Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Hanson and Mark Field

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

13. What recent assessment he has made on the progress of international co-operation on climate change.

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

Lucky 13 for the right hon. Gentleman! The agreement of the rulebook for the Paris agreement at the 24th conference of the parties in Katowice in Poland last month, which I attended, was a crucial step forward, but all our assessments conclude that the current level of global ambition is not enough to meet the Paris goals of just over three years ago. We need unprecedented and rapid action to reduce emissions and build resilience.

[David Hanson]

I concur with the Minister. For all those reasons, will he ensure that, if the President of the United States visits this country in July, climate change will be central so that we can put it on the agenda of America, which is the power best able to influence world opinion on this issue?

[Mark Field]

I very much hope so. I was at the climate change summit in San Francisco in September, and interestingly it is not just the state of California but other US states that take this very seriously. There is, then, a lot of pressure from within the US, but obviously we will keep up that pressure in every way we can, both bilaterally and in multilateral forums.

Immigration

Debate between David Hanson and Mark Field

Thursday 9th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed. The point was made this morning that in my constituency in north Wales, and in the north-west, the north-east, the west midlands and Scotland, there is a lower level of general income than in the south-east. People might have more disposable income than in the south, because it can be argued that living costs are lower, so the income limit of £18,600 has a different impact in different parts of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Lady says, it has a particular impact on women and on young people who might not earn sufficient money at the start of their careers, but who may be in love with someone outside the United Kingdom. I will return at a future date to how we can review the £18,600 limit. I am not asking for a snap decision now. I simply want to plant in the Minister’s mind the idea that we need to look at that as part of a wider migration strategy.

It is also important to revisit the Government’s net migration target, which was set in 2010. They have missed that target every year and have missed it massively in the past year. I wonder whether the target is a useful tool. If everybody in this Chamber today left the United Kingdom, we would be contributing to the Government’s process of meeting their net migration target. The target is evidently out of the Government’s control, given the situation in Europe and the free movement of individuals who are UK citizens outside Europe.

If the Minister wants to keep a target, will he look again at the issue of students, which hon. Members have talked about? Students provide fees, good will, and economic spending. A student living in the constituency of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and working at the University of Edinburgh will be putting money into the Edinburgh economy. They will go away from the United Kingdom with great thoughts of Edinburgh for ever and ever. They will want to return to Edinburgh, and one day may end up president of a country or chief executive of a company, and then they might come back and invest in Edinburgh or the City of London.

[Mark Field]

I have spent the past 10 years on the advisory board of a private college called the London School of Commerce. It is evident that in our elite universities, such as the ones in my constituency—Imperial, King’s College London and the London School of Economics—certain postgraduate courses would simply not be sustainable without overseas students. Our indigenous postgraduates get the benefit of overseas students putting money into certain courses that otherwise would not exist.

[Mr Hanson]

I simply say that overseas students’ good will, spending and fees are vital to our university economy. The inclusion of students in the net migration target shows that we are not willing to accept as many students as we could. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

There is a wide-ranging debate to be had about how we work in Europe, and we need to address economic issues such as benefit entitlement and working conditions. There is a need to strengthen our borders and track those who come to our country, but we need to ensure that we do not lose economic opportunities and dissuade students from coming. We need to play a full role in the global economy to ensure that we remain central in the world and maintain the UK’s historical role of being open and tolerant towards people coming to the United Kingdom.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between David Hanson and Mark Field

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

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

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

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

[Mr Hanson]

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

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between David Hanson and Mark Field

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- 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).

Immigration Controls

Debate between David Hanson and Mark Field

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on providing us with an interesting aperitif to what will be a very full day of immigration debates, with the Immigration Bill going before the Commons later today. This is a useful warm-up, and we have had a good introduction and debate on some of the different challenges that we face in this complex matter.

I have only been on the immigration brief for just over 10 days, having been moved to it by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I have had jobs in Government in Northern Ireland, the Home Office, Justice and prisons. However, I have a feeling that immigration will remain one of the key debating issues and challenges during the next 18 months for all of us from different perspectives.

