National Crime Agency

David Hanson 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

David Hanson 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.

Electronic Communications

David Hanson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I very much support the process that the Government have brought forward today. The Opposition will support the regulations before the House this afternoon. As the Minister has said, they are made under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which we debated last Tuesday, although it seems a long time ago. It was certainly an interesting debate.

The Minister has outlined clearly why the regulations are needed. Last week we supported him in taking the Act through the House, because we recognise, as he does, that retaining records and data is vital in fighting crime, whether tackling serious organised crime, dealing with child abuse or helping to prevent terrorism. We also welcome the safeguards we discussed last week in relation to access to those data. As he explained, the regulations put in place broadly what is already in place, and they therefore have our support.

In offering our support, I wish to raise two issues that the Minister might like to respond to in any winding-up speech he cares to make. First, there was limited consultation on the regulations. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the 2009 regulations had a 12-week public consultation. Due to the pressing nature of the legislation we passed last week, the regulations before us had nothing that could be called a full consultation. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that the six-monthly review by the Information Commissioner of how the legislation is working will include the regulations so that providers and other individuals have an opportunity to put on the record any concerns they have about their operation and so that those concerns can be examined?

[James Brokenshire]

The interception of communications commissioner is required to make a six-monthly review, and my expectation is that that would certainly cover the use of those powers. We need to consider the interrelationship with the Information Commissioner, because it is a separate regulator that looks at the retention of those data. Obviously, we will consider any interrelationship and any discussions that might need to take place between the two regulators to give an assurance to the public about the use of those data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. My main point is that the legislation’s sunset clause means that it will cease to have effect in December 2016. The regulations are being made by the House today, but I want to ensure that they are examined on a regular basis, given that there was no proper consultation because the Act had to be rushed through last week.

Secondly—I raised this matter privately with the Minister’s office earlier today—the initial regulations specified 8 August 2014 as the date on which the European Court of Justice declared the data retention direction 2006/24/EC invalid. The date was in fact 8 April. I just want to be clear that the Minister has relayed that matter to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments so that there is no doubt about what we are discussing today and the way it has been framed.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for contacting my office earlier today to highlight that point, to which he will have heard me make specific reference in my opening remarks. A further draft of the explanatory memorandum is certainly in the process of being relayed, if that has not already been done, as he rightly indicated. We are clear that that has no bearing on this afternoon’s debate.

[Mr Hanson]

I just thought that it was worth placing that on the record, as I would not wish there to be any confusion, given the nature of the debate we are having today.

I am happy to support the regulations, given the potential for review and the safeguards we have put in place with regard to the Act. I look forward to formal reviews, as secured by the legislation. Given the assurances the Minister has given today, he will have our support for the regulations.

Relocation Scheme (Syrians)

David Hanson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Dobbin.

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for raising this issue. It is an important one, and we need to focus on the Government’s response to what is an extremely serious crisis in the middle east. I listened with great interest to her account of her visit to the region. I have not been there in the current circumstances, but she painted a very clear picture of the pressures that exist.

Nevertheless, I genuinely cannot begin to understand what it means to be lifted out of a city such as Aleppo, where I may have lived a perfectly normal and busy working life, and to be removed from my country in circumstances of civil war before being placed in a foreign country, where all elements of humanity have gone and where there is a major humanitarian effort just to maintain a basic standard of living. Even in my constituency, which is in the far-flung regions of north Wales, there are people who have been in touch with me to tell me about the circumstances of their relatives in Syria who have been displaced in cities such as Aleppo. The hon. Lady has therefore done a service in bringing this issue to the House today.

I also took on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said about his understanding of the experience of people in Syria. And the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue of persecution, particularly of Christians, which is an important one that we need to reflect upon and consider in the context of today’s debate. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said that a wider issue—the political situation in Syria—needs to be resolved. It does, to stop the haemorrhaging of refugees from Syria in the first place.

I pay tribute to the Government for their humanitarian response in-region. I think that the Department for International Development is the second biggest donor in the world in terms of in-region activity, which is extremely good and positive. However, I go back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and others have said: people are leaving the region because they cannot live there. They do not wish to leave; they want to be back in the region where they have lived, grown up and made their lives and careers. For them to do that, we have to respond in a helpful way and achieve the humanitarian aims we have set.

Since the conflict in Syria began more than three years ago, some 2.8 million people have fled the country. The vast majority are being sheltered by a small number of neighbouring countries, and although the international effort is helping, those countries are now struggling to cope. Lebanon, which has been mentioned, is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. It is now sheltering more than 1.1 million refugees from the Syrian conflict. The hon. Member for Brent Central mentioned Jordan, which was sheltering about 500,000 people in September 2013.

More than 50% of Syrian refugees are children. Last year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr Antonio Guterres, said:

“Syria has become the great tragedy of this century—a disgraceful humanitarian calamity with suffering and displacement unparalleled in recent history.”

Earlier this year, I met Roland Schilling, the UNHCR’s UK representative, and I have met the Refugee Council, to see what we can do to take matters forward.

Members will know that there was pressure for us to adopt a scheme to allow refugees to come to the UK. Last Christmas, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) called publicly for Ministers to accept up to 500 Syrian refugees who met strict criteria—that they were torture victims, people with family connections in Britain or women and girls at high risk. She did that in response to the UN call for assistance, and we have been given the figures for other countries, but they are worth repeating. Some 21 countries have responded to the UN call for refugees to be accepted. Some 20,000 have been accepted by Germany, 1,500 by Austria, 1,200 by Sweden and 1,000 by Norway. The United States has given an open-ended commitment on resettlement. The many other countries that have taken refugees under the UN scheme include Ireland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, France, Finland, Denmark, Canada, Belgium and Belarus. We have to respond, and I hope the Government will, to ensure we play our role in meeting those international obligations.

The Government did not initially warm to my right hon. Friend’s call for 500 refugees to be accepted. We had a statement in the Commons, Home Office questions and an Opposition day debate calling for the matter to be addressed. We had pressure from Government Back Benchers during the statement and the Opposition day debate. During Prime Minister’s questions, pressure was put on the Prime Minister by not only my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but Members on both sides of the House.

There was concerted pressure, but the former Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), said any proposals would be a “token” gesture—that was the word that appeared in Hansard. However, the Government ultimately announced in a statement that they would accept refugees, reflecting UN proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, therefore, there is not a proud tradition on this issue. As a result of pressure from outside and inside the House, the Government accepted the need to act, and I was pleased when they did act.

I want to help the Minister, but my concern is that, as a result of the statement in January about accepting refugees, we have not seen materialise the sort of numbers—I am waiting for more information later—that would meet even the obligations my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford spoke of last Christmas.

[Jim Shannon]

I think there is a willingness in the nation we represent—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—to see greater numbers coming here from Syria. If that is what I and other Members feel, it is up to the Government, and the Minister in particular, to respond with the numbers we wish to see coming. That is the issue: if people want this, the Government should reflect that.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I hope I can call him that—for raising that issue. We need to put on record the fact that refugee status is not the same as immigration. There is general concern about immigration, but these people would, I believe, ultimately want to return to their home nation when the situation there was settled and the conflict that drove them out of their home nation in the first place was resolved. There is a willingness to help, and there has been historically.

[Sarah Teather]

Members may not be aware of this, but a poll was done of first-time voters during refugee week. It showed that 70% supported the Government’s decision to resettle in the UK some of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees. I just want to give the Government some confidence that this proposal is popular; they are not working against a tide of popular opinion—people genuinely want this to happen.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I appreciate the way in which she has phrased her remarks, although Governments sometimes have to do things that are unpopular, even if those are the right things to do. That aside, this is the right thing to do.

In the short time I have, I want to test the Minister on a number of the practicalities of the vulnerable persons relocation scheme. First, I would genuinely welcome an update on how many people have arrived under the scheme, which was announced in January. The last answer to a parliamentary question on this issue was on 24 June—three weeks ago—and it indicated that 50 individuals had arrived as part of the scheme. I would welcome confirmation of how many have arrived as of 16 July. Like other hon. Members, I would also welcome an assessment of how many people are in the pipeline and may arrive in the next six months.

I accept, although I may not agree it was justified, that there were difficulties in establishing the Government’s scheme, rather than using the UN’s existing scheme. I would welcome an update from the Minister on whether proper assessments are in place to deliver a number of individuals. I would also welcome his assessment of how many people will go through the system and arrive in the UK in not only the next six months, but up to the general election next May, although we cannot commit beyond that.

I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of how many local authorities have signed up to assist with the Government’s scheme. I asked the Minister that question earlier this year, but he was unable to given an indication. He may not want to name the local authorities, but it would be helpful if he said that there was a certain number, that they were in London, that they were metropolitan or regional authorities, or that they were in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, just so that we can get some flavour of how the scheme will progress downstream. When people arrive, they have to be dispersed and to have accommodation.

I would welcome an assessment of whether there are problems with local authorities. I have picked up that they may be worried about their ongoing costs and whether the Government will commit to meet those costs beyond a particular time. I would also welcome the Minister’s comments on what he regards as the minimum standard of support for those who arrive. The scheme is different from the UN one, and I would welcome his outlining the support he anticipates those arriving in the UK will receive from the Government.

In a further answer to a parliamentary question from me, the Minister said:

“Costs will be recovered wherever possible, including from the EU.”—[Official Report, 28 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 427W.]

