Student Visas

David Hanson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in giving me advance notice of the statement, which is an astounding statement of systematic abuse on this Government’s watch. They said, no more bogus colleges; instead, we now have the major abuse of bogus certificates again being issued. As the Minister said, in February 2014 the Home Office announced that it had acted by suspending language tests run by ETS following an investigation by “Panorama”. The scale of the abuse—involving a minimum of some 48,000 students —is truly shocking and leaves open the question why it took the BBC, rather than the Minister’s own Department, to find the problem. Did the Minister or the Home Office know of this problem prior to the BBC reporting it, if not why not, and what checks did the Minister or his Department undertake?

It is clearly an abuse for language tests set by ETS to be taken by fake sitters, one that damages the integrity of the whole system. It is clearly right that the Minister has, finally, taken action today, and that criminal investigations are being pursued. Controlled migration and tackling bogus colleges are vital in protecting UK borders and stopping this exploitation. Indeed, that is why the previous Labour Government closed 140 colleges between April 2009 and January 2010.

However, my constituents and those of other Members will be outraged, and rightly so, by the news today that 48,000 people have fraudulently obtained language certificates, despite being unable to speak English, on this Government’s watch. There are a number of unanswered questions the Minister has not touched on that need further explanation. How many of these students are still in the United Kingdom? Does the Minister know where these 48,000 students are? Does he have addresses for them, and will he co-operate with the university sector and other sectors to ensure that we know where these individuals are, and take action? What steps is he taking to meet universities and colleges such as Glyndwr university, close to my own patch, to ensure that we rectify this problem as a matter of urgency?

Let us be clear: this Government’s failings are of their own making. They have been in office for four years. This is a scheme they established themselves, and this is a border crisis on the Home Secretary and the Minister’s watch. This is a Conservative-led coalition failure on immigration. The Government were warned about student visitor visas, which have increased from 38,000 under the last Government to 77,000 in the last 12 months. There are fewer checks and there is more scope for abuse.

This issue has been flagged up by John Vine, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. In November 2012, he said that the Government were clearly failing to follow up on notifications of potential bogus students and that at the time of his inspection there was a backlog—or should we now, following the passport crisis, call it “work in progress”?—of some 153,000 such notifications without action being taken. What action is the Minister taking today to meet the obligations set out by Mr Vine in his November 2012 report regarding the backlog of notifications of bogus students? What steps is he taking to rescind the certificates, and on the fake students and their surrogates?

The UK remains a key destination for international students. The UK market in international students is worth £8 billion, and has the potential to rise to £25 billion by 2025. However, the Government are failing to follow up with sufficient energy the notifications of bogus students, they did not take action on this issue when they knew about it, and they are now putting in place measures to slow down visa applications. At a time when the Minister is missing the net migration target that he himself set, he is now failing on the integrity of the system. He needs to restore that integrity today as a matter of urgency.

[James Brokenshire]

Listening to the shadow Immigration Minister, one might be forgiven for thinking that Labour believed in controlled immigration, but let us remember some of the facts about Labour’s record: record net migration of 2.5 million; hundreds of bogus colleges selling immigration, not education; students turning up at Heathrow unable to answer questions in English or even to explain what their course was about; and supposedly highly skilled immigrants working as security guards.

I hear what the shadow Immigration Minister has said, but Labour did nothing to tighten up the system, and it has fallen to this Government to introduce further stringent measures. It appears that, despite all that—despite the serious issues highlighted in my statement today— Labour now want to introduce blunt targets to increase international student numbers. Indeed, I think the shadow Immigration Minister wants to take students out of the net migration numbers altogether. We will take no lectures from the Labour party about immigration and controlling the issuing of student visas.

The shadow Immigration Minister managed to ask some serious questions, and I will address them now. On the investigations that have taken place, I can say that we have taken significant steps to follow through on identifying, locating and removing those responsible. Hundreds of visits have already been conducted and removals have begun. The criminal investigation is ongoing, and he will understand that I cannot comment further on those cases.

We are taking steps in relation to Glyndwr, and have suspended its highly trusted sponsor status. We are keen to provide support for genuine students whose institutions are affected by this. From today, there is a designated student helpline available specifically for all students at the affected institutions. Dedicated staff will take calls on the helpline to ensure that students have an avenue for their questions to be answered and their concerns alleviated.

We are also setting up a working group with relevant education establishments, including Universities UK—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but the Opposition do not seem to care about what is happening to the students who are involved in this. They might want to listen. We are setting up a working group with Universities UK, the UK Council for International Student Affairs, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the Scottish Funding Council and the National Union of Students to enable the sector to support those genuine students who may eventually need to find a sponsor.

The right hon. Gentleman tried to make his general point about university applications, but the truth is that, while we have cut out much of the abuse in the student visa system, the number of overseas applications to study at British universities is up by 17% since the election, and that figure is based on genuine students. We are attracting the brightest and the best while, at the same time, resolutely focusing on ensuring that those who should not be here are stopped.

I was struck by what the right hon. Gentleman said about the immigration system not working, but I have to tell him—as we have done many times before—that it will take years to fix fully the system that we inherited from his party. We are making the difference. As the former UK Border Agency chief executive, Rob Whiteman, said last week, the agency that Labour set up was never going to work and it was right of this Government to break it into smaller pieces, because staff and managers can now get on with trying to put it right. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to Rob Whiteman, he could listen to the shadow Business Secretary who said that when he used to work in his predecessor’s surgeries, he could see how chaotic the UKBA was. “Hands up,” he said, “That was under my Government.”

All the facts I have outlined today are a direct legacy of the Labour party. A significant proportion of the students who have been caught cheating came to this country through a student visa system created by Labour. Under the previous Government, bogus colleges flourished, student visas were used for economic immigration and students did not even need to prove that they could speak English. The Government are focused on controlling immigration. Sadly, the Opposition still do not get it; it is as simple as that.

Passport Applications

David Hanson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

We have had a very useful debate today. I echo many right hon. and hon. Members across the House in thanking the hard-pressed Passport Office staff, the people working on the helpline and, dare I say, the Minister’s office for the efforts that they are making for constituents who have received their passports following the interventions of Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash)—and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), who has a passport office in her constituency—have made that point. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) also made that point, although I cannot compete with him in making my own passport as he said he did in a former career. He would probably need a passport to go back to Liverpool now, given his current political affiliations.

I have no quibble with the hard work, dedication or efforts of passport staff, especially on last-minute cases, to ensure that people have their holidays. But I must echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) when he said that constituents should not have to involve Members of Parliament to get their passports on time. People are paying for the service, which made a £73 million surplus last year. The hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), who is no longer in his place, was in denial about the impact of the problems on constituents across the country.

Clearly, despite the efforts of the staff, there is something wrong with the delivery of passport services at the moment. The motion makes three points. First, it expresses the frustration of Members of Parliament about the experiences of their constituents who have applied for passports, including lengthy delays and the consequential cancellation of holidays, business trips and visits. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) made great play of his concerns about the number of individuals he has had to deal with.

Secondly, the motion points out how the Government have failed to plan properly to meet the level of demand this year. Thirdly, and crucially, it calls on the Government to expand their emergency measures and to look at compensating passport applicants who have had to pay for urgent upgrades. I shall consider each issue in turn to scrutinise the Government’s record.

[Keith Vaz]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I was just about to mention my right hon. Friend, so I shall give way to him.