My constituents want some of the things that the hon. Member for Witham wants, and I am sure that your constituents want them too, Mr Crausby. We want effective controls at the border; we want to see foreign criminals who have committed offences in this country being deported; we want illegal immigrants tracked, picked, accounted for and, if need be, deported; we want speedy and effective appeals, so that people can have their just case looked at accordingly; and we want a crackdown on sham marriages and sham colleges. Those are issues that any sensible Government will want to deal with. Nobody has ever said that immigration was easy and those challenges are not easy, but potentially they are common ground that could be looked at.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert); my constituents also want some of the things they have said they want, as I am sure yours do, Mr Crausby. My constituents want people from abroad who have modern skills to come to this country to help industry, wealth and products to grow.

I have major industries in my constituency in north Wales such as Airbus, which makes one of the most high-tech products in the world today, the Airbus aeroplane system. Sometimes those industries need skills from outside the EU, which will help to ensure that 6,500 people in my constituency keep their jobs in competitive markets. The same is true of what the hon. Member for Cambridge said about the science-based technology in his constituency, and of the needs of the City of London. I attended a City breakfast only last week, which was just outside the constituency of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, where the issue was not immigration but positive immigration, including how we can bring in skills to Britain and develop them in this country.

The student market brings in millions of pounds in investment, not only fees and expenditure but that unquantifiable issue that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, which is good will. I still love my university town and I left 35 years ago. People will still come to this country and love it because of the investment and skills that we have given them to compete in the world at large in the future. Nobody says immigration will be easy. However, those positive signs need to be considered alongside some of the challenges that exist.

The hon. Member for Witham mentioned the previous Government. I served in that Government for 12 of those 13 years, although I did not cover any immigration post at any time. However, let me say that there were challenges, and mistakes were made. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said that, and we need to assess some of those challenges when we reflect on the debate on immigration.

Let me say to the hon. Lady, and indeed to the Minister, that “day zero” did not commence and end when the Labour Government left office; “day zero” happened three and a half years ago and this Government and the hon. Lady now have a record to account for, regarding their actions during those three and a half years. I hope that today, including during this afternoon’s debate, we can potentially have her standing up not only to attack the previous Government but to pose some serious questions to the Minister about this Government’s performance.

Potentially, we need to look at why the number of people being stopped at our border, including checks on people from outside the UK, has halved since the general election and since this Government came to power. Statistics from the Library show that, comparing the first quarter of 2010 with the second quarter of 2013, checks at the border have fallen by 46.4%, from 26,378 to 14,134.

The Minister needs to be aware of the serious issue of deportation of criminals. Why has the number of foreign criminals being deported fallen by 13.5% in the past three years, from 5,471 to 4,730? As a Justice Minister, I visited Nigeria to negotiate the agreement on prisoner deportations, and I did the same in Vietnam and in China. However, the number of foreign criminals being deported under such agreements has now fallen. The Minister needs to account for that fall.

One of the interesting aspects of this debate has been that only the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned the issue of labour markets associated with European immigration, which is a big issue. Will the Minister say why the number of people fined for employing illegal immigrants has halved since the general election? Such fines act as a deterrent. I want to know why the number of people who have been prosecuted since 2010 for not paying the minimum wage is only two. The Minister and the hon. Member for Witham know that there are many cases where people are being exploited and undercut, and where such enforcement is required.

The Minister needs to respond to some of the points that the hon. Lady made about waits and competence on tier 1 visas. Why is it that it took 30 days for a tier 1 visa to be processed in 2010, yet according to the response from the Home Office to a parliamentary question the delay in 2012 was 83 days? Innocent as I am in the first week of covering this brief, I also want to know why, for example, fingerprinting of individuals entering the UK illegally at Calais was cancelled by this Government. That was one of the self-evident controls that we need to consider in relation to this issue.