I would welcome an indication from the Minister of how much resource the Government have spent to date on the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, what he expects to spend by the end of the first full financial year, which started in April, and whether he expects to recoup any or all of that money from the EU.

I would also welcome an overall assessment of the longer-term picture. We do not know who will be in government post-May 2015, but does the Minister believe, on the basis of the position today, that the scheme will progress after that time? If so, how will it progress and for how long, given the still devastating political instability in the region? I believe that we need to respond in a positive way, as Opposition Members and the hon. Member for Brent Central have said. She has performed a service in bringing the matter before the House today. The House has been pressing the Government to say how their aspirations are being met on the ground and what support—when, where, how and for how many—they are giving through the scheme. I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister’s response.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) on securing a debate on such an important matter. We have benefited from her direct testimony of visits to refugee camps, in which she explained the conditions and the situation. I recognise the passion, commitment and focus that she has brought to the issue, not just in the past few months but for a considerable time. She is committed to dealing with the refugee issue, which has motivated her to obtain this afternoon’s debate.

My hon. Friend made important points about the crisis in Syria, together with the continuing instability in Iraq, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also pointed out. It is right that the question of what support we provide to those in need provokes passion, and that was exemplified by the speech of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the contribution that this country should make to supporting people who are vulnerable and in need, and who are suffering during a huge humanitarian crisis.

I am sure that all hon. Members share our deep concern about the appalling violence in Syria and the suffering and hardship that that has caused for millions of people. Nearly 3 million refugees have now been displaced into surrounding countries and 6.4 million people are internally displaced inside Syria; 10.8 million require humanitarian aid. The scale of that tragedy caused my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central to pause in her speech, and it is worth pausing and reflecting on how staggering the figures are. The Government have always been clear that the crisis is of international proportions and that it needs a fitting response from the UK and the international community.

The Government have three clear priorities in Syria: supporting efforts to find a political solution to the conflict; alleviating suffering; and protecting UK security by tackling extremism and getting rid of Assad’s chemical weapons. I strongly believe that only a political settlement will ensure that Syrian families who have fled the crisis can return to their homes and livelihoods in peace. In the meantime, only humanitarian aid can help the majority of those in the region who so desperately need our help. Aid is also the best way to ease the enormous burden on Syria’s neighbours, and I think that was clear from what my hon. Friend said about her visit to Jordan and the pressure that the situation is causing in the countries that are most generously hosting and supporting refugees.

That is why the UK has pledged £600 million to the regional relief effort, making us the largest bilateral donor after the USA. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) acknowledged and appraised that fact fairly. UK funding is helping to support hundreds of thousands of refugees in Syria and neighbouring countries. The hon. Member for Strangford was seeking detail about that in some of his questions. For example, the UK provides food for up to 535,000 people a month, drinking water for more than 1.5 million and funding for more than 300,000 medical consultations. I think that that is the largest humanitarian aid effort that the UK Government have ever attempted, which shows the huge scale of the tragedy that has unfolded before us.

It is important to recognise the way in which aid can be focused on some of the most vulnerable people. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central highlighted the situation of children, and their lack of education. The UK helped to launch and mobilise international support for UNICEF’s “no lost generation” initiative, which provides education, psycho-social support and protection for Syrian children.

Humanitarian aid is the best way to ensure that the UK’s help has the greatest impact for Syrian refugees and their host countries. Compared with aid, resettlement can only ever support a comparatively small number of people in need. However, we recognise that there are some particularly vulnerable people who cannot be supported effectively in the region. That is why, in January, the Home Secretary launched the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme to provide sanctuary in the UK for displaced Syrians who are most at risk.

We are working closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify the people who need our help most. In particular, the scheme prioritises support for those with serious medical needs, survivors of torture and violence, and women and children at risk. Beneficiaries of the scheme are granted five years’ humanitarian protection, with all the rights and benefits that go with that status, including access to public funds, access to the labour market and the possibility of family reunion. All people who arrive under the scheme also receive a 12-month package of integration support to help them to start to build a new life in the UK.

I announced the scheme in January and am pleased to say that the first group arrived at the end of March, just eight weeks after that announcement. Groups are now arriving in the UK on a monthly basis. We expect more arrivals in July and August, and we intend to relocate two or three families a month. The figure of 50 people that has been cited is the number who had come by the end of June. We intend to provide the House with quarterly updates; as we publish transparency data in the Home Office, we intend to provide an update on the numbers who have benefited from the scheme, to keep the House and the public updated. Those who have benefited include a number of adults and children with severe medical needs, who could not get the treatment they desperately needed in the region.

The right hon. Member for Delyn asked me to provide estimates of future cost, but that is difficult, given that the needs will relate to particular families’ and individuals’ specific circumstances. We are not working on a quota at all. Rather, we are working on the basis of need with the UNHCR. Given the severe vulnerabilities of the beneficiaries, it is important that we ensure that the support and accommodation they need is in place before they arrive. As I said, we are working closely with UNHCR, the International Organisation for Migration and local authority partners to achieve that.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Minister say when the first quarterly update is due, from today?

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, the first update is due in August. We are providing quarterly updates on that basis, in that regular pattern. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see, quarterly, on our transparency release, the numbers of people who have benefited from the scheme. The intent is to provide a regular update in that way and that is fair and appropriate.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (Business of the House)

David Hanson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak at the start of what will be a long day’s debate on this important piece of legislation.

I understand why the Minister has tabled the programme motion, but I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), share some of the concerns about the fact that this problem and challenge first came to light in April, as has been mentioned, when the European Court of Justice struck down the Data Retention (EU Directive) Regulations 2009. I know from my time serving in government that that may not necessarily have come as a surprise to the Government—they may have anticipated such a challenge before April—so since the challenge in April, they have had a considerable time both to prepare a Bill and to introduce one for us to consider in dealing with what I accept is an emergency. In my view, there are good reasons why the legislation must now be passed very quickly, but it is incumbent on the Minister at least to recognise that he could have prepared legislation for the eventuality of the regulations being struck down in the European Court of Justice, and that he could have brought in legislation post-April.

From the new clauses and amendments that we have tabled, the Minister will know that we have some concerns and require some changes. First, we must ensure that provision for a wider review of the Investigation of Regulatory Powers Act 2000 is added to the statute book, with a guarantee that the whole House can understand. Secondly, we must have a regular examination every six months of the operation of any legislation that this House and the other place pass this week. I want to get on to those matters before the day is out, because we will have an opportunity to deal with them today. I am disappointed with the time scales, but the programme motion effectively gives us one and a half days of legislative time to consider such matters. As the Minister said, it is important to get on to discuss those matters.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

On the six-month period, I understand that Opposition Front Benchers have accepted the Government’s argument that the Bill will do no more than clarify the previous situation and will not extend the Government’s powers in any way. If we pass the legislation and subsequently have doubts about whether powers have been extended, will it be possible for the six-month review to look at the legislation, or are we stuck with it once we have it? What are Opposition Front Benchers trying to achieve?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which is important on two fronts. We have tabled new clause 2 to provide a six-month review, which would be some time in December this year or in January next year. It would look at how the Act passed by this House and the other place had operated up to that time, as well as at other factors that the Minister may have examined following the European Court of Justice’s consideration and the lapsing of the current legislation.

We will then be into a general election campaign, and my hon. Friend will know that in the event of our being elected to government, we will look at some of the wider issues as a matter of course. I hope that we can accept the Government’s understanding of the emergency and help them to cover that emergency, while also leaving scope for looking at how the Act operates in practice. If other new clauses are agreed to today, we would also then be able to consider the wider issues about which I know right hon. and hon. Members have concerns.

Bluntly, investigations into online child sex abuse, major investigations into terrorism and into organised crime, the prevention of young people from travelling to Syria and many issues relating to attempted terrorist activity have depended on and will continue to depend on the type of access that we need through the Bill.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the right hon. Gentleman provide some clarification? In the event of a Labour Government —it is very hard to predict what will happen—will he assure us that if the review recommends changes to provide more privacy and civil liberties safeguards, he will want to implement them?

[Mr Hanson]

We are currently discussing the programme motion and the allocation of time, and I am trying to indicate to the House—including the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, Ministers—that we will support the motion, even though we are disappointed that there was not an earlier and more thorough examination of the Bill.

We recognise that, in the interests of fighting terrorism, child abuse and serious organised crime, the Government are seeking powers to meet their current obligations in the light of the judgment in April. On this occasion, the Government will have our support, and we hope that there will be an opportunity later today to consider in detail some of the new clauses that we have tabled.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

David Hanson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

We have had a useful debate today, in which the House has had to reach a balance in making a judgment on the Bill. The balance has been between two main concerns: the privacy of information and the need for agencies such as the police and others to know about that information and access it; and the need not to let criminals off the hook. There is a real dilemma that I know all hon. Members are examining, but I hope that it is one that the Bill can resolve.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are here because of the European Court of Justice and its decision to strike down regulations to enable internet providers to retain communications data for law enforcement purposes for up to 12 months. That is an issue we must address for the reasons the Home Secretary and the Minister have outlined. We also need to ensure that the Government respond to the needs of the companies calling for a clear legal framework. The Home Secretary also outlined that view.

Members on both sides of the House have shared the Government’s balanced view, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, has endorsed that balanced approach, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Indeed, the Home Affairs Committee has written to the Home Secretary today saying:

“The Committee’s view is that the retention of communications data, subject to appropriate safeguards, is an important tool in the fight against terrorism, organised crime and child sexual exploitation, and the Government is right to bring forward urgent legislation”.