[Keith Vaz]

We have yet another Sedwill review, and the last one resulted in the abolition of the UK Border Agency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should review the decision taken by Ministers to stop applications being made abroad? It is time to look again at that decision and allow people to make applications by post.

[Mr Hanson]

I know that my right hon. Friend’s Committee looked at these issues yesterday. I understand the reasons behind that decision—Ministers are concerned about consistency and security—but we need to review whether those are concerns in all cases. We also need to review the procedures that have been used to repatriate the process, because they have not worked, in my view. There were discussions yesterday and today about the issue, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) said, the passport website still has a three-week web promise for passport delivery. I would like to know from the Minister whether that is still the norm for delivery of passports. Will the Minister commit today to maintaining the three-week delivery time? The Passport Office chief executive has said that we had a 16% under-forecast of demand. We initially thought that the extra demand was 350,000 applications, but the chief executive confirmed yesterday—in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—that it is 400,000. The Passport Office has now ordered an independent review of forecasting. Yesterday, the chief executive said that 493,289 passport applications were “in progress”. The Home Office does not use the words “delay” or “backlog”: everything is “work in progress”.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) tested the Home Secretary on the figures before the House today. The Home Secretary said that applications this year are 3.3 million, up from 2.95 million last year—an increase of 350,000. She also said that 6% of the 3.3 million applications were from overseas, and that is 200,000 applications. Last year, those 200,000 applications were dealt with by the Foreign Office, so—as my right hon. Friend said—200,000 of the 350,000 increase came from overseas. I hope that the Minister will tell us what has caused the increase in demand.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) asked that question. Is it because of the repatriation of dealing with overseas residents’ passports—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) asked pertinent questions at the Foreign Affairs Committee hearing—or is it because of the closure of offices at home, a point raised my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn), for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark)? Is it because, even today, there are not sufficient staff to deal with current needs, or is it because, in some twilight world—as the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said—the bright economic future has led people to book their holidays early? Only yesterday, the annual figures showed that inflation outstripped wages yet again. People’s earnings are not keeping pace with inflation.

[Mr Robinson]

I agree with every word my right hon. Friend says. We have had no explanation from the Government on what has caused this crisis. It can only be incompetence at the top, lack of ministerial direction and attention, and the organisation of the HMPO, which the Select Committee earlier this week exposed as being very inadequate.

[Mr Hanson]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I also welcome the Home Secretary’s apology, but an apology is not enough. We need a clear exposition on what has caused this problem. A range of points have been put forward today, but we have had no clarity from the Government.

The human cost of this crisis was exposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). May I just note in passing that he celebrates 44 years in the House today? The human cost was also mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Airdrie and Shotts and for Cardiff South and Penarth. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) looked at problems relating particularly to India, and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) accepted that there are challenges in the system.

I put the problem down to a failure to plan. The HMPO annual report last year stated that there would be approximately 350,000 additional customers worldwide annually, so why did the Minister not act? We knew the Foreign Office changes were being introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said that overtime has increased. We heard about the January rise. We heard that on 23 May extra staff were deployed. In an Adjournment debate secured in June by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West, the Minister said:

“HMPO will have deployed 250 additional passport examination staff”—[Official Report, 10 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 524.]

by the end of June. If this was a problem in January, why is that the case? The issues of training and recruitment could all have been anticipated by the Government. What has been the impact of moving fraud staff and others on to passports? Confidence in the measures announced by the Home Secretary has not been clear from Members here today.

In the one minute I have left I will turn to compensation. Will the Minister tell me, either today or at a future date, how many extra payments have been made by people to ensure they receive their passports on time? Why is the offer applicable only from Thursday to a limited section of people? Will the Minister commit himself to looking at the number of people who have been hit by the extra charge for fast-tracking and say whether he will repay them? Will he look at the issue of the date, rather than the date of travel, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts?

It is clear that the problem was known. It is clear that inadequate action was taken. It is clear that there is still a problem now. It is clear that Ministers were not on top of the job and not on top of their work. It is clear that they failed the public who pay for this service. The Minister probably needs to take a holiday. Will he take it after he has sorted out everybody else’s passport? Will he ensure that the Home Office does what our constituents are paying it to do: to deliver a quality service on time and on budget to ensure that people are able to take their business trips and enjoy their hard-earned holidays?

Immigration Bill

David Hanson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I will draw my comments to a close, as I have been generous to hon. Members across the House.

In conclusion, this power is narrowly drawn and aimed at addressing a real and current threat posed by a small number of individuals. The Government have taken steps to listen to the concerns of both Houses about statelessness. We are committed to taking proportionate action to protect the public and remove the privileges of British citizenship from those who abuse it. That is what these provisions do, and I commend them to the House.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I support the Lords amendments. Having listened to their lordships and to contributions from Members across the House, and having noted the keen interest there appears to be in this debate, I hope that the Minister will reflect on what he has said and support the Lords amendments in due course.

I will start with a quote:

“If we identify someone as a person proposing to commit a serious terrorist offence, for example, surely the obligation is on us to deal with that person. If we simply deport him, we shall be handing on—in my submission, irresponsibly—this terrorist problem to another state which may not have the same capability of dealing with it as we do. It cannot be a proper response to the terrorist threat to refuse to deal with it ourselves”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 277-78.]

That was the late Lord Kingsland who spoke in October 2002 as Conservative shadow Lord Chancellor when these matters were debated in relation to nationality. At that time, the then Labour Government determined that statelessness should not be part of the legislative framework, and that prompts the question why have the Government brought forward this proposal at this time?

I think the Lords did a service to Parliament in providing it with an opportunity to discuss this proposal again, and I remind the House that the Lords voted by 242 votes to 180 to ensure that the amendment was accepted in another place. Among those who voted were a large number of Labour peers, and it is fair and proper that I report that to the House. There were also many others, both Cross-Bench, from the Government Benches and among the Bishops, who voted to ask this House to consider the matter again. Those included Lord Judge, a former Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Hannay, a former senior diplomat, as well as such Liberal Democrat notaries as Lord Lester, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Lord Oakeshott and Baroness Neuberger, and also the notable former Foreign Secretary Lord Howe of Aberavon. That group of peers did not vote for the amendment to cause trouble for the Government; it is a group of peers who take an interest in this matter and have reflected on the Government’s approach. Whatever else can be said, the Home Secretary did not convince the other place that her measures were right and proper. In fact, the charitable view is that the Home Secretary has made a mess of this matter. She has tried to rush the proposals through.

[James Brokenshire]

No.

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister says no, but the Home Secretary brought forward the proposals on 30 January on Report, after they were tabled on 29 January. We had to table a manuscript amendment on Report, which we withdrew because we wanted to take legal advice. That legal advice led to a cross-party Lords amendment, moved by Lord Pannick, to ensure proper consideration of the proposals in Committee.

The Lords amendment is reasonable. It asks for the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on the complications of the removal of citizenship and the issues raised by Members across the House. From discussions I have had with the Minister, I know he is concerned that that would lead to delay, but I hope I can reassure him. Through agreement outside this House, we could, if the Lords amendment was accepted, give a time scale to that consideration to ensure that we have detailed examination and, effectively, pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposal, so that we can take the concerns raised in another place seriously, look at what points are being made even today by Members of this House and come to a consensus on this extremely serious issue—the removal of citizenship from individuals.