What is the Government’s answer to that question? The hon. Member for Cambridge has mentioned it. What we have, rather than effective action on some of those issues, is ad vans driving around some sensitive parts of our great capital city, with the simple message, “Go Home”. I would like the Minister to pay attention for a moment, if he would, because I believe that those ad vans are just a pilot. If I had watched “Question Time” on Thursday night to hear what he said, I would know that they were a pilot that could be rolled out yet this morning, in the Daily Mail, I read that sources close to the Home Secretary have said that the ad vans will be cancelled. Perhaps the Minister will say once and for all whether what he was saying on Thursday is true—or is what the Home Secretary has been reported as saying today true and the ad vans are being scrapped?

The Minister knows that my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has said that she does not believe that those ad vans were a positive development, and I share her view. I hope that the vans have been cancelled, but perhaps the Minister will say whether he is the source close to the Home Secretary or somebody else is. What is the position on those vans?

We need to look at all the issues I have mentioned. However, the Government’s Immigration Bill, which we will debate in detail later today, examines just some of the issues relating to the major challenges that we face. Some real concerns have been expressed about the Bill regarding the ending of appeals for certain categories of migration. I might be old-fashioned in this respect, but I think the right of appeal still remains an important issue and we will test the Government on it when we debate the Bill.

[Mark Field]

The right hon. Gentleman will have gathered from my contribution that I am relatively liberal on matters of immigration. However, there is also no doubt in my mind, after 12 years as a constituency MP, that the abuse by immigration lawyers and others in the legal system is nothing short of a national disgrace. The idea of streamlining this system should be wholly welcomed across the House.

[Mr Hanson]

We will look carefully at that issue of appeals. Part 2 of the Immigration Bill proposes ending appeals, apart from administrative reviews, for a number of categories of immigration. We must look carefully at that issue, because I want to ensure that we speedily remove people who should not be here, and that we do not speedily allow in people who should not be here. However, we must also ensure that people have an opportunity to receive a fair hearing.

Will the Minister tell me—either now, later today or in Committee—why 50% of the current appeals are upheld? If 50% are upheld, that means that the original decisions in those cases were wrong. If the appeal mechanism is removed, what guarantees do we have that that 50% of appeals will not be unfairly dealt with by the Government? That is all I am seeking in this debate—fairness. With the Minister, I will happily consider how we can streamline the appeals system and make it more effective. However, if ultimately 50% of appeals are upheld and we remove that right of appeal, that 50% of appeals will not even be considered, which means that people from abroad will not come here and potentially will not have happy marriages, employment or other aspects of life, because of a failure of initial decision making. That is where we need to go back to, rather than potentially having a debate about who should and should not be here.

The landlord issues that are dealt with in the Immigration Bill are, in theory, perfectly acceptable, but we will need to consider the practical details of how they will work and how, for example, we can expect landlords to know the 400-plus types of visa or conditions of entry that might exist. In particular, constituencies such as that of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster have a high turnover of students and other people coming here, and the same applies in many big cities. How landlords can be expected to do that job practically will have to be tested later today. We will also look in detail at the health fee issue and give the Bill a fair wind to test such issues in Committee.

I suspect that we will need to go to the basics of all the issues I have mentioned today. I noted that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Cambridge, the labour market issues that we want to look at when considering the Bill were not discussed by the hon. Members for Witham and for Cities of London and Westminster. We need to address those issues in detail.

I strongly believe that some labour market issues also relate to where the vast majority of new immigrants to the United Kingdom come from: wider Europe. If the labour market is undercut by people forcing down wages, poorer conditions and gangmasters in areas such as the east of England putting people into multiple occupations, which drives down wages and treats people casually, there will be tensions in society because people who are indigenous to the United Kingdom will feel that they are treated unfairly.

Today and during the weeks that the Minister and I will spend together in Committee, I want to look at the Government’s response to issues such as doubling the fines for breaching minimum wage legislation, strengthening the rules covering gangmasters, introducing measures to prevent migrants from being crammed into unsuitable accommodation such as overcrowded mobile homes to cut labour costs, giving local councils power to take enforcement action on the minimum wage, extending the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, stopping rogue landlords providing overpriced accommodation, and targeting areas with high levels of foreign recruitment, particularly in relation to recruitment agencies. We will test the Government on such issues, and I give credit to the hon. Member for Cambridge for touching on them. They must be addressed.