I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) has dissented from that view and in his speech he clearly put his dissent on record. However, the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) about the protections and freedoms that his Committee has examined are also important. He has put on record his concerns while, again, taking a balanced approach.

There are those in the House today who have fallen more on the side of privacy than of crime fighting, and I respect that view and understand why it is taken. I do not necessarily share it, but the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) talked about ensuring that we have safeguards in place and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) argued for the sunset clause and about the question of what national security is, and those are issues that we should explore. I hope that Ministers will deal with these issues not just now but as the Bill goes through the House today and through the other place, so that there are safeguards and powers to review the legislation. I hope that later in our consideration the proposals put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford and other Opposition Members, will be considered seriously.

Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) have expressed real concerns and might not support the Opposition’s view in the Lobby tonight. I respect that view, but I cannot share it today, and I urge my right hon. Friend, even at this late stage, to consider supporting the Opposition as well as the Government. I paraphrase what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has said on other occasions, when he said he was not happy, he was not happy at all. That broadly summarises his position today. It is shared by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I accept his point that smaller parties—I represent a constituency in Wales—need at least to be involved in the discussion on these matters, even if the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire remains not happy, not happy at all.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has raised the terms of engagement, and she made a good, solid contribution, but ultimately the Opposition have to make a judgment, and the judgment that my right hon. Friend and I have formed supports the Government’s view on these matters. Even though we think that the Government should have looked at this earlier, we support that judgment for the reasons given by my right hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who are former Home Secretaries and know the difficulties that the Home Secretary faces now. They have been in office in the Home Office, as indeed have I, and have seen the challenges that we face. They have understood that the retention of data records is important. I am pleased that that view was also shared by, for example, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), who made a strong case from a criminal prosecution point of view that retention of data was necessary for court cases.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) made some important points, which he will raise again in Committee. He recognised, again as a former Home Office Minister, the importance of the Bill in the round. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) drew an interesting analogy with Robin Hood and being in the forest. I hope that I am not Friar Tuck in this, Madam Deputy Speaker. She made the point that it is a simple regulation of dark issues in relation to the use of evidence in court.

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made important points in support of the legislation, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). In summary, all investigations into online child sex abuse, major investigations into terrorism and organised crime, and the prevention of young people from travelling to Syria would be severely jeopardised if the legislation did not pass in its current form. Without it, the police would not be able to catch paedophiles sharing child images. Mobile phone records helped the police find out about the attempted terrorist attack on Glasgow airport in 2007. Without the legislation, those records would no longer be available. The security services would not have been able to check who the Woolwich attackers had contacted when they undertook that murder.

The Minister has our support. We will examine the Bill in Committee, but on Second Reading we give him our unqualified support.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

David Hanson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I know the clear position that my hon. Friend has enunciated on many occasions in the House. There will be wider debates and discussions on the position of the European Convention and a British bill of rights, with which my hon. Friend is very familiar and which I personally support to ensure that our domestic law is framed properly in the context of convention rights. However, we have reflected carefully on the judgment—the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) described it as dense and complicated—which the Bill reflects on in the nature of the obligations set out therein. We have judged that primary legislation to avoid any uncertainty is appropriate and necessary, given the huge reliance that is placed on communications data and the right to be able lawfully to intercept for the prescribed purposes. I am sure that the wider debate—and the Select Committee that my hon. Friend chairs—is focused on the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over matters that are opted into and the position post-December 2014. We have reflected carefully on the application, scope and enforceability of the Bill and its compliance with relevant legislation of whatever kind, and we are confident that it meets that challenge.

Given that the European Court was considering only the data retention directive and not how member states implemented it, it did not take into account the rigorous controls in place in the UK as part of its judgment. Access to communications data in the UK is stringently regulated and safeguarded by the Regulatory and Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Data are retained on a case-by-case basis and must be authorised by a senior officer, at a rank stipulated by Parliament, from the organisation requesting the data. The authorising officer may approve a request for communications data only if the tests of necessity and proportionality are met in the particular case.

Our system was examined in detail by the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill, and it was satisfied that the current internal authorisation procedure is the right model. However, to ensure that communications data cannot be accessed using information-gathering powers that are not subject to the rigorous safeguards in RIPA, the Bill ensures that data retained under this legislation may be accessed only in accordance with RIPA, a court order or other judicial authorisation or warrant.

Hon. and right hon. Members who followed the discussions surrounding the draft Communications Data Bill will be aware that communications service providers are also able to retain communications data on a voluntary basis under a code of practice made under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. This clause ensures that the regulations made under this Bill can apply the same security safeguards and access restrictions to data retained under that code. I therefore believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I welcome you to the Chair of this important Committee, Sir Roger. I shall not detain the Committee for long because, given that we broadly agree with the Government’s approach on this key issue, the Opposition have not tabled any amendments to clause 1.

As the Minister said, the stated context for the Bill is the continued threat from serious organised crime and potential terrorist activity. Given that the European Court of Justice struck down the regulations because they were neither proportionate nor objective, we have taken the view that we need to look at how to frame legislation that will be proportionate and objective in respect of the retention of data.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I would be interested to know the Opposition’s view on the issue of our laws being trumped by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in the report of the European Scrutiny Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, in the event of a Labour Government, there might be a case for passing legislation to proclaim the supremacy of Parliament so that we can protect ourselves from European legislation?

[Mr Hanson]

I take the view that we are part of the European Union, so we have to respect our obligations within it. I come to this particular piece of legislation, however, on the basis of what will best prevent activities by terrorists, child pornographers, paedophiles or serious organised criminals. Given the actions of the European Court of Justice, we have to examine our obligations as the United Kingdom Parliament and to frame legislation that we believe will have the support of the Government—and, in this particular case, of the Opposition—to ensure that we meet our European obligations but in a way that also meets our obligation to tackle the serious and organised criminals and others who would damage the fabric of our society. I will probably have disappointed the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) with that answer, but I believe it is consistent with our positive approach to Europe and our involvement in the European Community.

I believe that clause 1, which is the main focus of our debate, meets those obligations. It gives the Secretary of State powers to issue a retention notice requiring organisations that have data to hold those data, with which they will have to comply. Strict criteria are set out in subsection (2), which specifies who the operator could be, what the data being retained should be, for what periods the data should be retained, and whether there is different proportionality within different types of data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Let us assume for the sake of argument that all the provisions in subsections (1) and (2) are desirable, although some people will disagree. Surely what is most important from the Opposition’s point of view is to judge whether the provisions will be effective. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants all this because it is a good idea, but if—as is more than likely—the provisions are challenged in the European Court, where will the Opposition stand if the European Court judgment that follows the implementation of the Act eventually overturns the Act itself?

[Mr Hanson]

I think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to say that if we were the Government and the legislation were in force, we would defend it in the European Court, and would put up a case for our arguments. Ultimately, however, we are part of the European Union, and the European Court is considering the impact of legislation of this kind throughout the EU. We must defend our parliamentary procedures, defend the decisions that we make and defend the legislation that we have, and we must argue for our the position in court. Ultimately, however, we must also take on board our European obligations.

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

I wonder whether, at this point, we are pursuing the personal obsession of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). This is emergency legislation. Surely, if it were struck down, a Labour Government would introduce, in a timely manner, properly considered legislation that would deal with the problem.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend has made an important point. As the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) will observe, further amendments have been tabled, and I hope that the Government will consider them. We cannot discuss them now, but they would ensure that the provisions in clause 1 would be reviewed regularly, and that we would have an opportunity to make representations to the European Court if it chose to mount a challenge. However, let me respectfully say that I think we are being sidetracked into issues that do not concern the Bill as such. I consider that it fulfils an obligation to ensure that we give powers to the police and other authorities to check data and examine the conduct of that data. It establishes a definitive time scale for the holding of the data, and enables us to frame in legislation, in this United Kingdom Parliament, the mechanisms that are required to achieve that through court orders. That is why I support the clause and why the Opposition have tabled no amendments to it.

[Sir William Cash]

The European law on which this legislation is ultimately based is a retention directive. We anticipate there will be replacement regulations, but it does not matter whether the original regulations or replacement regulations are involved. Ultimately, the authority on which this Bill is based, and on which the whole of this general issue is based, is European law and the charter of fundamental rights and principles of European law which apply. As the shadow Minister just said, it so happens we have voluntarily accepted the obligations imposed under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 in respect of compliance with a directive and any further directives that may or may not be made, and we have also voluntarily accepted that the United Kingdom will accept all judgments of the European Court under section 3 of that Act.

It so happens that we are providing in our own domestic legislation for certain safeguards, modifications and changes—based, it would appear, on the fact that we are now discussing a Bill of this Parliament—which interfere with, cross over, interweave with and—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I will make a short contribution in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who I think made some extremely valid points in relation to amendment 1. I believe that the Government should at least look at it favourably and give a positive response covering the issues he raised. He indicated that issues such as defence contracts and national infrastructure are crucial to the United Kingdom’s infrastructure. I simply want to endorse his points.

I have one question for the Minister on clause 3. I think I know what it means, as I think most people do, but it would be helpful if the Minister outlined what he believes the statement

“relevant to the interests of national security”

means in practice. The clause gives the Secretary of State powers

“in circumstances appearing to the Secretary of State to be relevant to the interests of national security”.