I think we can come to an agreement whereby a proposal is considered and completed perhaps, dare I say it, by the summer recess. I do not want to pre-empt the Gracious Speech in a couple of weeks’ time, but it will undoubtedly include a criminal justice Bill. Measures could be introduced at that stage and looked at in detail.

[Dr Huppert]

The shadow Minister is talking about the process and that is very interesting, but can I press him on the Labour party’s view on the policy principle? Some of us, including some Labour Members, voted against the measure on principle. He says that it may be a positive thing to have this sort of deprivation. His party abstained, with Whips quite forcefully stopping people voting. What is the Labour party’s position on the principle at stake?

[Mr Hanson]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come on to that point in a moment. We abstained on 30 January because we wanted to ensure that we gave proper consideration to this matter, and we supported the amendment in another place to ensure that we did consider this matter. My noble Friend Baroness Smith of Basildon signed the amendment before the House today. We want to support the amendment today and return it to the Lords.

The Labour party and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will not do anything that puts the security of the United Kingdom at risk. I want to ensure that we do not remove citizenship without a proper right of appeal. I want to ensure that people know the grounds of that removal of citizenship and that the consequences are considered. I want, with the Minister, to tighten up how the Government intend to exercise that power. How do the Government intend to ensure that what is “reasonable” is deemed to be reasonable? I want to give the Minister the opportunity to explain that. This is a serious matter that needs proper parliamentary scrutiny. We have had a very short time in another place and one day in this House to consider this matter. We need to look at it in much more detail and we need to take evidence. A large number of people outside this place have raised concerns and we need to ensure, and not just in one-and-a-half hours, that the Minister justifies the opportunity and practice over a period of time.

[Mr Harper]

The more the right hon. Gentleman speaks, the more confused I am about his position. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary tabled the amendment in January, so more than three months have passed since she put this provision before Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has now said, notwithstanding the fact that the amendment says the Committee will serve for the duration of the Parliament, that it could all be sorted out before the summer recess, which is only two months away. What does he expect to learn in the next two months that he has not learnt in the past three?

[Mr Hanson]

I think both Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity to take evidence, as happens during pre-legislative scrutiny, and I am not the only person who thinks that. Moving the amendment in the House of Lords, Lord Pannick said:

“A Joint Committee is required because Clause 64 was added to the Bill very late in the passage of the Bill through the other place—that is, 24 hours before Report and Third Reading…so there was no pre-legislative scrutiny of this proposal, no consultation and no opportunity for consideration by the Public Bill Committee of the other place. The absence of pre-legislative scrutiny and proper consultation is especially unfortunate in a context such as this.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2014; Vol. 753, c. 1168.]

The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) may want to steamroller the Bill through, but I think it important that we get it right.

[Glenda Jackson]

There is a great, gaping hole in the Government’s argument. However much the Minister may speak about the powers of the Home Secretary, no British Home Secretary in the House of Commons has ever had the power to impose on a sovereign nation state laws governing whom it should or should not take back, and to whom it should or should not give a passport and citizenship.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend has anticipated some of my own arguments. Like the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I think we need to examine important issues relating to both the deprivation of citizenship and the impact on terrorism prevention. The Minister is seeking to delete the amendment in order to prevent potential terrorist action. I want to test him on that, potentially during scrutiny in the Committee, but also in the House today.

If citizenship is removed from an individual who happens to be outside the country, we shall have given up all jurisdiction over that individual, who could be returned to the United Kingdom by a third-party country that did not recognise him as having citizenship of that country. As Lord Kingsland said in 2002, he will not be the responsibility of the United Kingdom, but will still be potentially able to undertake activity that the Minister would not support, as a result of the Minister’s own actions.

[James Brokenshire]

I am somewhat confused by what the right hon. Gentleman is now saying. Does he not support the Government’s existing use of the deprivation powers to deal with counter-terrorism?

[Mr Hanson]

The Minister should reflect on that. He will know that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 specified just two grounds on which citizenship could be removed: it could be removed from those who had gained it through fraud, and it could be removed

“if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of…the United Kingdom”,

provided that the revocation of citizenship did not render the person stateless. That is the point, and that is the position that was taken by the Labour Government in the 2002 Act, about nine to 12 months after the horrendous events of 9/11. Surely, if we made that judgment in 2002, at the height of concern about the impact of 9/11, the Minister will be able to back it up in 2014. If he cannot, let him justify that to a Joint Committee. Lord Pannick said in another place:

“The Joint Committee will also want to consider whether the benefits, if any, of the proposed new power justify the… international implications.” .”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2014; Vol. 753, c. 1169.]

How can the British Government lecture others, or promulgate international law, when the Bill proposes the establishment of circumstances which, in my view, would break international requirements across the board? The Minister says that that is not the case, which is a view that we need to discuss.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I agree with what my right hon. Friend has just said, but is not one of the fundamental problems the fact that what the Government are doing has about it more than a whiff of Executive decision making on major issues to which there is no simple legal remedy? The Government are trying to avoid a court process, and to give powers to an elected politician over an independent judiciary.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for that because my hon. Friend anticipates the concerns we had and that we raised in the debate on 30 January. The proposal then from the Minister was that the Home Secretary could determine, on reasonable grounds, the deprivation of citizenship. There was no judicial oversight promised. The Minister has today brought forward amendments (a) and (b) which would provide for a review. I do not happen to think they go far enough. I think we need to stick to the original idea of an examination by a Joint Committee. The Minister, however, has brought forward those amendments which move slightly from his original proposal of some six or seven weeks ago. Why has he done that? He has done so because he has been roasted in another place and, this proposal having been considered by Members of that other place, has lost the vote quite considerably. Yet today we find that, rather than listening to those concerns, the Minister wishes to vote down this amendment and has brought forward proposals that, again, I think do not go far enough.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), when I hear phrases such as “review by SIAC” I shudder on the question of process, but I am interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman would say to my constituents who want us to move quickly on all immigration issues—who say we are not moving fast enough, we are not making change quickly enough. What is the relative merit of his proposal to support Lords amendments that would delay enactment as opposed to the Government proposal to see and review the impact after enactment?

[Mr Hanson]

That is a legitimate question, and it is one that deserves an answer. The point I would make is that we are legislating. If we legislate for this and if it goes back to the other place in the form the Minister has brought forward, it will be enacted: it will have Royal Assent within a matter of, presumably, days. We will therefore have one year of operation between May or June 2014 through to May or June 2015. That is fair enough. We will then review it and make changes. All the concerns raised by Members today would potentially be applicable in that 12-month period. The argument I would make is that if we accept the amendment that has been considered by the Lords, we can look at this, get it right and ensure that the concerns that have been raised not just here today but by Members in another place are dealt with. The measures that are taken will then have the full confidence of both Houses of Parliament. At the moment, given the vote that was taken in the other place—242 in favour and 180 against— the proposals the Minister brought forward previously do not have the support and confidence of both Houses. The removal of citizenship is such a challenging and extreme measure to take that it must have the confidence of both Houses of Parliament.

[Mr Buckland]

I listened with interest when the right hon. Gentleman talked about his fear that the UK would be in breach of its international obligations in relation to statelessness if the Government’s proposals went through. Which particular international obligations does he think the UK would be in breach of?

[Mr Hanson]

I am trying to ensure that we propagate good practice. There are many states that currently remove citizenship from individuals. It has happened in Iraq and it has happened in other countries before, and we have been critical of that. We are trying to ensure that any action taken by a Government, particularly when it is one of Executive power by the Home Secretary, is supported by both Houses of Parliament.