I want to give the Minister a few moments to contribute to the debate, and I would welcome it if his opening comment clarified the question of ad vans. I do not like reading Government announcements in the Daily Mail. I am sure what it says is true, because the Daily Mail would never, ever portray as a fact something that is not. Perhaps in his opening comment, he could tell us that he agrees with the Home Secretary that ad vans should be scrapped. If that were his opening sentence today, it would be welcomed on both sides of the House, certainly by the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition and Labour. It might be a U-turn from what he said on Thursday, but it would be a good, clear policy.

I hope that the Minister will touch on how many texts were sent to British citizens—I am waiting for replies to parliamentary questions on this—and the basis of the information for that part of the campaign. Instead of looking at gimmicks and rhetoric, we should look for cross-party consensus on dealing with illegal immigration, effective border controls, removal of foreign prisoners, stopping sham marriages, closing sham colleges, and ensuring that in our rhetoric and policy we do not deter the positive people who want to come to the United Kingdom. We must make it easier to attract skills and easier to bring students here. We must use immigration as it has been used historically: as an engine for growth instead of a rhetoric for fear.

Metropolitan Police Service

Debate between David Hanson and Mark Field

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because we are not concerned only with the direct police budget. Resources also come through the community safety fund, which was mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members. In the last year that I set it, it was £13.2 million for London. This year, it is £5.3 million, and next year it is disappearing altogether. That is £13.2 million in the last year of a Labour Government but that is now no more, in the third year of a Conservative and Liberal Administration.

[Mark Field]

I am glad that the shadow Minister acknowledged that some serious crime rates are coming down in London. We all have great concerns—I share many of those expressed today—but is it not also fair to say that, given the financial constraints that any Government would be under, to be brutally honest, there is vanishingly little between what would have happened had there been a Labour Government in office today, in the sort of grants that they could give via the Home Office to the Mayor, and what has been happening in the past year?

[Mr Hanson]

Let me gently slap the hon. Gentleman down. There is a difference between the 20% cut on policing introduced by this Government in England and Wales and the 12% reduction that we had planned, which had the support of Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary, which said that it was deliverable and achievable, and that we could have maintained police numbers. The difference in London between the votes he has voted for and the votes that we have voted for amounts to, at the moment, £230 million lost to London policing. That is the difference between him and me. Next Wednesday, he will have an opportunity to look again at the Minister’s budget. I can give the Minister a hint. Just between you and me, Mr Streeter, we will be voting against his budget next Wednesday. My right hon. and hon. Friends will do so because that budget needs to be reviewed.

My hon. Friends have mentioned gang and youth violence funding, gangs and knife violence funding and substance misuse funding. They are all difficult challenges for which funding has been lost. On the diversity issue mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, for example, in London 34% of PCSOs are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and when we lose 986 of them by 2015, the effect on the numbers of black and ethnic minority police officers and PCSOs on the streets of London will be disproportionate.

In conclusion, my right hon. and hon. Friends have made valuable points. We need to look again at the budget. When we reject it, the Minister will have the opportunity to go back and think about it again. We need to look at accountability, because now the London deputy mayor responsible for policing is not as accountable as the police board was in the past. We need to look at the role of the Met in national policing. We need to look at how we can improve diversity—perhaps the Minister can tell me why the last time the Home Office diversity group met was when I chaired it in December 2009. It has not met since, according to his parliamentary answers. The issue is real, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken for London, I hope the Minister will listen.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between David Hanson and Mark Field

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I accept some of what the right hon. Gentleman says, but surely he must recognise that there are shades of grey in this debate. He says that we need to be protected from murderers and rapists, but many law-abiding citizens have concerns about being fitted up by the police or the possibility of the science and technology proving faulty—and who knows where DNA technology will be in 20 or 30 years’ time? Does he not recognise that there are shades of grey in this particular debate, and that painting it in the simplistic way he does—although it is good that we are having this debate—rather debases his argument?