An explanation from the Minister would be helpful, because I have received some representations on what it means, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) has made the point that it could be defined very widely. I think that it would help to reassure those outside the House if the Minister could give some clarity today by putting on the record what I think we already know.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for tabling the amendment and giving us an opportunity to look in detail at clause 3 and at the importance of the economic well-being purpose currently retained in RIPA. Let me set out a little more context. Clause 3 translates into primary legislation a constraint—it is intended to be a constraint—on the exercise of this purpose that is already provided for in the codes of practice issued under section 71 of RIPA. It effectively puts those statements into primary legislation. It requires that an interception warrant is only issued, and access to communications data only authorised, for the purposes of economic well-being where there is also an independent national security justification for the authorisation. It is intended to be read in that context. I hope that explanation is helpful as we explore some of the language in the Bill.

Clause 3 does not mean that economic well-being for the purposes of RIPA is synonymous with national security, but the amendment gives us the opportunity to underline the fact that there has to be that connection between the two, which obviously is relevant in determining whether or not the powers under RIPA can be exercised for the statutory purposes. Along with national security and the prevention and detection of serious crime, protecting the UK’s economic well-being is one of the statutory functions of the security and intelligence agencies, which are set out in the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

I understand and recognise the points made by the right hon. Member for Knowsley. I think that this debate has been quite useful in airing some of the cyber-security and cybercrime issues that I know he has raised in the House on a number of occasions. It has also highlighted our reliance on information communications technology, which is now a core part of our national infrastructure. I think that there is read-across into other legislation. I understand that he tabled the amendment on a probing basis, but I think that it requires careful thought.

A definition of economic well-being is reflected in the legislation I have mentioned—RIPA being the key focus for this evening’s debate—but it is also important to acknowledge its context as a well-established principle in law. Its origins lie in the European convention on human rights, which provides for exceptions to article 8—the right to a private and family life—when it is in the interest of the economic well-being of the country. Many aspects, therefore, are wrapped up in the broad context of how the definition has come about and the interpretations of it. Case law may also sit alongside this provision in determining the scope and ambit of the definition, so seeking to clarify it may have unintended consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Clause 5 is a simple but necessary part of the Bill that puts into law an important clarification. Today people communicate using a range of web-based services and applications. As the scale and diversity of these services have grown, there should not be any uncertainty about whether a communications service provider to users in the UK is covered by the definition. RIPA was written in a technologically neutral way to allow for developments in the way in which services are delivered. We believe that web-based services such as web-based e-mail, messaging applications and cloud-based services have always been covered by the nature of the definition. Clause 5 simply clarifies how this definition should be interpreted and makes it clear that these services are covered by the definition of a telecommunications service.

Some have asked whether this is extending the definition in some way. I want to make it absolutely clear that that is not the case. We are not changing the existing definition, which remains absolutely as it stands in RIPA. The Bill clarifies how the current definition should be interpreted, but a clarificatory provision of this kind cannot change or extend the meaning of the definition in RIPA to capture new services. This provision simply makes it explicit that the existing definition includes so-called over-the-top services such as webmail and instant messaging for the purposes of that interception. In many ways, it has been the industry itself that has welcomed this clarification and restatement of the existing legislation, which is why I think it is important to give that clarity to the House and to the industry generally. It does not extend the scope of RIPA; instead, it restates and provides clarification in terms of the existing definition, which remains as it was before.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Commencement, duration, extent and short title

[Mr Hanson]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 6, line 41, at end insert

“and is subject to a reporting requirement as set out in subsection (1A).

(1A) The Commissioner for the Interception of Communications must report on the operation of this Act six months following commencement of this Act, followed by subsequent reports every six months.”

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment 4, page 7, line 1, leave out “5” and insert

“(Half-yearly reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner)”.

Amendment 5, page 7, line 2, leave out “5” and insert

“(Half-yearly reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner)”.

Government amendment 7.

Amendment 2, page 7, line 2, leave out “2016” and insert “2014”.

Clause 6 stand part.

Government new clause 7—Review of investigatory powers and their regulation.

New clause 1—Review of the powers, regulation, proportionality and oversight for communications and interception—

(2) The Secretary of State must arrange—

(a) for the operation and future of the powers, regulation, proportionality and oversight for data retention, access and interception to be reviewed, and

(b) for a report on the outcome of the review to be produced and published.

(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent the review from also dealing with other matters relating to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Intelligence Services Act 1994, oversight of the intelligence agencies and data privacy.

(4) The arrangements made by the Secretary of State must provide for the review to begin as soon as practicable, be carried out by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and include public consultation.

(5) The full terms of reference must be established in consultation with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and relevant Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament.”

New clause 2—Oversight by the Interception of Communications Commissioner—

(1) The Interception of Communications Commissioner must report on the operation of sections 1 to 5 of this Act within six months of this Act coming into force and on six-monthly intervals thereafter.”

New clause 6—Half-yearly reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner—

(1) Section 58 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner) is amended as follows.

(2 In subsection (4) (annual reports) after “calendar year” insert “and after the end of the period of six months beginning with the end of each calendar year”.

(3) In subsection (6) (duty to lay annual reports before Parliament) after “annual report” insert “, and every half-yearly report,”.

(4) In subsection (6A) (duty to send annual reports to the First Minister) after “annual report” insert “, and every half-yearly report,”.

(5) In subsection (7) (power to exclude matter from annual reports) after “annual report” insert “, or half-yearly report,”.”

Amendment 6, in Title, line 7, after “Act;” insert

“to make provision about additional reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner;”.

Government amendment 8.

[Mr Hanson]

This goes to the heart of the key amendments that the Opposition seek to impress on the Government to improve the Bill. The Minister will know that we have supported the Bill to date at Second Reading and in the discussions we have had so far, but we have had, and continue to have, some concerns over the need for two aspects in particular. The first is to ensure that there is in place a mechanism for a review of the role of the Act that may or may not be passed ultimately by this House and by the other place shortly. That review lies with the interception commissioner for communications, who could look at the Act and see whether the intention of the House was being met and whether there were developments or amendments that needed to be brought to the attention of the Government.

You will note, Mr Hood, that several amendments relate to this aspect. My initial amendment 3, which I tabled with my right hon. Friends this morning, would add the following at the end of clause 6:

“The Commissioner for the Interception of Communications must report on the operation of this Act six months following commencement of this Act, followed by subsequent reports every six months.”

That was intended to ensure an element of review to meet some of the genuine concerns raised by hon. Members of all parties. You will also see, Mr Hood, that we tabled new clause 2, which is a variation on the same theme. We did so to ensure parliamentary debate, given that we were not sure at that stage what amending provisions would be selected. The new clause effectively provides for the same activity.

We have helpfully tabled new clause 6, too, which provides for half-yearly reports by the interception of communications commissioner. It is linked to amendment 6 and to amendments 4 and 5, but all have the same purpose in life: they are all designed to ensure that the communications regulator is able to review the Act and has a statutory responsibility to do so, not just in six months’ time, following Royal Assent—given the Government’s timetable, that could be as early as Thursday this week—but formally. That would enable the commissioner to examine some of the concerns raised across the House, including by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson).

There is a menu of options for the Government to look at and for the Minister to comment on. I would be happy if he supported any of those amendments; I have tabled three options for him to examine in detail and to establish whether any of them meet his particular obligations. He has an opportunity to give a commitment to establishing that one or all of them would be appropriate.

The second aspect relates to new clause 1, which I tabled this morning with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. Friends. It would establish a “review of the powers, regulation, proportionality and oversight” and other issues that have been of concern to Members of all parties. Members were troubled about a number of longer-term issues, which need to be resolved before any action by a future Government on the storing of data and proportionality. We wanted to ensure that arrangements would be in place as soon as practicable for a review to be carried out by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson. It should include public consultation, and we need to ensure that the full terms of reference are published in consultation with not just Mr Anderson but the relevant Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament. That means the involvement of, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the Home Affairs Committee and, indeed, that of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and the Intelligence and Security Committee, which could contribute to the discussion.

Since we tabled that new clause this morning, the Government have helpfully examined it and tabled their own new clause 7, which covers many of the long-term issues that I feel are necessary for us to consider. Crucially, it covers areas that my right hon. Friends and I are concerned about, particularly the point that the independent reviewer of terrorism must review the operation and regulation of investigatory powers and take current and future threats into account. We accept that there are current threats and there will be future threats. We need to examine our ability to deal with those threats, and, crucially, to think about how we can safeguard our privacy, given the challenges of new technologies.

I have been in the House for—dare I say it?—22 and a bit years, and when I was first here, we did not even have mobile phones. Now, time and pressure are moving on. I arrived late at Twitter, which I took up after the 2010 election, and I arrived at Facebook even later. There may be other technologies out there which I am not yet aware of.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Instagram?

[Mr Hanson]

My daughters tell me that I should get involved in Instagram, but it is a foreign country to me at the moment.

The point that I am making—perhaps in a jocular way—is that new clause 7 refers to “changing technologies”, which include technologies that we would not have envisaged even a few years ago, and others that may be coming down the line over the next few years. Those are the technologies that the independent reviewer should be considering.

I am warming to new clause 7. It also refers to “proportionality” in relation to

“the effectiveness of existing legislation”,

and requires the independent reviewer to make a case

“for new or amending legislation.”

Helpfully, the new clause requires the independent reviewer to report to the House by 1 May 2015. Mr Hood, I suspect that you and I will be focusing on other matters on that day, given the potential date of the general election, but it is handily placed in that any incoming Government, of whatever colour and composition, would be able to pick up the report. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East. The report would be published by the Prime Minister of the day, it would be possible to ensure that it was open to the public and laid before Parliament, and any new Government could act on it in a way that I hope would be proportionate to whatever Members wanted to happen at that particular time.