Let me give the hon. Gentleman the opinion of international lawyer Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, who says that:

“any state that admitted an individual on the basis of his or her British passport would be fully entitled to ignore any purported deprivation of citizenship and as a matter of right return that person to the UK.”

That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson). We need to consider this in considerable detail.

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

The shadow Minister did say that this was in breach of our international obligations, but he now says it is only a matter of good practice. He has quoted another international jurist and many Members from the other place, but we are the elected Members. Some of us have come to this debate to try to make up our minds. If we could hear more of what the right hon. Gentleman thinks of the principle of the Bill and the arguments around it, we could make a decision today, and I for one would enormously appreciate that.

[Mr Hanson]

I could do worse than to cite what Lord Deben, a Conservative peer, has said—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman looks as though he lacks concern about this, but I am expressing a number of concerns that have been expressed, both in this House and in—[Interruption.] My view is that we need to ensure that if we take this step, we do it in an effective and appropriate way that does not damage the credibility of the anti-terrorism case. Removing someone’s citizenship is an extreme measure and it has to be done in a way that is appropriate. The Minister has not made it clear to me that the “reasonable” judgments of the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] If the Parliamentary Private Secretary would like to join in the conversation, he could go to the Back Benches and do so. For the past three months we have received wodges of legal advice and wodges of views saying, “This is not practical, it will not be effective and it will damage our attacks on terrorism.” The Minister is asking us to take things on trust, but the other place has determined that it wants to examine these issues in detail, argue them and test the Minister on them, and that is a fair proposal.

Lord Deben, a Conservative colleague of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), has said that

“to take away someone’s citizenship, it is not reasonable to say that you assume that they can get another country’s citizenship. It is only reasonable to say that you know that they have another citizenship; anything less than that is wrong. It may not be convenient, but it is not right.

We have been the signatory to and the driver of much of the international law that seeks to reduce statelessness to its minimum. I fear that in this particular case, we may, for very good reasons—in seeking to close loopholes…do something which will do great injustice to a very small number of people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 March 2014; Vol. 753, c. 213.]

That is what we need to test by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament and that is what we need to test over the next few weeks and months, which is why the other place has given its support. Justice, Liberty and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, among others, have made cogent arguments as to why we need to consider this in detail. We need to examine it, and I support the retention of the Lords amendment and hope the House will do so.

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

I am greatly concerned about this measure, and I will just make some observations. The Minister referred to the power that the Home Secretary used to have in relation to something being not conducive to the public good. Its removal created a real difficulty for Governments, but my concern is not the difficulty for Governments; my concern is for the British common law system. This is not about the European Court of Justice—its rulings or anything else. The issue of concern to me is: what is our process?

I believe, and this was fundamental to our legal system, that a person should know the reasons they are to be aggrieved, but that is not possible under the Bill. He or she will not know the reasons they are being deprived of citizenship, so they can make no case that can be held to be valid, because they do not know what they are challenging—or they will claim they do not know what they are being challenged with. We do not know and the public do not know, so this violates one of the first principles of our legal system—our common law system. I want the House always to remember that our common law system in England has been absolutely essential to our liberties, freedoms, standing and our sense of who we are.

I understand the difficulties that Governments face, as there are a lot of wicked, evil people out there, but the answer has always been to prosecute. We are told, “Oh we can’t prosecute because in a prosecution we may have to reveal our sources.” This is the nightmare situation that the world in which we now live is facing: we are not to know, we cannot know and we cannot challenge. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is one of the most monstrous extrusions on the national scene, as not even the solicitor representing the accused or the person who loses their citizenship knows the reasons their client is there. Gisting? Well, all those rules that have been put in place essentially deny open justice using the argument of national security.

I have been a Member of Parliament for 36 years, and I look back over the decline of our sense of who we are, what our system is, and our freedoms and liberties, which are concentrated in the concept of the common law. I did not invent it—we did not invent it—it came from the movement of the people of this country over hundreds of years and the development of our legal system. Year after year, in a way that one could never assume would happen, Governments have gone out searching for new measures to conceal the openness of what justice should be. We, as citizens of this country, have a right to know why people are charged. That is why we have an open court system, so that we can judge whether the measures are competent, reasonable or truthful to the purpose of our nation. That is why I cannot support the very notion that so much power should be concentrated in one individual—a Home Secretary—whether good or bad, that they may make decisions of this nature without our being able to challenge whether they are valid, true or right. I want the House to stand up for who we are and what our system of justice is—and it is not secret justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Let me first remind the House what we are asking it to do today—to disagree with the Lords in their amendment. I have a reason for saying that. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow Minister said, as he carefully avoided setting out his party’s view and quoted lots of other people back at us. His proposed solution was to spend the next two months before the summer recess coming to a rapid conclusion. I think that he accepts that there is a legitimate national security issue here, but what he said does not reflect what the amendment says.

Paragraph (2) of Lords amendment 18 talks about nominating a Committee that would serve

“for the duration of the present Parliament”,

with no deadline to reach a conclusion. I repeat what I said in my intervention on the right hon. Gentleman. I accept his point that there was not much time between tabling the amendment and the Report stage in this House. It is a perfectly fair point that we had discussions before the issues were discussed in the House of Lords. However, three months have elapsed and these matters have been considered in the other place, and I really do not understand what we are going to learn in the next two months that we have not been able to learn in the past three months.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the proposal is that the Committee shall serve for the duration of this Parliament. I was trying to be ever helpful by offering the Minister the opportunity that we could, through the usual channels, determine to examine these matters in a reasonable time. We could set that time informally even if the Committee did serve for the duration of the Parliament.

[Mr Harper]

I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but that is not provided for. The Committee regulates its procedure. Nothing here talks about the balance of party members on the Committee. The Chairman of Committees in the other place will nominate the members from the House of Lords, and the Speaker of the House of Commons will nominate those from this place. There is no provision in the amendment to do what the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

If a Committee of members of both Houses considers the matter at length, it will produce a report. If we accept for the sake of argument that it manages to agree on the right outcome, it will only produce a report that will inform a further debate in this House. Members of this House will still be required to take a decision. We will still be required to weigh up the arguments that my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration so ably laid out before the House today and the Home Secretary did in January. We will still be required to consider the arguments that the shadow Minister did not put before the House; he simply recited the views of others. We will not be freed from the responsibility of taking a decision. It is the “kick the can down the road” amendment, which allows the House to avoid taking a decision.

These are difficult issues. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), whom I respect hugely on these matters, but there is a balance to be struck between defending the liberties of our citizens and protecting us from terrorism. I do not reach easily for the national security argument. I was pleased when I was elected to the House to vote against the provisions for 90-day pre-trial detention. But this is a proportionate and limited proposal. I supported the previous measure. The Home Secretary has listened to the debate on 30 January in this House and to the debate in the other place. Amendments (a) and (b) do two things. First, they ensure that we are not left with a situation of someone left unable to seek citizenship. She has to have reasonable grounds for believing that they are able to, and that addresses many of the concerns raised previously by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who set those out on 30 January.

