overseas domestic workers. The previous Government put in place a regime for migrant domestic workers who accompanied employers to the UK. The current Government changed the regime in April 2012. Overseas domestic worker visa holders are now tied to their original employer and the visa is not renewable beyond its initial six-month duration. We have had two-and-a-half years of the new regime since April 2012, and there is real concern that it has been detrimental to domestic workers and is causing real challenges in the system that need to be considered.

That is my view—I am open and honest about it—but it is shared by the Joint Committee that scrutinised the Bill, including Members in their places today who supported recommendations on a cross-party basis. Andrew Boff, the Conservative leader of the London assembly, is of that view, too. In his report on human trafficking, he said:

“I don’t think it intends to be, but the Government is actually licensing modern-day slavery… through their changes to tie a visa to an employer.”

There is cross-party support for the Government to review the issues covered by new clause 2. In agreement are a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, comprising and dominated by Government members, the leader of the Conservative group on the London assembly, along with many organisations interested in this topic from outside the House—notably Kalayaan, which carried out a study on the impact of the Government’s proposals.

Kalayaan has thrown up some really concerning figures. Between 6 April 2012 and 3 April 2014, 402 migrant domestic workers registered with Kalayaan. Of those, 120 were tied to their employers and 282 had entered the UK prior to April 2012. There was a real difference between the way in which these groups were treated. The Minister said in Committee that it was a “small sample”. Yes, it is, but if that sample shows that 62% of overseas domestic workers on tied visas report being paid no salary at all, and if 85% of those on tied visas are not given their own room to sleep in, with 86% saying that their passports have been taken off them by their employers, 96% not allowed to leave the house unsupervised, 74% reporting having suffered psychological abuse and 95% paid less than £100 a week, the size of the sample is not the crucial thing. Whatever the size of the sample, real and difficult challenges are evident, and they can be traced back to the change in the granting of these visas in 2012.

The Joint Committee recommended in its draft Bill that we return to the position of April 2012—prior to the changes the Government made. That proposal was put in Committee, and there was a tie with nine votes to nine votes. Members of the governing party voted with other members of the Committee; some Members did not, which was their choice; some Members supported the draft Bill’s recommendations and voted against them in Committee, which was their choice. I believe, however, that there is a real consensus on ensuring that this issue is looked at in the other place. I hope the Government will consider it further. New clause 2 provides an opportunity to do so.

Let me move on from new clauses 1 and 2 to the other contentious and wide-ranging issue suggested by this group of amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) raised this initially in Committee—the issues of how to deal with sex workers and prostitution and of how prostitution should be dealt with by society as a whole. My hon. Friend will undoubtedly speak to her new clauses. MPs do not need to look far into their inboxes to realise that a range of views are being expressed, including by the all-party group chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker). My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has also filtered through a range of issues for Members to consider. People have different views about how to deal with this.

Let me put it on the record from the outset, however, that all the different views focus on the fact that there are around 80,000 people, mainly women and girls, involved in prostitution today. Nobody can deny that many of these workers carry out this work voluntarily, yet a lot of them are involved in sexual slavery, having got here through different routes. They are often pimped by people they know and can be trafficked by organised gangs. They are often extremely vulnerable, having been abused in the past. About 95% of women in street prostitution have problematic drug use; over half of women involved in prostitution in the UK have been raped and/or sexually assaulted; and the vast majority of those assaults are committed by people who have purchased sex from them.

According to recent statistics, there has been a recent and rapid increase in the number of non-British women selling sex on the street in a significant number of London boroughs. There are real concerns about trafficked women being exploited in on-street as well as off-street prostitution and about the fact that this exploitation is now being controlled and organised by criminal gangs. This is a real issue that the House needs to address.

A number of solutions have been proposed. The Nordic model, which is effectively the basis of the proposals from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, looks at how we diminish street prostitution—particularly by making it an offence for people to buy sex. One argument put forward is that street prostitution has diminished by half and that the number of brothel businesses is also diminishing, or certainly has not increased. There is evidence of the flow of human trafficking having been slowed in Sweden because of that. In Norway there is evidence that that is contributing to the reduction in demand for and volume of prostitution. But we do not have to look far into our email inboxes to know that there are very strong views from people involved in the trade that that potential model and others could lead to further violence against those who are involved in the industry and/or to driving prostitution underground.