Let me say, in summary, that there are two issues that I want the Committee to examine. First, may we have a regular review of this Act? There are many options, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to one of them shortly. If we can agree on that, we shall have taken a major step towards meeting some of the concerns that have been expressed by people outside the House who have contacted us today.

The second issue relates to the longer-term review. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled new clause 1, and the Home Secretary has tabled new clause 7. My warm feeling towards new clause 7 suggests that the Minister could persuade me to support it. All that remains is amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East, which would shorten the life of the Act by changing the welcome sunset clause date of 2016 to 2014. I do not want to say too much at this stage, because my hon. Friend has not yet spoken, but I will make one point that I think deserves consideration and a response from him.

We are engaging in what is admittedly a very speedy procedure, involving a day and a half of debate, and the House of Lords will do the same when it debates the Bill over the next two days. My hon. Friend is proposing that the sunset date should be, effectively, December this year. That means that we would go through this procedure again in December, and in January and February next year, after only a short period during which the new arrangements will have been in place.

I suggest to my hon. Friend that the amendment that we have tabled, in three forms, proposing a formal review by the independent reviewer in December and every six months thereafter, would meet the concerns about the legislation and any flaws and faults that we see in it. I accept that my hon. Friend may not take the same view, but I am making him that offer. I think that there is a mechanism that can enable a report to say, in six months’ time, “This has worked well”, or “This it has worked badly”, and to suggest tweaks that can be made.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 was also subject to a six-monthly review, but it went on for 10 years having six-monthly reviews before eventually being replaced by the Terrorism Act 2000, so that did not actually end the Act at all.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend has done long service in this House and will have been through many debates on that topic, but I say to him again that there is currently a sunset clause in the Bill until 2016. The two amendments and new clauses that I have tabled give a review in December 2014 and a six-monthly review after that on this legislation. If the Government are minded to move new clause 7—they must be as they have tabled it—we will have a wide review of the legislation to report by 1 May 2015. We will have a general election presumably on 7 May 2015 after which a new Government can look at the review new clause 7 will bring forward, and they will have the benefit of an independent review, if any or all of the relevant amendments are approved by the Government today, after six months of the operation of this legislation. Both of those give an opportunity in nine months’ time for any new Government to review the whole gamut of this legislation and the operation of this Act should the Bill be passed in both Houses of Parliament shortly.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East that the effective impact of his amendment 2 would be to bring the sunset clause forward to December of this year, but that would not give sufficient opportunity for us to consider the impact of this legislation or the implications of the very difficult issues the Government face. Although he may not heed me, despite the fact that we went to the same university and have known each other for a long time, I urge him—[Interruption.] I am just trying my best on this. I urge him at least to consider whether the two measures we have brought forward would meet his objections. At least he can say I have tried, if nothing else!

[Mr Watson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, and to take part in this debate and speak to amendment 2, which has been tabled by about 25 MPs across the House, representing seven different parties.

We have been told that there is a legal emergency and this Bill needs to be passed through both Houses of Parliament in three days. This huge Government steamroller has revved up the engine and driven into town with my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) in the back seat and Liberal Democrat Members in the passenger seat, and we have been told we have very little choice. It has been hard to have time to consider this Bill, to pass amendments and to have proper debate and scrutiny, yet a curious thing will happen when this Bill is finally steamrollered through on Thursday or Friday, which is that the Government will take out the keys of the steamroller and say, “Relax, this legal emergency will only last for two and a half years.” That seems peculiar to me.

A little earlier the shadow Minister, who went to the same university as me, but many years before—I will not share the rumours about him that were passed down for many years—said he was new to social media and that his metadata footprint was smaller than those of many other citizens in this country, but many people are deeply concerned about their data being held in this way and they are following this debate. What they might not know is that if we do not complete this debate by 9 pm, even on the timetable we have, the amendments we are discussing now will fall, so I cannot speak for too long without jeopardising an amendment that has been supported by MPs representing seven different parties and a significant minority in this House.

What our amendment does is say to the Government: “Okay, we’ve not seen what you’ve seen; we will compromise with you. We will let you say you have a legal emergency and give you these powers for the summer.” That would allow the time for proper debate and scrutiny in the normal way that this House debates legislation. Earlier my good and hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a powerful case for why we have the systems we do in this House—proper Bill Committees that can scrutinise, pre-legislative scrutiny, Select Committee scrutiny, Second Reading followed by a period in which people can reflect on the debate, a decent time for people to table amendments, Third Reading, and the like. A six-month sunset clause would allow for that.

A six-month sunset clause might also allow for a little bit of research to be done over the summer and for civic society to engage in a public debate. The shadow Home Secretary declared that this was the start of a debate in the country about the lines that could be drawn between privacy and liberty, and security. For me, six months is a long time for us to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

We are going back over ground addressed on Second Reading and in the programme motion debate, but it is worth restating the fact that the Bill does not extend powers that this House has already granted through RIPA. It effectively restates what is already existing law. The legislation does not, therefore, seek to create something new, but simply restates what is already being operated, giving it clear legal underpinning in the context of the ECJ decision and the pressures from industry and others in terms of challenge.

On the need to act now, I say again that no Government embark on emergency legislation lightly. No Government seek to use fast-track legislation unless they judge that it is necessary. Our real concerns are that we have reached a tipping point regarding co-operation on lawful intercept and the risk that our essential powers on communications data, which are used day in, day out by law enforcement and the security agencies that protect this country, will simply not be available. That could occur at any time between now and the long-stop date that the right hon. Gentleman and others are suggesting in relation to December 2014. That is why the Government have judged that emergency legislation is appropriate and why we think it necessary to have a review: to ensure that this House is properly informed of all the issues to legislate carefully in a sensible way by no later than 31 December 2016, when this legislation would cease to have affect.

These are complicated matters. We need to act swiftly to deal with the particular challenge we face and to avoid the damaging loss of capability that confronts us. However, I do believe a longer-term considered approach is appropriate, hence the reason for having the review and for providing assurance in relation to the commissioner for the interception of communications and his reports on operation. There are already a number of reviews in the system. The Intelligence and Security Committee is conducting an inquiry, as is the Royal United Services Institute.

There is also the further review, which is to be led by David Anderson, of the communications data and interception powers we need, and how they are regulated in the light of the threats we face. As I have indicated, the Bill will set this out in legislation in terms, but he needs to be given some time to conduct this work. New clause 7 asks him to complete his work by 1 May 2015. That being so, I can see no point in requiring Parliament to return to these issues almost as soon as we return from the summer recess, without the benefit of the work we have set in train. Any such legislation would also inevitably require an accelerated timetable. Rather, we believe that Parliament needs to consider these issues properly after the election, drawing on the outcome of the reviews that are in train and with the ability to consider everything at a normal parliamentary pace. Accordingly, I invite the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) to withdraw amendment 2, so that we can have this process recognising the needs now and recognising the need for further review and for the House to return to these matters in the light of that informed basis.

[Mr Hanson]

We have had a useful debate on the amendments. The Opposition had two objectives in tabling our amendments and new clauses today: first, to secure a review of this Act, if passed by this House and by the House of Lords, within six months and then every six months following that; and secondly, to put it on the record that we need to have a wider examination of the whole of the intercept evidence-data collection issue. I think we have had a meeting of minds on that issue. With that in mind, I am happy to withdraw amendment 3 and to support new clause 6, and to ask the Government to accept that as they have indicated they will. We will then support Government new clause 7, which meets our objectives. There are other consequential amendments but, for clarity, that is my objective. It would be helpful, given what the Minister said, if we proceeded on that basis.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 4, page 7, line 1, leave out “5” and insert

“(Half-yearly reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner)”. —(Mr Hanson.)

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

I call the Minister to move amendment 7 formally.

The UK’s Justice and Home Affairs Opt-outs

David Hanson Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

For 30 of the past 35 minutes, the Home Secretary had me on board. It was only in the last five minutes that she lost me. It was almost a first. I appreciate that we have a meeting of minds on several issues. I was probably more in tune with her than she is with some of her own right hon. and hon. Friends—an unusual situation in which to find myself.

I thank the Home Secretary for her contribution, on which there is a large element of agreement with the Opposition. I also thank the three Select Committee Chairs, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) for their contributions to the discussions on these key matters.

We have been here before and I suspect, given what the Home Secretary said, that we will be here again before the end of the year. I can see from the contributions from her own side, in particular from Government Members here today who perhaps have a greater level of euroscepticism than I do, that there was not a universal welcome for her statement. There will not be a universal welcome for her projected policy positions later this year, but I want to be positive if I can and support the Home Secretary’s objectives.

The motion today is that this House has considered, not decided on, the opt-outs. My first point is one the Home Secretary touched on, but we would welcome clarification. It goes back to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood): when will there be a final package on these measures and when will we be able to not just debate but vote on them? December is looming and I would like at some point to have an indication, from the Home Secretary or the Justice Secretary, of when we can expect to have a vote. At the moment, there is no clarity on when that final vote will be.

[Keith Vaz]

Will my Opposition Front Bench colleagues support a separate vote on the European arrest warrant? It caused the Home Affairs Committee a great deal of concern.