A review mechanism is now in place, whether by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation or another independent person, which will enable the House to look quite quickly, after an initial one-year process, and then every subsequent three years, at the actual implementation of the legislation in practice, so enabling us, if there are issues, if some of the concerns set out by my hon. Friend for Aldridge-Brownhills or others come to light, to enable the House to amend the legislation. The concern that the Home Secretary set out with the al-Jedda judgment leaves a gap in our legislation, which leaves us vulnerable to those who would do us harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

Clearly, having announced the trials at the end of January, I want to see them proceed. It is important that we test the service and the system, which is patchy and not as consistent as I want it to be. Equally, some local authorities provide good services and it is important that we recognise that and learn from them. We want an enabling provision in the draft Modern Slavery Bill to be the bedrock that provides the mechanism, which can be informed by the trials that I want to happen, that can be acted on and be the statutory underpinning that allows it to be developed through the experience of the trials. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will find that helpful in underlining the Government’s commitment not simply to provide a statutory mechanism through that enabling provision, but to deliver practical action. The most important thing is that we provide support, advice and guidance for this extraordinarily vulnerable group, and that we ensure they are supported through the system. That is what matters most.

[Mr Hanson]

Can the Minister remind us how many trials there will be, and where and when? What is the date of completion and when does he intend to report back to the House?

[James Brokenshire]

The trials are intended to be conducted in 23 areas, commencing at the beginning of July. We have not, at this stage, set an end point for the duration of the trials, but I want evidence and feedback that can inform the consideration of an enabling power in any modern slavery Bill that comes forward. A statutory mechanism will ensure that the trials can commence and that we can learn and benefit directly from them, enabling a statutory underpinning of the optimum provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that and I have certainly heard the points she has made.

I know that others wish to speak to their manuscript amendments, but let me just say that Lords amendment 19 clarifies that the Bill does not limit the duty regarding the welfare of children imposed on the Secretary of State or any other person by section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Under section 55, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that her functions in relation to immigration, asylum and nationality are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK. That duty continues to apply, and nothing in the Bill impinges on it.

Lords amendment 20 relates to some technical changes concerning the bank accounts measures. Lords amendments 21 to 23 respond to recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, ensuring that, where appropriate, affirmative procedure processes apply in respect of certain notices and certain aspects of the sham marriage provisions contained in part 4 of the Bill. I believe that the Lords amendments, with the exception of Lords amendments 16 and 24, improve the provisions, making them clearer and more workable in practice.

[Mr Hanson]

I, again, thank the Minister for his helpful introduction to the Government’s position on the Lords amendments. I am here to maintain Her Majesty’s official Opposition’s support for them and wish the Government to reflect on that again during today’s debate. I pay tribute to Baroness Butler-Sloss for tabling her amendments in the other place. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) for scrutinising the evidence for the draft Modern Slavery Bill. I have heard what the Minister said about the proposals on a pilot and the enabling power in such a Bill, but I remain unconvinced that that will lead to the action that we want and, indeed, the action that the other place has proposed for consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Frank Field]

I hope that what the Minister has said does satisfy the other place, but if we vote against the Government motion tonight, it can decide. That is the advantage. I think that the Minister has satisfied us, but I would not want the other place and those who moved the amendments not to have the possibility to consider when they read Hansard whether they are satisfied.

[Mr Hanson]

My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point. As I said at the beginning, the vote was 282 to 184 in favour of the proposal. If we reject the proposal today, we are left with no proposal. We are left with a promise of a pilot and a Bill after the Gracious Speech, following the scrutiny rightly given to it by my right hon. Friend.

[Dr Huppert]

A few of us are slightly confused about the procedure, and the right hon. Gentleman has been here longer than I have, so perhaps he could help us. If the House were to accept the Lords amendment, the Lords would not discuss this again; whereas, if we rejected it, the Lords would have the chance to discuss it. Regardless of merit, is that not the right way round?

[Mr Hanson]

That is the right way round. The Lords expressed a clear view on the matter. The Lords will be able to examine the Government’s proposal when the Modern Slavery Bill comes forward. But we have a clear template today, and I want to see that enacted. If the Government accept this today, the proposal is a clear template. We have a number of proposals from Baroness Butler-Sloss, and I have gone through them today.

[James Brokenshire]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to accept the Lords amendments because he feels that they are right, but that if he does so, it would not allow any further consideration by the Lords in terms of reflecting on what I have said from the Front Bench.

[Mr Hanson]

Their lordships have expressed their view clearly, and what the Minister has said today is known already. He announced that he had said in January that he would have pilots on the matter. The draft Modern Slavery Bill has been scrutinised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, and there is a template that we should support, and that is why I reject the Government’s proposal.

[Mr Harper]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is missing the fact that the amendments are narrowly framed. They deal only with children who come to the UK from abroad. On trafficking and modern slavery, I have constant representations about not just focusing on people who come from outside the UK. The Minister has set out a sensible point. If we reject the amendments, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has said, the other place has the option of sending them back to us again, and we can consider them again if it does not think that the Minister’s representations hold water. That is the right course of action.

[Mr Hanson]

There is clearly a common interest but a disagreement on procedure. If the Minister has a view about the impact of children being trafficked in the UK, such as in the case in Rochdale that he mentioned, he has the draft Modern Slavery Bill to contribute to those matters. But there is a clear will from the other place, which was supported on a cross-party basis, and I would wish to see that as the template for discussion today.

[Mr Harper]

One thing that would not be helpful is to put these measures in place and have a procedure that deals with foreign national children when the draft Modern Slavery Bill, expertly scrutinised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, will put in place yet another process for children who happen to be UK nationals. It would be much more sensible to have one process that deals with all children who are victims of slavery. We should not make the system more complicated than it need be.

[Mr Hanson]

Imperative action is needed now. I have dealt with a number of Bills over the past few years and seen the Government bringing back amendments and amending their own legislation not six months after they introduced it. There is potential here today for a clear statement and clear action on the international trafficking of children. The pilots that the Minister brings forward can be undertaken.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Minister gave a commitment, which he has not done, that this comprehensive amendment, with all the powers for advocates included, would be in his proposed Modern Slavery Bill, we would not feel the need to press this to a vote? However, the Minister has not yet given that promise.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct. I have not yet had, following my intervention on the Minister, a closing date for his proposed pilot. We do not know what the outcome of that pilot will be. We have taken a principled position on the amendments from Baroness Butler-Sloss that there is scope for that to be done immediately. I am talking about not just us here, but UNICEF, Anti-Slavery International, Barnardo’s, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Amnesty International. An EU directive, which may not find favour with everyone in the House, says that we should consider that step. I understand that position, because 5.5 million children globally are trafficked each year. The UK Human Trafficking Centre identified 549 child victims in 2012. The national referral mechanism recognises 349 victims. A number of trafficked children face being sold into the sex trade and being exploited through work, cannabis farming, forced begging and sexual exploitation.

There is a need now to send out a strong signal that we want to take action on that in England and Wales. Trafficked children who arrive in Scotland value the care and support that they receive from their appointed guardians. That system works in Scotland, yet constituencies such as mine and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends still face real difficulties in that regard. Such a system operates not just in Scotland, but in many western European states, including the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. There are templates for a system and it is time that we put in place a legislative framework for it. I wish to see that undertaken and supported today.

In passing, may I say that I welcome the changes on residential accommodation that the Government have accepted from the other place? In particular, I welcome the changes on student accommodation. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is in his place today, as he has pressed over the past weeks and months, in Committee, to me personally and to the Minister, a very strong case to ensure that all student accommodation was included in the Bill. It is good that, following the discussions in Committee and the representations from members of Sheffield university’s students union whom my hon. Friend brought to London, the Minister has accepted that point. The Minister will have our support on those Lords amendments that have been accepted on residential landlords, students and other areas, because they are important issues.