The Opposition have tabled new clause 22, which seeks to place upon the Government a legal responsibility to undertake a review of these issues in detail. We are seeking to deal with this matter effectively. We have said that within six months of Royal Assent the Government should look at all the discussion points that are before us today. The review would investigate the extent to which current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales acts as an effective deterrent to demand for sexual services from exploited persons. It would look at the extent to which current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales enables effective enforcement action against trafficking people and sexual exploitation, and at the very points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough in her amendments today: the legal frameworks for governing prostitution adopted by other countries within the EU, including Northern Ireland. The review would look at the examples of Sweden and of Norway to help inform the debate.

All of us will have different experiences in our constituencies about the impact and challenges of this problem and I am not intending to come to conclusions today. The purpose of new clause 22, effectively, is to give a spur to a wider discussion on the topic. I hope that the Minister can look at it in that way because there are strong views on how we deal with the issue. It is important to have a proper debate.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I just want absolute clarity. The review in new clause 22, which I support, is a review before legislation, not after, so I am somewhat confused by subsection (3).

[Mr Hanson]

The review, under subsection (1), is to be completed and a copy laid before Parliament within six months of Royal Assent to this Bill.

[John McDonnell]

This Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

This Bill. The purpose is to lay a legally binding commitment upon the Minister to produce a report that takes account of whatever views are expressed in the debate today, but also of the views of the all-party group of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South, of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough and of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in many emails. The real issue is how this House approaches the issue of prostitution. Now is the time for a review of the legislation.

[Mr Burrowes]

The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister and may well have been involved in introducing in 2009 the criminalising of the purchase of sex from someone subjected to force. Evidence suggests that that has not been particularly effective. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on that and on whether the evidence from it takes us any further?

[Mr Hanson]

As ever, having had a ministerial career in the last Government, I have form on these issues. In 2008-09, when I was the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough presented proposals in Committee that were similar to those that she has presented on this occasion, and the Government did not accept them. We look and we learn, and a new issue is now evolving. I think it fair to say that there is a greater involvement of criminal gangs in trafficking people for prostitution than there has ever been before.

The purpose of our new clause is simply to make the Secretary of State legally responsible for producing a review within six months. Six months from Royal Assent will mean something between the middle and the end of next year. The evidence enabling the next incoming Government to make judgments will already have been gathered, so that they—not me, and not the present Minister—can make those judgments on the basis of a full review.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

If my right hon. Friend had had Home Office evidence that this trade was worth £130 million a year when he was a Minister at the Home Office, would that have changed his view of the proposals that were being presented?

[Mr Hanson]

I do not think that we made a financial assessment of the value of the trade when I was a Minister. I know that it is being discussed currently, as part of other discussions relating to the Treasury’s contributions to Europe.

I do not want to be diverted, because we have only a short time available. I have tried to compress the material for a long series of debates into a fairly short contribution. Let me now sum up that contribution. New clause 22 concerns a review, and it commits the Government to nothing other than that review. There is a real case for extending the gangmaster legislation; new clause 1 simply gives the Secretary of State the power to do that, which I hope she will welcome.

I was pleased to hear the comments of the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay). I think it important for us to revert to the April 2012 position in regard to overseas domestic workers for a number of reasons. I also think it important to stimulate a debate on the issues of prostitution and sexual exploitation, without reaching any conclusions yet, and that has been possible today through new clause 22.

I commend all three of our new clauses to the Minister. I hope that she will be able to deliver a positive response, but—as ever, Mr Speaker, you will have expected me to say this—in the event of her not doing so, I should like at least to reflect on the possibility of testing the House’s opinion in due course.

[Stephen Barclay]

I want to develop the theme of how we can make prosecution and enforcement quicker and easier. I am aware that a number of Members who wanted to speak earlier have not yet been able to do so, and I shall therefore keep my remarks short.

I want to speak about new clauses 16, 17, 18 and 19. Let me begin with new clause 16. At present, it is very difficult for police in areas such as Wisbech in my constituency to identify houses in multiple occupation. The presence of 20-odd people in a two-storey house often does not meet the legal definition of an HMO. One of the ways in which we can make life easier for the local police is to give them clearer powers and rights to inspect letting agencies, and require gangmasters to keep records in the form of rent books and tenancy agreements. At present, when there is a breach of a tenancy agreement, it falls to the tenant to bring a private prosecution. How realistic is that? How realistic is it to expect someone who has been trafficked, who does not speak English and who does not understand the law to bring a private prosecution against his landlord?