[Mr Hanson]

I am relaxed on that, but I do want the European arrest warrant put in place. We have had some safeguards, but I will outline in due course why I want to see it put in place. It would be helpful to have clarity on when the discussions will be concluded and can be voted on. I appreciate that the Home Secretary has some difficulties, but it would be helpful to the House, for the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend, to have an indication on when we can expect to have a complete package to vote on.

[Mr Redwood]

How will the right hon. Gentleman feel on 15 June next year, when some of us will commemorate Magna Carta’s 800th birthday and he will have been party to giving away a very big, fundamental principle under that charter of English law and English jurisdiction to a foreign power we cannot control?

[Mr Hanson]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that, as a Welsh Member of Parliament, I take a great interest in such matters. I will look at this from the perspective that I think the Home Secretary is looking at it from, which is: what is in the interests of reducing organised crime, child trafficking, prostitution, drug running and terrorist activities, and ensuring that we prevent future victims and have the best possible protections in place for the United Kingdom across Europe following negotiations?

[Michael Connarty]

My right hon. Friend has not dealt with the terrible accusation, which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has just made, that the EU is a foreign power. We are one of the 30 countries that control the EU. It is part of what we are. Idle talk of it as a “foreign power” shows where the right hon. Gentleman is. He should be in the United Kingdom Independence party, not the Tory party.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that nuance in the intervention by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. I regard myself as a European and British citizen and part of—

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I don’t.

[Mr Hanson]

I appreciate that others take a different view, but that is my view.

I welcome today’s debate because I believe—again, I think the Home Secretary shares this belief—that crime and criminals do not respect national borders. Technology has moved on in the last 15 to 20 years, which means that a range of issues need to be addressed not just within the boundaries of the United Kingdom, but across Europe as a whole. Free movement and new forms of criminal activity, such as cybercrime, require collective action across Europe.

[Sir William Cash]

In this very interesting exchange between those on the Front Benches, who seem to be largely in agreement, let me ask the same question that I asked the Home Secretary. Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain to me and the House why we have an arrangement with the European Union on this basis and not one to deal with other murderers, traffickers and the rest of it in the rest of the world? Can he explain what is so special about the European Union in this context?

[Mr Hanson]

As I think the Home Secretary also indicated in our little tête-à-tête of agreement, there is a wider world outside Europe, but we have strong ties with Europe. We have free movement in Europe on a range of matters. We do not have free movement from outside the European Community, so there are issues that we should ensure we deal with within the European Community.

[Philip Davies]

We appear to be reaching an extraordinary position, in that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating the free movement of people all around the EU, so that criminals can come and go as they please, but then we need these ridiculous measures to try to deal with that. Why do we not just take a more simplistic approach and scrap the free movement of people? Then perhaps we would not need all these ridiculous measures in the first place.

[Mr Hanson]

Again, I think the hon. Gentleman perhaps has more in common with other parties than his own on that issue. Some of the changes that have taken place—in technology, free movement, cybercrime, new forms of crime, child prostitution, trafficking and drugs—demand a Europe-wide solution, and I think the Home Secretary has accepted that. They are international crimes that know no borders and they need international solutions. Each crime is creating new victims. I believe it is the duty of this House to ensure that we work with our European partners to reduce that crime, bringing criminals to justice and, yes, co-operating to do so.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, therefore, what exactly the organisation called Interpol does, which is supposed to be worldwide?

[Mr Hanson]

As the former Minister for policing and counter-terrorism in the last Government, I could spend the next 25 minutes giving the hon. Gentleman a whole lecture about what Interpol does. The key issue is that there is a range of measures. I believe that if he went back to south London this evening and asked his constituents whether they wanted effective co-operation to tackle drug abuse, child trafficking, prostitution and international terrorism, the answer would be a resounding yes. It is something the Home Secretary believes is right; it is something we believe is right.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

May I make the same point to the right hon. Gentleman that I made to the Home Secretary? The figure is only on average 125 people a year. He is making it sound as if the whole country will disappear down a crevasse if we do not have the European arrest warrant, but if 125 people are slightly more difficult to bring back, the world will still go round.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about a small level of crimes, but they include crimes that could destroy the centre of London and crimes that involve the murder or death of individuals, along with child trafficking, prostitution and drug abuse. They might be a small number in the overall gamut of crimes in the United Kingdom, but if they require international co-operation to bring people back to justice, prevent those crimes in the first place and ensure that we collect individuals and bring them back here, that is something worth considering.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is a great guy, but I do not think he has got his figures right. According to evidence submitted by the Association of Chief Police Officers to the House of Lords European Union Select Committee,

“In 2010/11 the UK received 5,382 EAW requests and made 221 EAW requests to other EU states. The UK surrendered 1,149 individuals (approximately 7% of which were UK nationals, the other 93% being fugitives to the UK).The UK had 93 people surrendered to it.”

Therefore, we actually surrendered a large number of people who were not UK nationals. Someone who is a criminal somewhere else is likely to be a criminal here. Does that not demonstrate that the European arrest warrant actually works perfectly well in getting rid of some very dangerous people from this country?

[Mr Hanson]

May I just say happy birthday to the right hon. Gentleman? I am an avid reader of The Guardian in the morning and his birthday appeared in that. His contribution supports my argument and that of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so it is a valid point, well made.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The figure given to the European Scrutiny Committee was 507 whom the UK asked for between 2009 and 2013. I am interested in when it benefits the United Kingdom, not when it benefits the continent.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman should reflect on what he has just said. The removal from the United Kingdom of an individual who has committed a heinous crime in this country to their own country for conviction, sentencing and incarceration benefits the United Kingdom. Equally, if an individual commits a crime abroad that requires them to be brought back to justice here—or if they commit a crime here and flee abroad, as the Home Secretary said—and they are then brought back here, that is beneficial to victims and to justice.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I am trying to make some progress, but of course I will give way.

[Mr Redwood]

We entirely agree that it is often in the UK’s interest to do that, and that is exactly why we would rapidly introduce a piece of legislation in this House allowing sensible arrangements to get rid of nasty people.

[Mr Hanson]

I want to focus on some key issues that, again, the Home Secretary mentioned. Which rational hon. or right hon. Member of this House would not want a prisoner transfer agreement between European nations? Which rational person in this House would want to have trials in absentia because of the lack of an agreement? Which rational person would not want the joint operation teams, which the Home Secretary mentioned, to bring criminals to justice? Which right hon. or hon. Member would not want supervision orders across EU borders? Which right hon. or hon. Member would not want the collection of fines across Europe, Eurojust tackling serious organised crime or, indeed, the arrest warrant to bring criminals back to justice?

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It would be better if we conducted this debate on the basis that we are all in favour of those things. It is the means of achieving them that we are discussing. The idea that, because an hon. Member is against the European arrest warrant, he is against all those things is insulting and stupid.

[Mr Hanson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but what those effective means are is a fair debate to have. I believe, as I think his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does, that those things are best done through European co-operation. Indeed, the European arrest warrant has been of interest today, so let me quote from a statement made last year:

“Since 2009 alone, the arrest warrant has been used to extradite from the UK 57 suspects for child sex offences, 86 for rape and 105 for murder…63 suspects for child sex offences, 27 for rape and 44 for murder were extradited back to Britain to face charges. A number of these suspects would probably have not been extradited back to Britain without the arrest warrant. We owe it to their victims, and to their loved ones, to bring these people to justice.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 178.]

That was the Home Secretary, speaking last year. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, irrespective of his views, those individuals were brought back by that arrest warrant. The alternative suggestion, made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, is one where we negotiate X number of individual arrest warrants—

[Mr Redwood]

One.

[Mr Hanson]

I happen to think—it is a matter of debate and it will develop during the afternoon—that this is a far better way of dealing with the problem than we have now.

Today’s debate is one in a series. We have waited and waited; we have had debates and debates; the bus arrives, with not one, but two or three coming at once; yet the Home Secretary has not yet brought the final measures before the House. To be honest, I think that the right hon. Lady would rather be at the dentist having her teeth pulled than be here having the discussion she is having with her right hon. and hon. Friends. She has been brought to this debate by the three Select Committees, which are eventually getting the Home Secretary’s capitulation to common sense and Europe-wide justice and co-operation. It has, I think, hit the right hon. Lady, after looking at the matter in detail, that it is rather useful for our police to have access to criminal records or driving offences for when European lorry drivers tear up the M1 or the M6.

The truth is that the Home Secretary’s opt-out strategy ultimately becomes an opt-in strategy. The measure of the complexity of the negotiations is indicated by the fact that she is now acting in the interests of Britain rather than in the interests of Conservative Back Benchers and the Eurosceptic Members here today. She has promised to garner favour with the Tory right, but she is ultimately opting into measures that we support because she now understands that the police want European co-operation and that criminals are not Eurosceptics. She understands that our ability to bring them to book and to get justice for their victims should not be compromised.

The issue of the transfer of powers is interesting. The right hon. Lady has said what she is opting into, but she has not said what she is opting out of. These are not really significant matters. She has looked at opting out of issues such as signing joint proceedings on driving licences that are not in force and are out of date. We are not signing up to a directive on international organised crime that was closed down two years ago. We are not signing up to guidelines on working with other countries on drug trafficking, but we will carry on doing that anyway. We are not going to sign up to measures on cybercrime or mutual legal assistance because they have been superseded by other measures to which we signed up instead. We are not signing up to minimum standards on bribery because we are meeting them under our own Bribery Act 2010. We are not signing up to measures to tackle racism because we meet them under hate crime legislation that is in place. We are not signing up to measures on accession because they never applied to us in the first place, and we are not signing up to receive a directory of specialist counter-terrorism officers because someone will probably send it to us in the post instead.