I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) has to say on her manuscript amendments. The Lords amendment has our support, and I hope that it will have the House’s support in due course.

Cyberstalking

David Hanson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) for bringing this important topic to the Chamber. The debate is valuable in showing that there is cross-party agreement on the issue, including on the part of the Minister. The debate not only raises awareness of cyberstalking, but ensures that there is a real Government focus on measures taken to help reduce the number of incidents, and to help support organisations that can deal with the issue in a much more co-ordinated way.

[Mrs Linda Riordan in the Chair]

I welcome you to the chair, Mrs Riordan. You have missed an interesting and complex presentation from the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. She made a compelling case for the impact of cybserstalking, not only on women, but across the board. As she said, cyberstalking occurs when someone becomes obsessively fixated on an individual and pursues them through electronic means, causing the victim distress or fear.

Stalking often happened before the advent of the internet and wide-ranging social media, and previous Governments recognised that by making stalking and harassment an offence. However, we are in an electronic age, and as the hon. Lady said, with the growth of a range of social media such as Twitter and Facebook, and of the internet, e-mail and texting, the ability to take stalking from physical to cyber is increasing all the time. We do not know what inventions will come downstream and widen the use of social media. There is clearly a problem that the Government and the authorities need to address.

In research by The Guardian in February 2014, 41% of women reported that a partner or ex-partner had used online activities to track or check up on them, and 37% of women have felt threatened by such behaviour. Facebook and e-mail were named as the most common means of abuse. In January 2014, The Daily Telegraph Magazine reported that prosecutions under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which particularly addresses menacing or offensive behaviour conducted via social media, e-mail, telephone or the internet, had dropped by 30% from 3,108 cases in 2012 to 2,221 cases in 2013. The hon. Lady mentioned that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has been passed since the first figure came out, and she mentioned that there have been approximately 1,000 inquiries following the introduction of that legislation. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an overall assessment of the number of potential cases being brought under either the new legislation or previous legislation, so that we get a sense of where we are on the problem.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has reported that 38% of children have been victims of cyber-bullying, which the hon. Lady has made clear is a different issue, but it shows that there is potential for not just women and men but children to be affected. In September 2013, Women’s Aid helpfully surveyed online more than 300 women who have survived domestic violence. The survey found—these are important figures in relation to the points raised by the hon. Lady—that: 45% of women who have survived domestic violence have experienced some form of abuse online during their relationship, including through social network sites or e-mail; 48% reported experiencing harassment or abuse online from their ex-partner once they had left the relationship; 38% reported online stalking once they had left the relationship completely; and 75% reported that the police did not know how best to respond to their concerns and allegations. That includes 12% who had reported abuse to the police and, rightly or wrongly, believed that they were not helped.

There is a real issue, and we need to address the points that the hon. Lady has helpfully raised. What are the agencies doing in response? We have a clear legislative framework that was put in place following pressure from outside the House and with cross-party support in the House, but we need particularly to look at the clear link between domestic violence and online abuse, harassment and stalking. We also need to consider how we can influence and change what are, as she clearly stated, online tools for people who wish to stalk, intimidate, control and coerce women in particular, but also men and children.

The impact on children can be great and long-lasting. A similar Women’s Aid survey showed that witnessing the impact of a parent being cyberstalked was particularly damaging to children’s development and growth, making them anxious or depressed, giving them problems at school and difficulties sleeping, and making them feel isolated and insecure. Cyberstalking is not simply a problem for the person being stalked; the problem extends to the wider family, particularly children.

[Nadine Dorries]

One of the reasons for that is that cyberstalking often introduces life-changing behaviour in the person being stalked. The children of parents who normally go about their business will observe that their parents, or the person being stalked, dramatically alter what they do in their day-to-day life. They might no longer go outdoors because they are too frightened, or they might change how they travel to work. They might even move house. All that has a very disturbing effect on children. As I stated, causing such behaviour constitutes a crime; a precedent has been set in court. What most victims of cyberstalking do not know is that if their life is being affected in that way, they are able to take legal action against the person who has perpetrated the crime of cyberstalking against them.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting again the impact of cyberstalking, not only on the individual being stalked, by whatever means, but on wider family relationships, particularly with children. As she has made clear, cyberstalking can have an impact across the board, including on a child’s ability to relate at school and with friends. It can also affect a child’s use and development of important social media skills, because e-mail, Twitter and Facebook are important social media that have a positive effect, as well as having the potential to be used in a negative way.

That is important, and it brings me to my first point for the Minister, which backs up what the hon. Lady has said. How are we assessing the scale of the challenge? Is it simply about the number of cases reported to the police? Is it simply about the number of telephone calls made to the national stalking helpline? Is it about referrals to organisations such as Paladin or the Suzy Lamplugh Trust? What is the Government’s estimate of the nature of the problem, and how are they assessing it? What is the Government’s estimate of, and how are they assessing, the response to the legislation that was in place on stalking and harassment generally, and to the legislation passed in 2012 on cyberstalking and the use of social media in particular? It would be helpful if the Minister, as a starting point, gave both his and the Government’s assessment of whether the problem is static or increasing, whether reporting of the problem is increasing or falling, or whether the problem is increasing while reporting is falling. I would like a general indication from the Minister of how he and the Government are assessing the nature of the problem.

I support what the hon. Lady said about the agencies dealing with cyberstalking. The police rightly take cybercrime and e-crime very seriously. They are looking at a range of issues, and we hear continually about how they are addressing cybercrime and e-crime. Given the wide-ranging potential for cybercrime and e-crime generally, internationally and nationally, I would like the Minister’s assessment of where cyberstalking falls within the police’s priorities, because the police central e-crime unit is looking at those issues. What priority does it give to extending good practice to police forces across the United Kingdom? What co-operation is it undertaking with police forces across Europe and the world? How is it relating to good practice and policy? What steps is it taking to ensure that the same recognition is given to online violence and stalking as is given to stalking and potential violence in the community?

[Nadine Dorries]

This might be a good point at which to drop a piece of information into the debate. The e-crime unit—many forces across the country are not aware of this—now has a direct interface with social media sites. In fact, I think there are two police officers—the number is due to increase—who interface with sites such as Twitter and Facebook. They were not there before, but they are now. The e-crime unit hopes to increase that interface, but the problem is that police forces across the country do not know how to access those officers; they do not have the contacts or know how to get in touch with them. The police officers are there; they have been provided for by the e-crime unit. I hope that the Minister will take that away and consider how to inform police forces. The work is being done; police forces just need to be able to access it.

[Mr Hanson]

I find myself in agreement with the hon. Lady again.

[Nadine Dorries]

Always, David.

[Mr Hanson]

Not quite always. We were born within a month of each other in the same city, so there is obviously some telepathy, and we agree with each other on this point.

Legislation has been passed, and the police force has an e-crime unit. A range of demands on that unit are of extreme significance in the growing drive against crime. I want to endorse and emphasise points made by the hon. Lady. What steps are the Government taking, through the national e-crime unit and through Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan to ensure that all local forces are aware of the unit? What priority is given to cyberstalking in that unit? What are the elements of good practice in the response to complaints made? How many cases are being brought forward? What is the relationship between the police force and individuals when cases are brought forward, and what is the level of understanding? Those are all important issues.