We need to make it quicker, easier and therefore cheaper for the police to identify concentrations of HMOs. They need to be able to go into those houses, establish whether the law relating to, for instance, rent books is being adhered to, and take action if necessary. That will necessitate rights of access to the records of letting agents, and a requirement that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority can then use for leverage in relation to gangmasters.

New clause 17 seeks to build on the lessons this House can learn from scrap metal merchants being forbidden from taking cash payments and asks how we can create an audit trail for financial investigators in terms of the known abuse around the minimum wage legislation and the way people are being paid. At present wage slips will often simply show that someone was on for one day—it could have been seven hours, it could have been 12 hours—and when payments are made, they are made in cash. Straight away, deductions are taken for accommodation and for vehicles, so the abused worker never actually receives that money. Often they are told when they come into the country that they are not allowed a bank account. Obviously that is erroneous information, but they do not know otherwise. New clause 17 therefore addresses how we can make it easier for the police to follow the money—follow that audit trail—so that once money goes into an account, it is with the worker and it becomes harder for the rogue gangmaster to deduct it at source, which is what currently happens.

New clause 18’s provision is, I fear, almost a well-worn theme. I had a debate on it in Westminster Hall in 2012 and 2013. The measure was being blocked by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, although I was told privately that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was supporting it. The reality is that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority does not have the full range of tools available. It has draconian penalties available in terms of criminal sanctions, but they are almost never used because the standard of proof is high and the amount of time required is extensive.

To put this in context, do Members know how many inspectors the GLA currently has? It has 35 for the whole country. There is one covering the whole of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. An inspector could spend their entire time just driving around my constituency, never mind the rest of the county and the two counties combined. The LGA has 35 inspectors and a budget of £4 million. We need only think about how much a supermarket makes in a week to see how well resourced the GLA is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman has taken a great interest in this subject and he did an immense amount of work on the Joint Committee. I thank him for his clarification. It shows that I still have the unfortunate habit, which we can so easily fall into in this place, of naming people by their constituencies, rather than by their surnames. I reiterate my tribute to—

[Mr Hanson]

John Uxbridge.

[Yvette Cooper]

Yes, I reiterate my tribute to John Uxbridge, and to the former Member for Totnes, Anthony Steen, whom we all hold in high regard. The trouble is that the Bill has not changed very much during its passage. There have been some significant and welcome changes, but it still does not go far enough.

On law enforcement, the main offences at the heart of the Bill, particularly in clause 2, are not strong or simple enough to ensure that we can prosecute the criminals who drive this evil trade. It is such a shame that the Government have not listened to all those calling for separate offences of trafficking and exploitation, and for separate offences for children. We know that the law fails to protect children, and this is an opportunity to strengthen the law through a separate offence of child exploitation. I really hope that the other place will take that chance. I urge the Home Secretary to give this matter further consideration and I urge the Government to respond in the other place.

National Crime Agency

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which is a damning indictment of those who still hold back from offering support for the full implementation of the NCA. I note from recent reports that, while meetings between the police and the SDLP continue—they do not appear to have come to a satisfactory conclusion—Sinn Fein has not responded to requests from the Department of Justice for a meeting about the issue. That is the scale of the problem we face.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Bill that established the NCA received its Second Reading almost two years ago and this issue was raised by every member of the Bill Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government have a duty of care to bring the parties and the Minister of Justice together to discuss and finalise the issue?

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I agree that the Government have a responsibility because, while the delay and failure to fully implement the NCA continues, our young people—not just in Northern Ireland; I will come in a moment to how far this penetrates—are suffering as a result of criminal operations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

When I was Northern Ireland Minister I did not see any evidence of that. It was alluded to on many occasions, but I did not see any evidence. Earlier we heard about the views of some individuals, but I will not be drawn on that issue at the Dispatch Box as I do not think it will be useful to the debate.