The measures that the Home Secretary is signing up to are sensible ones, whereas the ones she is not signing up to are either from the past, superseded, not relevant or not appropriate for us. The right hon. Lady has posed as the great Eurosceptic champion of the Conservative Government when what she has done is to sign up to things that I would sign up to, which many of her hon. Friends would not sign up to. The things that she has not signed up to are things that are, as I say, not relevant, not appropriate and not needed now.

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

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the Home Secretary and the Home Office have spent hours, days and months working to ensure that the many concerns people had about the European arrest warrant have now been addressed in UK law?

[Mr Hanson]

They have indeed spent many hours, days and months, and I have spent many hours, days and months in Committee dealing with those matters, too. We did not oppose what the Home Secretary brought forward; we supported it. There was no difference between us and the Home Secretary on those matters. It could have made a difference—and, dare I say it, it could make a difference now—if the Home Secretary had brought forward several months ago the measures she has just brought forward now. She could have had an in-principle discussion—

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

We did.

[Mr Hanson]

The Justice Secretary says that they did, but he needs to reflect more on the record. The Home Secretary has tried to indicate that some of these matters might be up for discussion, but ultimately, as she knows, they are in the interests of crime fighting, the interests of victim prevention and the interests of ensuring that we bring criminals to justice.

[Michael Connarty]

I think that my right hon. Friend is being kind to the Opposition and, probably correctly, to the Home Secretary, who has worked hard on this issue. The Justice Secretary, however, defended the position previously. They will accept minimum standards on organised crime, but they will not accept minimum standards on terrorism. It is totally illogical. The Justice Secretary has forgotten about that. I raised the issue on the Floor of the House previously and the right hon. Gentleman could not reply then and he cannot reply now.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend raises important issues, but my chief point to the Home Secretary is that she could have indicated her commitment to opting in to these issues more strongly and earlier, which would have put her in a much better place in the negotiations. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady says she did, but I do not think she did. We will have to disagree and reflect on the issues again. The Home Secretary has tried to be Eurosceptic and to compromise with her Eurosceptic Back Benchers, but they will never compromise on these issues. She needs to take a firm stance to ensure that the House has a vote and agrees these measures because they are good for crime prevention, good for victims and good for bringing people to justice. She needs to bring the vote forward as quickly as possible so that we can shake off the Eurosceptics and show that we in Britain are committed to working with our European partners to crack down on crime and ensure that both Britain and Europe become safer places.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Hanson Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

It is worth recognising that many people working in the Passport Office are going the extra mile to see that people are receiving their passports in time for travel. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to highlight the exceptional work that is being undertaken in passport offices.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

On 8 June, the number of passports classed as “work in progress” stood at 493,289. Figures I have obtained show that two weeks after the emergency measures were brought in by the Government, on 22 June, the figure stood at 537,663. Will the Minister update the House on whether the “work in progress” figure is less than when he introduced the initial emergency measures?

[James Brokenshire]

This is an exceptional period of demand. To put this into context, the Passport Office would usually handle about 5.5 million applications per year, and this year it has received about 4 million applications already. That gives some context to the work that is involved. “Work in progress” figures will run into hundreds of thousands because of the output that the Passport Office is delivering—about 170,000 a week. That gives a sense of the scale of the work that is involved. Yes, there are pressures there, but the Passport Office is responding to the challenge.

Migration Statistics

David Hanson Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Walker. In fact, it is such a pleasure that it will take several months for me to lose the image of “Chairman Walker”, which the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) put in my mind. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), his Committee and the work it has done. We came into the House on the same day—9 April 1992—and I cannot recall many occasions when we have agreed on every issue, but I say, with genuine openness and the hand of friendship, that the report is excellent. It puts a number of issues on the agenda and suggests policy areas that we should look at and seriously consider adopting. I cannot find much that I disagree with in his tone or policy or the tenor in which he began the debate.

I disagree with one or two of the comments made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on the previous Government’s record. We have had discussions on that before. There has been unanimity across the House today on the importance of integrity in statistics and of understanding who is coming to the country, who is leaving, why they are here and what procedures we undertake. It is important that we ensure for the public we serve that there is reliability, trust and confidence in those statistics. Today’s debate is important and welcome, because the Public Administration Committee’s report on how we calculate migration statistics has raised serious questions on the statistics’ reliability, robustness and usefulness. The report raises a number of extremely serious questions on a range of issues, which the Government need to focus on.

If there is one area that I want to press the Minister on, it is that the Government’s response to the report was disappointing in addressing some of the serious issues raised by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex and his Committee. There has been unanimity from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for Windsor, and other Members who have intervened, which shows that there is genuine support for bringing forward the proposals. The report and the response from the UK Statistics Authority have made categorically clear the words of Andrew Dilnot, the chair of UKSA, who said that

“these statistical sources are currently not fully meeting all the different needs of the users of these statistics.”

It is important that we know who comes to the United Kingdom, who leaves, when they leave and, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Windsor gave, why they are here. We all have experience of discussing immigration and, as he said, there are many types of immigration, whether for business, education, tourism or asylum. The more information we have and the greater our depth of knowledge, the better our response will be, whatever our political view on these issues.

If I look at the Committee’s recommendations, I can find, without repeating too much of what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, little with which I disagree. Recommendation 1 states that,

“the International Passenger Survey is inadequate for measuring, managing and understanding the levels of migration that are now typical in the UK.”

I agree. Recommendation 2 states that,

“e-Borders data has the potential to provide better headline estimates of immigration, emigration and net migration”.

I agree. The report states:

“Data held by other countries on migration to and from the UK could help improve the depth and quality of UK migration statistics.”

I agree. Paragraph 6 of the report states:

“If the International Passenger Survey is not an adequate source for this information, and no other sources are available, new sources of migration statistics are needed”.

I agree. Where it says that we should look at building on the principle, if not the current practice, of the e-Borders system, I agree.

Finally, on the public’s understanding of statistics, it is important, for the reasons stated by the hon. Member for Windsor, that we get clarity and a full and accurate picture of migration to and from the UK. The different types of immigration have different impacts and it is important that we have information at hand. In other words, the report is helpful in showing that whatever we have now, which is partly due to the legacy of the previous Government and previous Governments before them and partly due to what has happened under this Government’s watch, is not fit for purpose, and that we need to consider the Committee’s recommendations.

I want to focus on the e-Borders project, because work needs to be done and there is potential for the project to be developed to ensure that we get the necessary information to meet the objectives that all hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned. Earlier this year, I was fortunate enough to travel to America to visit relatives. Before we travelled, I had to fill in an online ESTA—electronic system for travel authorisation—form for my whole family in order to provide our details to the US Government. It took me no more than 15 minutes to fill in the details for five members of my family. When we went to America, the details were checked and agreed and we were in. When we left, they were checked and agreed and we were out. It is a simple concept, which any Government should consider putting in place.

Although the previous Government tried to implement the e-Borders project, the coalition agreement also makes reference to such a scheme. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex made some play about difficulties with coalition partners, but page 21 of the coalition agreement states:

“We support E-borders and will reintroduce exit checks.”

We have only about nine months for an agreement to be made in order for that objective to be achieved. The Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), said on the “Today” programme on 11 April 2012 that,

“with our e-Borders system, we are very close to 100% coverage of flights coming from outside the EU, so we know who everyone is before they get on the plane, which is a much more effective way of exporting the border if you like.”

After four years in office and after spending £185 million, however, the head of UK Border Force, Sir Charles Montgomery, announced to the Home Affairs Committee in March that the scheme had been cancelled. The Minister is shaking his head, but we need clarity and the Minister has the opportunity to provide it. There has been no statement to the House or explanation. There has been no guidance or indication of whether that £185 million of taxpayers’ money is still investable in relation to the objectives of the Public Administration Committee.

[Adam Afriyie]

The right hon. Gentleman is making one or two political points, but will he clarify whether the Labour party is happy that it abolished universal exit and entry border controls in 1998, pretty much as it came into power? That seems to be the root cause of most of the challenges that the coalition Government are trying, somewhat belatedly, to repair today.

[Mr Hanson]

I anticipated that question and looked at the matter prior to today’s debate. The Library of the House of Commons, which the hon. Gentleman will agree is independent and provides impartial advice, informed me that exit checks were abolished by the Conservative Government in 1994. A Library briefing paper states:

“Paper-based embarkation (‘exit’) controls for passengers departing from the UK were ended in two stages. Checks on persons travelling from sea ports and small airports to the EU (which covered 40 per cent of departing passengers) were abolished in 1994. The remaining checks were abolished in 1998.”

The Labour Government, having been in government for three years, decided in 2000 to reintroduce checks, which is why we began the e-Borders programme.

The e-Borders project still has some issues outstanding, including, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East, the dispute with Raytheon. I have tabled parliamentary questions to the Minister, asking him when the dispute might be resolved, what the terms of any final resolution will be and when he intends to bring the matter back to the House, all of which is integral to the objectives suggested by the Public Administration Committee’s report. We need political consensus to ensure that over the next three or four years, whoever the next Government are, a system of exit checks is put in place that meets the objectives desired by every Member who has spoken today.

[Mark Reckless]

Does the shadow Minister share my concern that an implication of contracts providing for arbitration rather than litigation in the event of a dispute is that that arbitration takes place in secret?