When I was the Minister responsible for policing, I found that it was good to have a national policy, but sometimes the national policy is reflected by the first person a crime is reported to locally, whether in North Wales, Bedfordshire, or our home city of Liverpool. That is where the impact of the national policy is translated at local level. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of those issues.

My second point relates to the criminal justice system generally. It is more than a year since the offences of stalking were introduced. Has the Minister assessed how the criminal justice system understands the new offences and how it responds to victims of online abuse, harassment and stalking? I am not being confrontational, but what is his assessment of how the criminal justice system understands the legislation? What changes has it made since the legislation was introduced? What assessment has it made of its mechanism for prosecuting? How many prosecutions have there been and how many have been successful? What training is offered to the staff in our constituencies who work as prosecutors, judges, and defence barristers? Those issues are important.

The third point concerns something that the hon. Lady touched on. We are talking about predominantly social media, which is not just a UK but a worldwide phenomenon. Facebook, Google and Twitter, all of which I use, and other social media that I do not, are all international. What discussions is the Minister having with our colleagues in Europe, the providers of the services and other nations to ensure we get the right balance between freedom of expression and the regulation of abuse? It is possible for an individual to cyberstalk him, me or the hon. Lady from a beach in California. The focus on the provider, on good practice on their part, and on them having a strong, effective co-ordinated complaints procedure is important, as is legislation in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Lady touched on how someone on social media can be anonymous or have several identities. Again, I do not wish to be confrontational, but there is an opportunity for the Minister to look at how we can get standardised good practice on these issues across a range of Administrations. I would welcome his assessment of whether providers such as Google, Twitter, Facebook and others understand the impact that their social media can have when they are used for cyberstalking or harassment.

Finally, I want to focus on an issue that the hon. Lady mentioned: the assessment of victims’ needs. I do so for two reasons. First, there is the initial assessment when somebody feels they are being stalked through social media—e-mail, Twitter, Facebook or whatever. What help and support is available at the start of their concerns about cyberstalking? This boils down to broad understanding. This is a new issue; when I was first elected to this House 23 years ago, we would not have talked about this issue at all. We would not have talked about Twitter or Facebook; I did not have an e-mail address or a mobile phone, and I did not get texts. All that has happened in 20 years, during my time in this House. What help and support is available to aid our understanding of the issues? Often, the first port of call might be the local Victim Support services at Mold Crown court in my constituency, which might or might not have knowledge of the impact of cyberstalking on an individual. What is the Minister doing to ensure wider awareness of the issue, and to ensure that it is seen to be important for the reasons that the hon. Lady outlined?

The debate has been helpful. I do not have any answers, and I am not trying to be confrontational in terms of the Government’s performance on these issues, but I want to see what their forward strategy is, so that we can look at the assessment of the problem, the capability of the police to respond to complaints, the capability of the criminal justice system to respond and understand the issues, the support available to people who have faced the issue, and the action that providers of social media are taking to address and understand the issue. Those are five key areas, and I am willing to engage on them with the Minister, and hopefully with my colleagues in a future Government.

This issue is important. Cyberstalking can impact on and destroy people’s lives, and it can be done from the anonymity of a Twitter feed, a Facebook page, or an e-mail address established for the purpose, in the United Kingdom, Europe or anywhere in the world. We need to address this, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for securing the debate.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing this important debate and on communicating her thoughts effectively and convincingly. I welcome the constructive approach of the shadow police Minister. We have three parties in this debate, and all three speakers are in the same position: we want to deal with this serious matter carefully, sensibly and effectively. We all share the abhorrence that my hon. Friend expressed for the consequences of cyberstalking. The Government has an open mind as to how we take the matter forward. We are committed to tackling cyberstalking. If there are good ideas, from wherever they come in the House, we want to look at those ideas. We have an open door as well as an open mind on these matters. I hope that the shadow police Minister will take that in the constructive spirit in which it is meant.

Stalking, whether it occurs online or offline, is a serious crime that can have devastating and debilitating effects on those targeted, as my hon. Friend eloquently set out. It is a crime that the coalition Government takes very seriously. According to the independent crime survey for England and Wales for 2012-13, after the age of 16, stalking affects 4% of women and 2% of men a year. It can affect many people in many different circumstances—incidents of stalking can take place within the context of a violent relationship or after a brief relationship, and it can involve a casual acquaintance or a complete stranger.

Victims of stalking may be affected in many different ways. They may lose their home, their family, their friends and their job in a bid to escape a persistent, fixated stalker. The most extreme outcome may be homicide or suicide. Everyone has the right to feel safe and secure and to live their life without feeling threatened or intimidated, and without being spied on. Victims of stalking have those fundamental freedoms taken away from them.

Both my colleagues referred to legislation and to enactment, and it is right to deal with both aspects. I will deal with legislation first. The Government is absolutely clear that what is illegal offline is illegal online. Cyberstalking is simply a term that describes a way to stalk a victim—using the internet—and it is therefore covered by the legislation. If people behave online in ways that would be unacceptable in any other context, there must be consequences. In 2012, we introduced two new stalking offences, which by definition include cyberstalking. We are determined that those who engage in such reprehensible behaviour are brought to justice.

My hon. Friend made a powerful case that stalking online is, in some ways, more debilitating for the victim and more damaging than it might be offline. She drew the helpful and pertinent comparison between poison pen letters, which could be called the offline method of stalking, and online stalking, with its potential impact and the ability of the internet to makes things available to far more people. Online stalking can therefore be more damaging than offline stalking—she made that point powerfully, which law enforcement agencies and the Government need to take on board.

Cyber-smearing, as my hon. Friend called the practice, is indeed more serious than poison pen letters. She was also right to say that anonymity is more possible online than it is offline. That can be more threatening and give perpetrators the appearance of having more power than they have offline, where they may be identified. People may therefore behave more outrageously and unacceptably online than they would do otherwise. The Government treats online and offline crime equally as crime, but I personally accept her point that online stalking can be more serious. We have to reflect that fact in how we approach the matter. I am grateful to her for making the case.

In answer to one of the questions asked by the shadow policing Minister, data from the Crown Prosecution Service’s report on violence against women and girls, published in July 2013, indicate that up to June of that year 91 prosecutions had been commenced under the new stalking offences. The legislation is still of course relatively new, and we will continue to monitor its use closely and carefully to ensure that it is effective and appropriate. He also asked about the number of potential cases yet to be brought forward. Police-recorded crime figures from April 2014 will give a clearer picture of stalking, because it is now separated from harassment.

[Mr Hanson]

Does the Minister have any figures for the success rate of the prosecutions? How many have been translated into convictions?

[Norman Baker]

I mentioned that 91 prosecutions had been commenced, but I do not have the figure for whether the outcomes were successful. If I can rustle up that figure during the debate, I will give it to the Chamber. Otherwise, I am happy to write to the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend with that information.

Both the Members who have spoken in the debate rightly raised the issue of training. Legislation is not enough; it is only useful if it is effective and used, and if those who have the duty to act under it understand how it works and are sympathetic to it. The police, the criminal justice system, the front-line practitioners and industry all have a role to play in tackling the appalling crime of stalking, and we are working with them to increase awareness. For example, the Home Office has developed a one-day training course to improve understanding of stalking among those who come into contact with victims. The package was developed in partnership with Women’s Aid and the Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service.