Whether it is smuggling or old-fashioned thuggery, we know that organised crime takes place in Northern Ireland, and in many ways differently from other parts of the United Kingdom. Let me turn, however, to one area that is close to my heart. I did not manage to get to the Conservative party conference in Birmingham—the first time I have missed my party conference in many years—because I was in Washington at a conference of the global alliance against child sexual abuse online, which was about protection from paedophiles. It was, I think, the most serious event in my political career at which I have sat down, debated, and worked with other countries. We know that Operation Notarise has exposed a huge, unbelievable number of people who are willing not only to watch unbelievable images, but to participate in and help fund such abuse of children.

While at that conference, a figure was given to us by experts, I think from Canada—I think this will be the first time this figure has been mentioned in the UK—which is that 1% of the sexually active male population of the world has paedophilic tendencies. Online, this issue has affected every community in this country. Operation Notarise managed to pass to police forces around the country evidence and work from the NCA that has resulted in more than 600 people being arrested, but that did not happen in Northern Ireland. The importance of the work that the NCA does touches every family in this country. It would be able to touch every family in Northern Ireland, but it cannot at the moment.

[Mr Hanson]

I agree with the Minister about the need for Northern Ireland to be involved with the National Crime Agency on that issue. On the number of incidents of online child abuse reported to the NCA, a range of press reports have mentioned 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 cases. In the interests of transparency, will he help the House by detailing how many cases he believes have been given to the NCA, as well as the numbers of those who have been prosecuted?

[Mike Penning]

I think the best figure was given to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, and a huge amount of work needs to be done. As the head of the NCA said only yesterday, it is unrealistic to say that we will be able to go after, prosecute and convict in every single case—the honesty was refreshing, but we will continue with that work. The figure given yesterday of 50,000 was not definitive. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is pushing the issue as that figure is public and in most of the papers today, and it is not relevant to the situation with the Northern Ireland NCA. Today’s debate covers work that is perhaps not in traditional areas, such as the gang culture, paramilitaries and so on.

I say to all political parties in Northern Ireland, and to its people whom we represent—as a member of Her Majesty’s Government, I represent everybody in that way, whether we have devolution or not—that we must look enormously carefully at what the NCA could do. Rather than looking at the problems that it might possibly cause, we should consider what is factually correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome today’s debate. For the avoidance of doubt, I am very pleased that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) tabled the motion. Like the Government, the official Opposition want to see the motion implemented and will support it should there be a Division. We have been bringing this matter to the attention of the Government for a number of years. We did so during the passage of the Crime and Courts Bill in the House on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and have done so on regular occasions since then. I have no doubt that the PSNI—under Matt Baggott and, since June, George Hamilton—is doing its best in difficult circumstances, but we want to see the motion implemented.

[Mike Penning]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should have said this during my remarks. I pay tribute to the shadow Minister and the former shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We worked very closely on many issues and there was no party politics. I think it is right and proper to say that we had many discussions on this matter while I was in office and I am sure they continued after I left.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As a former Northern Ireland Minister and Policing Minister, I know there have been a number of occasions when there has been cross-party agreement. Indeed, today there is cross-party agreement on a number of real concerns about the lack of NCA operation in Northern Ireland. There is agreement on the fact that organised crime brings fear and violence to our communities. Overall, it costs some £20 billion to £40 billion each year.

There is a specific problem in Northern Ireland. David Ford, the Justice Minister who chairs the Organised Crime Taskforce in Northern Ireland, has said that there are potentially up to 180 gangs—even more than the figure mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry—operating in Northern Ireland. Criminal gangs in Northern Ireland are not just involved in, dare I say, traditional criminal activity, but are now turning to computer-based cybercrime and are dealing in rural areas. Gangs that have historically strong links to both republican and loyalist paramilitary groups are involved in criminal activity that impacts on not just the daily lives of constituents in Northern Ireland but constituents across the United Kingdom as a whole.

The Organised Crime Taskforce compiled a range of findings. It found that criminal gangs in Northern Ireland are involved in drugs, human trafficking, fuel fraud, killing, abusing and preying on society. There is an increase in the number of incidents of online extortion. Individuals are being targeted. Dissident republican groups, which continue to be a threat to the peace process and to the stability of Northern Ireland, are heavily dependent on organised crime. Members of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association are involved in extortion, loan sharking, robbery, drugs, burglary, theft, money laundering, ATM thefts, food waste crime, food fraud and plant theft. All of those are organised crime issues that Matt Baggott and George Hamilton, as Chief Constables in Northern Ireland, have addressed and continue to address. However, the NCA would bring an additional layer of support and international co-operation across the whole of Europe, and national co-operation across the United Kingdom.