[Mr Hanson]

I take two points from major computing contracts. First, there is a lack of public scrutiny and transparency about the methods, the drawing up of contracts and the terms and conditions. It would be helpful if Parliament and the public could have that scrutiny. I would like agreed final contracts to be made public and open to scrutiny and benchmarking and testing by the public. Secondly—this is not meant to be critical of anyone in particular—I was fortunate to be a Minister for 12 years and I often got involved in a major computing contract after it had been agreed by somebody else or at the end of a review and found that Governments are good at policy, but not at delivery. Benchmarking, the methods of control over major contracts and whether or not the expertise is there to implement major contracts are issues that we need to consider in detail.

[Mr Jenkin]

Just as an aside, if the implementation is no good, that means that the policy was no good, because there is no point in one without the other.

We are of course outside the Schengen area, so exit and entry checks mean nothing unless we can check people coming across our borders from other European Union countries within the Schengen area. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that his party’s policy is that we should be able to check any passenger coming in or out of the UK from or to another EU country regardless of the free movement provisions, and that we should be able to ask them who they are, why they are coming here, where they are going to, and all the other questions that we would ask any other person coming in or out of our country?

[Mr Hanson]

I will give the hon. Gentleman a simple answer: yes. It is extremely important that we can make such checks. I support the principle of free movement, which involves a range of issues, but it is still important, as we are outside and will remain outside of the Schengen area, that we are able to control our borders.

Given the comments of the director general of UK Border Force in March to the Home Affairs Committee, we need clarity on the status of the e-Borders project. The Minister shakes his head again, but we need clarity on the programme’s trajectory and we need to know when he expects to achieve 100% coverage, and the total cost. He also needs to provide information about progress in the contract discussions with Raytheon. If the Government are to stick to a net migration target, they need to know the issues arising from migration in and out of the United Kingdom. Without up-to-date information, as outlined by the Public Administration Committee, they will not be able to keep their promise on net migration.

Getting the figures right is also important because, as everyone who has spoken today has said, the integrity of the figures and our trust and confidence in them are what will give us permission to debate this issue in a positive way in the run-up to the election. The issue of immigration has an element of toxicity to it—it is difficult to debate, and there are a range of political opinions about it. Our debate will be much better informed if in future we have clarity about which people are coming to the United Kingdom, how, where and when they are doing so, the basis upon which they are here and, crucially, when they leave.

That is my final point: as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, we still do not know how many people are overstaying their visas, where they are and what the position is on being able to remove them. That undermines the integrity of our immigration system. I want to see that integrity in the system, with basic information collected in a meaningful way. Dare I say it, we have the opportunity to get political consensus on doing that, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I will come to exit checks. The way in which advance passenger information data can be used to supplement and for support is important and I will address that directly. I highlight the fact that there are other sources of data. My hon. Friend may be aware of the workforce data survey and the use of the statistics for national insurance registrations. The IPS itself highlights and provides data in its reports and analysis in respect of different countries and provides separate analyses of where those flows come from, such as net migration from outside and from within the EU, and it produces the graphs that my hon. Friend has no doubt seen, tracking those back over 30 years. It gives a sense of long-term trends; it is important to understand where there may be growth in particular areas and what that might mean in terms of informing policy.

It is important to recognise some of the excellent and innovative research and analysis that has increased our knowledge of migration—for example, the migrant journey reports, the report on the social and public service impact of migration, and the recent report on labour market changes. All that work is critical in helping us to understand and appreciate the impact of migration on our country.

I highlighted the 2011 census, which provides extremely valuable data that has captured a much broader range of information on migrants than any census previously. The new census questions on the passports that people hold and the length of time they have lived in the UK recognise the strong public concerns about immigration. We welcome that new statistical resource, which will go some way to meeting the Committee’s recommendation, but I will come to further refinements.

The Home Office has commissioned additional data to inform our understanding, such as a new question on emigration in the international passenger survey, the first results from which are now in the public domain, and a new question for the labour force survey on why foreign respondents had originally come to the UK. The breadth and depth of that work reinforces the fact that no single data source can provide a comprehensive picture of migration. That is why I also welcome the work in the UK statistical system to develop and enhance the range of sources, which together mean that we have a picture of migration that I believe is as good as that available to any other country across the globe.

I noted what the shadow Minister said about filling out the ESTA form and how that might be used. It is interesting to note that the US uses population surveys, not the ESTA system, to measure migration. It is important to recognise the interrelationship between the two, and that in some respects the information from e-Borders may help to supplement, but not replace, other information.

[Mr Hanson]

The point I was making about the ESTA system was that—unlike, potentially, our visa system—the Americans would know when and whether I had left the country.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman draws me on to the e-Borders system and its programme. We hear the point that the Committee has made in respect of that. While valuable, the border systems data are, in our judgment, not the right way to measure immigration flows, for which we believe that well-designed surveys are more appropriate. The data do not capture passengers’ onward travel plans or duration of stay, so they could not be directly used to measure long-term international migration. Rather, they are designed to alert us to passengers of interest leaving and entering the country, so that we can strengthen security and immigration controls. They allow law enforcement partners to target and monitor those seeking to travel to and from the UK who might harm this country’s interests—the point my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor highlighted. They are an extremely valuable tool; indeed, since 2010 our border systems have issued alerts resulting in more than 13,300 arrests, including 60 for murder, 59 for kidnap and 167 for rape.

I therefore understand why the Committee took the view that border systems data might entirely replace the IPS. However, that is at odds with the statistical advice we have received and the evidence that academic experts provided to the Committee. None the less, it is important to see how the information can be used to interpret what is happening. That is why it is important to share Semaphore data with the ONS, so that the ONS can carry out further analysis.

I want to come back on some of the points made about exit checks. The Home Office is on track to meet by April 2015 the commitment to introduce exit checks on those who leave the UK via scheduled international air, sea and rail services. Exit check capability will be founded on advance passenger information, supplemented by embarkation checks at ports, where necessary. That will further bolster border security.

Exit checks will also identify individuals who are wanted by the police, who pose security, immigration or customs threats, or who fail to comply with the conditions of their visas. It is important that checks are used in that way. We have introduced a power in the Immigration Act 2014 to enable those already involved in outbound passenger processes—for example, the staff of airlines, other carriers and port operators, as well as others—to integrate embarkation checks with existing processes where necessary. There is also a power to compel them to do so, if necessary.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Minister say what the position is on non-scheduled traffic—in particular, private flights and through small airfields and small ports? I have tested him on those issues in parliamentary questions and have had no reply as yet, although that is for reasons of national security, which I understand.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Border Force, which is led by Sir Charles Montgomery, takes the issue of small airfields and the maritime arena very seriously. Indeed, those flying in or out of airfields must provide various reports, and that is monitored to ensure there is a focus on border security. We are focused on all those issues, and Border Force is attentive to those arrangements, as well as to broader approaches and the advance passenger information provided in respect of existing scheduled airlines and other forms of transport.

I want to come back to some of the accusations the right hon. Gentleman made, which may be founded on a reading of press reports following the appearance of the director general of Border Force at the Home Affairs Committee in March 2014. Sir Charles Montgomery wrote to the Committee to explain that the reporting in the media was “factually incorrect”. He said that the work of the e-Borders programme

“has been incorporated within the…Border Systems Programme”.

None of this work has been suspended; indeed the pace of development has quickened. The Home Office remains committed to delivering exit checks by 2015. It was never the intention of the e-Borders programme, as now incorporated in the border systems programme, to deliver a direct measure of net migration.

As a Government, we must decide what is feasible, taking account of expert evidence. The reasons why we will not be able to rely on the border systems data to measure international migration were set out in the UK Statistics Authority and Government responses to the Public Administration Committee’s report. I will not repeat all those points here, but we hold detailed information on those passengers required to apply for a visa. However, Home Office systems do not require information from those travelling from other EU countries. There is, therefore, a limit to what visa data provide.

Borders system data collect information on an individual’s travel documents, so one might imagine that one could track travel movements over time to identify the proportion of migrants. However, Professor Salt, who provided expert witness evidence to the Committee, alluded to the fact that this is not a simple matter. Difficulties associated with dual nationality, lost and renewed passports and changes of name preclude the possibility of producing statistically reliable estimates of migration flows. That means the data do not meet the very fine tolerances that would be required for a reliable statistical estimation of migration.

As I mentioned, that does not mean that data cannot be used to identify individuals of interest for valuable operational purposes. The ONS also believes there are significant benefits in using the border systems data, which will help to improve IPS weighting methodology and the identification of the main flows into and out of the UK. That will significantly enhance the degree to which we can rely on the IPS, but it does not imply that we can replace the IPS completely.

The new exit checks system, which will be introduced by April next year, will give us, for the first time, a more complete picture of those leaving the UK. The system will improve our ability to take appropriate enforcement action against those who have potentially overstayed or are abusing the UK’s health and welfare systems. However, it will not, on its own, provide a replacement for the comprehensive estimates of the number of migrants arriving in and leaving the country.

That said, the Government acknowledge the importance of the debate. That is why we will keep under review the arrangements for collecting statistics in this vital policy area. Only by ensuring that policy making and public debate are as well informed as possible can we continue to build on the successes we have already achieved. I very much welcome the contribution the Committee has made. I also welcome the contributions that right hon. and hon. Members have made this afternoon. We will keep the issue under close focus, given the importance of reliable statistics and the faith and trust that the public put in them. That will inform the important debate on immigration into this country, as well as Government policy on this essential issue.