[Mr Hanson]

Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not trying to turn this into a simplistic debate. As Home Office Ministers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and I wrestled with officials for many months about where to draw the line on this matter. We recognised that there were different places to draw it. What we tried to do in government was to draw the line at the furthest point we possibly could to ensure that we maximised the police’s ability to collect and examine DNA so that subsequent crimes could be solved by its use. Because rape and murder are not always one-off crimes but repeat offences, we wanted to prevent further victims downstream. We looked at that in the light of our European responsibilities, and we drew the line at six years.

To answer the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I still wish to draw the line at six years today. I accept that the amendment may be technically flawed, but its purpose, given the limited opportunities available, was to put our concerns to the Minister, as I have explained. We want to stress that the impact of sexual offences and other serious crimes needs to be examined. What is the clear difference between the Minister and me? It is the fact that his proposals to restrict the use of DNA put at risk people’s lives and their ability to enjoy them freely without being subjected to sexual offences. I fear that the Minister and I will continue to disagree on those issues. Let me tell him that the gut instinct of many Conservative Members is to share the gut instincts of many Labour Members. What we are trying to do is at least to give the Minister an opportunity to look at these issues again.

Finance (No.2) Bill

Debate between David Hanson and Mark Field

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I have taken advice in drafting the new clause, and my advice is that it is workable and applicable, although I have had to leave out certain aspects. My purpose is not to force this particular model on the Treasury, but to use the new clause as a debating point, so that the Treasury can respond to the principle and decide whether this is a good proposal that will help matters, bring investment back to the United Kingdom and be supportive. I would, potentially, be happy to withdraw the new clause at the end of the debate, and I am happy to listen to what the Minister says, but I want to get to the nub of the issue.

The Under-Secretary, the hon. Members for Bath and for Dundee East, who speaks for the Scottish National party, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West and Labour Front Benchers all think that some form of games tax relief to help maintain the industry in the United Kingdom would be a good thing. All I want today is for the Minister to say, “Yes, I agree with that general principle. Over a period of time, I will look at how we make this proposal workable and how we bring it back in a future Budget or Finance Bill.” Indeed, he could say today that he is happy with the proposals and that the Government will look at them again in the near future in whatever format they choose. It is important to get that on the table.

Dr Richard Wilson, TIGA’s chief executive, has set out his view that we will potentially lose jobs. He said that

“the UK is losing out on jobs and investment because of the absence of Games Tax Relief.

High-skilled jobs could be created in Manchester and Warrington. Instead they are being created in Montreal.”

He says that that is particularly because our

“key competitors, particularly Canada, have tax breaks for games production. The UK does not.”

Others who comment on these matters, such as Danny Bilson, THQ’s vice-president for core game brands, has said:

“The talent in the UK is extraordinary...We have a studio up in Warrington that’s an excellent studio…but I’m sorry, it’s…about money at the end of the day.”

We need to ensure that we have the support for such things. That is the reality of the market. World-leading publishers recognise that we have an asset, which it has taken years to build up and which is worth hundreds of millions of pounds, but it will go abroad if we do not compete on the same level as our Canadian colleagues. In France, there is a 20% tax reduction for video games, and tax provisions in Canada have driven up staff numbers by 43%, but in the United Kingdom we have seen the head count start to decline over the past few years.

I do not want to go into great detail or to take up the House’s time. I simply want to tell the Minister that there is real scope for these proposals. There is scope to develop the UK film tax credit model and to use it for the UK video game tax model. We can ensure that we help to grow the sector, and we can meet the commitments that colleagues made during the general election campaign. I tabled the new clause so that we could hear whether the Minister is still of the view that there is no scope for such proposals or whether he could look at the issue in detail and bring back proposals in due course. I commend the new clause to the House.

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

The video games industry is very important. Its spiritual home is, in part, in my constituency, in places such so Soho and Covent Garden—