[Mr Robathan]

The right hon. Gentleman will not receive many compliments from me of course, but I respect him from his time in Northern Ireland and since. I think he is a very sincere person. There is not a scintilla of difference between us on this issue. He has been raising it since before I had even heard of it, so I pay tribute to him for that. Surely his party can have some influence on its sister party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, which takes the Labour Whip. Surely it would be a good step forward if the SDLP, which as far as I am concerned is a legitimate and decent party, signed up to the NCA now and put aside its bewildering objection.

[Mr Hanson]

I take what the right hon. Gentleman says. I have said publicly and privately to my hon. Friends that I think they need to sign up to the NCA operating in Northern Ireland. I respect their opinion. From my time in Northern Ireland I know how difficult policing issues are, and how difficult it has been over many years to get Sinn Fein and the republican movement involved in policing in Northern Ireland. The main thrust of my argument is that we are where we are and we have been where we are for some time. There is a duty of care on the Government, as well as on Justice Minister David Ford, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the political parties, to get resolution on this issue. I will quote from the Belfast Telegraph this week:

“David Ford: NCA impasse leaves children at risk of sex abuse…Justice Minister David Ford said that the PSNI is being put at a ‘distinctive disadvantage’ in the fight to keep young people safe due to the limited powers of the National Crime Agency here.”

If that were only the case now then it would still be of crucial importance, but that was the case 12 months ago.

[Lady Hermon]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Lady Hermon]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for referring to me as his hon. Friend. That is very kind of him indeed. I am very pleased, as other hon. Members will have been, to hear him publicly invite the SDLP to accept the full remit of the NCA in Northern Ireland, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he, as the shadow Policing Minister, and his colleague the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have also sought and held meetings with Sinn Fein and their absentee MPs to encourage them privately—and publicly if he puts it on the record this afternoon—to accept the full capacity of the NCA in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Hanson]

May I just help my hon. Friend by saying that I am the shadow Immigration Minister? Owing to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) being elsewhere and the debate being Home Office-led, I have drawn the important straw—not the short straw—to deal with this issue today.

I will confirm that to the best of my knowledge, since I left responsibility for this area 12 months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington and our Northern Ireland team, my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and for Bury South (Mr Lewis), have been engaged with all political parties to try to resolve this issue as a matter of some urgency. We do so because 12 months ago, when the NCA began operations, David Ford was saying the same thing as he said last week. On 7 October 2013, in a report by BBC Northern Ireland, he said:

“I haven’t lost hope that we will get full political agreement that…will…see the NCA operational and discussions are ongoing to see if we can get that political agreement”.

What has been happening these past two years? If I had been Northern Ireland Minister, as I was proud to be for two years, and this had been coming down the line, I would have been driving forward with my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie), with Sinn Fein Members, who do not attend the House but are still involved in discussions, and with other parties to resolve this matter, and I certainly would not have abolished the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The Crime and Courts Bill, which abolished SOCA, had its Second Reading and Committee stages two years ago and has now been in operation for a year. I would not have gone through all that without reaching agreement. I appreciate the Minister’s tone, but how urgently are he and the Northern Ireland Office working to get the parties round the table to reach an agreement on the measures Mr Ford has announced?

[Ian Paisley]

I sat on that Committee with my right hon. Friend, and we proposed that the Government set a deadline and that if the parties could not agree they implement the NCA anyway. This was subsequently raised in the Select Committee, and the Northern Ireland First Minister agreed with the strategy, yet still the Government have not pushed to deliver it.

[Mr Hanson]

It is important that the Minister respond to that point.

[Naomi Long]

So does the shadow Minister believe that the Government should implement the NCA provisions without the negotiation, which would have consequences for devolution? I believe the matter is serious enough that it ought to happen. There have been negotiations with the Department of Justice and the Government and proposals are in place for addressing the issues of accountability. The problem is simply the complete unwillingness of other people to recognise that things have shifted in the interim.

[Mr Hanson]

I shall try to answer the hon. Lady’s question and the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) in a helpful way.

Since the Bill was published in the 2012 Queen’s Speech, we have had two and a half years of public negotiations. We had the initial debate, Second Reading and the Committee stage; it went through another place; it was implemented; and the NCA has now been in operation for one year. As was mentioned, we need to recognise that the NCA not operating in Northern Ireland is not just a matter for Northern Ireland; it is a matter for my constituents in north Wales and for constituents in Liverpool, Hertfordshire and everywhere. If there is a gap in our defences, asset recovery and coverage, it affects everybody, because criminals know they can operate from Northern Ireland with more chance of not being caught.

I am not the Minister, so it is not for me to decide, but there are serious questions about how we take forward these discussions with the Minister, the NIO and the political parties to reach a conclusion. As the Minister helpfully outlined, David Ford has, in this year of impasse, come up with proposals that could address some of the concerns of my hon. Friends and others. He said that the NCA, unlike its predecessor, did not have constabulary powers and that the authority and primacy of the PSNI needed to be maintained, so he proposed that the agreement of the Chief Constable be in place before the powers are used. In addition, he said that the director general of the NCA could be called to attend the Policing Board—more than we have with the police and crime commissioner in my patch in north Wales or elsewhere—and that there be consultation and consent for the implementation of the annual plan. He also proposed that the Police Ombudsman cover the NCA, which was welcome.

Those are all difficult areas touching on the reasons for devolving policing in the first place. Concerns about security were raised at the time and were addressed in government by me and my late good friend Paul Goggins. I hope, however, that the assurances from David Ford, which were negotiated and are now on the table, will be open to further discussion. Only last week, in a discussion with the modern slavery Minister about modern slavery issues, we heard how the NCA could not operate on issues as important as people trafficking.

I am trying to challenge the Government in a helpful and friendly way.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

First, I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that in the Modern Slavery Bill Committee some of us proposed amendments to make the situation in Northern Ireland much more joined-up with laws and practices here at different levels, but that the Government resisted those amendments. Secondly, may I assure him that the proposals from David Ford arose from negotiations with my party and that we are committed to pursuing them to a successful end?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for the support my hon. Friend gave the Opposition in that Committee, and yes he acted in a way that said he wanted the Bill to operate in Northern Ireland as well.

It is important to remember that my hon. Friends the Members for South Down and for Foyle, as well as absent Sinn Fein Members, have signed up to policing matters in the past. The proposals from David Ford would extend effective policing to tackling serious and organised crime. What extra steps can the Minister and the political parties take to get the NCA operating in Northern Ireland? He told us what happened in the past, but he did not set out a clear road map that will get us from David Ford’s proposals to an agreement to sign up to the NCA; to a legislative consent motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly; and to implementation of the relevant NCA provisions already on the statute book.

What steps are the NIO and the Home Office taking to discuss David Ford’s proposals further with the political parties? As mentioned, might they set a deadline? Occasionally, deadlines do work. We set one for the reintroduction of the Northern Ireland Assembly in the St Andrews agreement. We reached it at about one minute to 12, but reach it we did. I mean no disrespect to Northern Ireland Members, but deadlines sometimes focus minds. So is the Minister prepared to consider a timescale and possible future steps? When will the next set of talks take place between the NIO, the Home Office, the political parties and Assembly representatives? Is David Ford convening such a meeting? Will the NIO and Home Office be present? What is the timescale for concluding the discussions?

In Committee, the then Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), said that the Government were

“carefully considering the part 1 provisions to see how they can best be modified to give the NCA some functionality in Northern Ireland but in a way that does not require a legislative consent motion. We will aim to introduce any necessary amendments to the Bill on Report.”––[Official Report, Crime and Courts Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2013; c. 174.]

That was on 29 January 2013 but we are no closer to implementing the NCA. I say to the Minister that we need a plan—it need not necessarily involve a deadline, but it could—so that we can see what Ministers and the parties are going to do to take this matter forward.

[Lady Hermon]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention. The right hon. Gentleman has served with distinction in Northern Ireland and he has carefully listened this afternoon to the assurances that the Policing Minister has very carefully articulated about all the additional accountability points relating to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, so what exactly does the right hon. Gentleman expect the British Government to give away to Sinn Fein in addition to all those accountability issues? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman simply call on Sinn Fein publicly—as he did for the SDLP—to accept the role and the total competency of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Hanson]

I thought I had been very clear that I want the National Crime Agency to operate in Northern Ireland, in Belfast and every community represented here today on the same basis as it operates in my constituency, and as soon as possible. I have argued for that. I want Sinn Fein, along with my hon. Friends, to sign up to it as quickly as possible. The assurances given by David Ford should be subject to a positive response on those issues. I say to the hon. Lady that I am not the Government. If I were the Government, what I would be doing is looking at how to convene a meeting with the relevant parties to see if there are genuine outstanding differences, to see if resolutions on those differences can be reached, to look at what we do with the David Ford proposals and, if necessary, to look at setting a deadline against which consideration of these matters would take place. That is what I want the Government to look at and respond to. The vital point is that the National Crime Agency needs to operate in Northern Ireland to protect people from crime in Northern Ireland, as it does in Wales, Scotland and England.

[Mark Durkan]

My right hon. Friend has said again that he wants the NCA to operate on the same basis in Northern Ireland as it does in his constituency. Clearly, the ongoing discussions and negotiations suggest that that is not so in terms of accountability, the level of engagement with the police or the level of its own automatic authority. Those are all significant improvements and concessions consistent with the Patten principles around policing. This is about making sure that whatever happens in any quarter of policing in Northern Ireland is consistent with those Patten principles.

[Mr Hanson]

I understand and accept that. The hon. Gentleman will know that during my two years in Northern Ireland, we had to deal with very difficult issues around the very point of trying to get policing devolved, along with a range of other measures, including the re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I understand the sensitivities. I am simply making the point that the David Ford proposals provide the basis, I believe, for agreement on the operation of the NCA in Northern Ireland. It is incumbent on somebody—whether it be David Ford, the Northern Ireland Office, other Ministers or whatever—to try to convene a meeting to see if there are any outstanding issues and to provide some resolution as a matter of urgency.

[Mike Penning]

The shadow Minister is indicating, in good faith, that no meetings are taking place with Government Ministers and that we have not been trying to push this forward over the last few years. That is fundamentally wrong. He understands, not least because he was highly involved in the devolution settlement, that if we have devolution, politicians have to make difficult decisions for their communities. Governments can help, but it is for the devolved Assembly to get on and do this.

[Mr Hanson]

I hope the Minister does not take what I say as being hypercritical. I am trying to provide some perspective. We have had two and a half years and we have to work through this. I know how difficult it is; I have been there. I am looking for further impetus to get a resolution.

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank the shadow Minister for the way in which he has addressed the issue, especially to the SDLP. Does he agree, however, that most people will find it rather strange that the slavish adherence to the Patten principles goes beyond the protection of children from abuse—whether it be on the internet or from other predators on children—and that the SDLP counts the Patten principles as more important than the protection of children in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Hanson]

I think that the operation of the NCA is essential for dealing with child pornography, trafficking, drugs, fuel and money laundering, particularly in the Northern Ireland context where highly organised criminal gangs operate on the fringes of the republican movement and the loyalist movement. The motion under discussion says that we want to sign up to the NCA and it has my support. The Minister has my support and that of the Opposition Front-Bench team to reach such a resolution. I simply want to see additional energy—I know the Minister will provide it—to ensure that this matter is brought to a conclusion as soon as possible.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I underline the reforms that the Government have made, which have been effective in cutting net migration from outside the EU. My hon. Friend raises the issue of EU migration and free movement. It is absolutely right that the Prime Minister has underlined the need for reform of free movement, and how, if we are elected as the next Government, that will be at the heart of our renegotiation with the EU.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Minister said in an article on 6 September—he has said again just now—that the Government have cut net migration by a quarter. Has he had a chance to see the letter to me, dated 9 October, from the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir Andrew Dilnot? It says that net migration was 244,000 in June 2010 and is now, four years later, 243,000—just 1,000 lower. Will he explain to the House how he came to that conclusion and, while he is at it, does he expect to meet the Government’s manifesto commitment made at the last election?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the poor record of the previous Labour Government. On their watch, 2.5 million people were allowed to come into this country. It is absolutely right that our focus should remain on returning net migration to sustainable levels, from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. I know that the shadow Home Secretary has said that she wants to talk more about immigration, but the Labour party’s record says it all.