In addition, the College of Policing has developed a training package on stalking and harassment, which last year won the silver award for “excellence in the production of learning content” at the national 2013 e-learning awards. The training package is available to all police officers and staff. Furthermore, all newly qualified police officers—uniformed officers, investigators and public protection officers—are expected to complete it. It has been completed 48,000 times by the police since October 2012.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Hanson Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have already established twice in my answers what is going to be completed during this Parliament by the time of the next general election. My hon. Friend is a member of the Home Affairs Committee and has obviously heard Sir Charles Montgomery, the director general of Border Force, give evidence on a number of occasions. One of the points Sir Charles has made in his evidence is that we have been increasing the amount of advance passenger information available to us so that we now have 80% coverage in all transport and more than 90% coverage in aviation.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The official Opposition and I support exit checks. I wonder whether the Home Secretary has read what the Deputy Prime Minister has said:

“I have for some time been concerned with the urgency with which the Home Office is seeking to implement the coalition agreement commitment that I personally insisted on, that exit checks should be restored…Do I think, given what I know now, that new exit checks will be in all exit places by 2015? I think that is unlikely”.

For once, I agree with Nick—does the Home Secretary?

[Mrs May]

I share the Deputy Prime Minister’s concern to ensure that we are able to provide for the commitment that we made in the coalition agreement that we would introduce exit checks. By April 2015 we will have enabled exit checks to take place for those who are leaving the UK by scheduled international travel by air, sea and rail services.

Asylum Seekers (Support)

David Hanson Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The UK has a proud history of granting asylum to those who need it, and the Government are committed to providing support to those who would otherwise be destitute while their claims are being considered. The payment levels to asylum seekers need to be considered as part of the overall support package. Accommodation—plus utilities such as gas and electricity —is provided free.

I do not accept my hon. Friend’s characterisation of the assessment process. A detailed assessment was concluded last June and, indeed, we will carry out a further assessment of levels this year to take into account relevant factors and to assess whether there should be any change. I can certainly assure her that we will consider these matters very carefully.

My hon. Friend makes various comments on the judgment itself. It is a very detailed judgment—it runs to about 90 pages and the Home Office is analysing the detail carefully and, indeed, whether we will be appealing it.

The Home Office takes its responsibilities in respect of asylum support extremely seriously in setting the rates and considering what is appropriate. We believe that it does provide support to enable those who seek asylum and who are destitute to see that their claims are decided, and that support is given to them during that process.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for raising the issue, which, as she mentioned, is about the basic level of support given to those fleeing torture, rape or oppression and who seek asylum in the United Kingdom.

Given that the rate was frozen in 2011 and has now been frozen through to 2013-14, yesterday’s judgment was damning. The Home Secretary was ordered to review the amount of money given to support asylum seekers after the High Court ruled that she had used insufficient evidence in deciding to freeze those payments. In his judgment the judge said the decision was “flawed” and that the Home Secretary

“misunderstood or misapplied information which she treated as important in reaching her decision.”

He added:

“In my judgment the information used by the Secretary of State to set the rate of asylum support was simply insufficient to reach a rational decision to freeze rates.”

In the judge’s view, the rates involved

“a reduction in real terms from what was regarded in 2007 as the base minimum level necessary to avoid destitution.”

Remember, Mr Speaker, that these are individuals who cannot work. In the light of that, will the Minister—he has hinted at this—indicate whether he intends to appeal that decision? If he does intend to, will he tell the House how much has been spent to date on legal costs in defending the decision to freeze the rates and how much he expects to spend on any appeal? Will he estimate the number of individuals who are involved? The judge yesterday mentioned some 23,000, but I should welcome confirmation. I should welcome confirmation also on how many of those 23,000—if that is the figure—have children who now face destitution because of the freeze.

If the appeal is made and is not successful, will any new rates be applied from today, or from 2011? What estimate has the Minister made of the impact of any unsuccessful appeal on the level of rates?

Does the Minister agree with what the hon. Member for Brent Central asked for, which is what Refugee Action and, indeed, the Refugee Council, which I spoke to this morning, have asked for, namely a wider examination of the review of and support for asylum seekers—not failed asylum seekers, but asylum seekers fleeing torture, oppression, fear or intimidation, and who cannot, I remind the House, work?

What assessment has the Minister made of those currently in receipt of assistance who now face this freeze? Has he made any assessment, in particular, of the impact on children? Will he ensure that he urgently reviews recommendation 82 of the Home Affairs Committee’s unanimous report of 11 October last year, which asked for a review of section 4 support? How many asylum seekers does the Home Secretary’s Department believe cannot now buy enough food to feed themselves, as referred to in that report? How many asylum seekers does her Department believe missed a meal because they could not afford to eat? How many asylum seekers does her Department believe do not have money to buy clothes?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Is this a speech?

[Mr Hanson]

Before the hon. Lady says any more, I have a right to ask those questions of the Minister. The Home Secretary’s decision making has proved to be flawed. Will the Minister now address that issue, or will there be a return to what a Minister—a Minister in her Government—described as the Conservative party being the nasty party on these issues?

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

David Hanson Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s encouragement. As I have said, in the past nearly four years, I have seen growing concern on free movement among European Union member states. The UK has raised and pursued the matter. We are now working with other member states, particularly on the abuse of free movement, but we need to look ahead to future accession treaties, and the terms in which free movement is included in them.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has said that the Government would get net migration down to the tens of thousands by 2015, “no ifs, no buts”, and yet this month, the figure has risen to more than 212,000. The question is simple. Will the Government meet their net migration target—yes or no?

Immigration Bill

David Hanson Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter. I do not accept her description of what we are putting through in this Bill. We are not asking for a blank cheque. There are specific and limited circumstances in which the power would be used, which I will describe to the House. We are not suggesting that we put the United Kingdom into a situation that it has not been in before. We are suggesting that we put the United Kingdom into the situation that is required by the UN convention to which it has signed up. A decision was taken a few years ago to go beyond that UN convention. We think it is right to go back to the UN convention.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary knows that we are dealing with complex and serious issues, so will she explain why she tabled the new clause 24 hours before Report without consulting any outside bodies? The situation is such that we have had to table manuscript amendments to deal with serious concerns about it. Will she explain why she is acting with such urgency today, rather than allowing for consultation before introducing a measure in another place that could then be examined by both Houses?

[Mrs May]

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall set out why we thought it was necessary to table the new clause and how we have considered the matter. I accept that the Opposition have tabled manuscript amendments. While I wait to hear what he will say about them, if there are specific concerns, I will be willing to consider them and, if necessary, address them further in another place.

The new clause is a consequence of a specific case. The power to deprive on conducive grounds is such that even when I consider the first and arguably the most important part of the test to be met—that it would be conducive to the public good to deprive—I am still prevented from depriving a person of their citizenship if they would be left stateless as a result. That was the point explored in the Supreme Court case of al-Jedda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I thought that I had provided some clarity in the answer that I gave the right hon. Gentleman earlier. The law will be limited to naturalised citizens and will not apply to anybody who has British citizenship by any other means. The action would be taken against the naturalised British citizen, not their child.

[Mr Hanson]

If the parent and sole carer of a child under 18 was deprived of citizenship while outside the country, what would happen to the child? The consequences need to be thought through.

[Mrs May]

I recognise that there are consequences, and they have been considered. The circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman mentions are if the child was in the United Kingdom and their parent was elsewhere conducting activity that was seriously prejudicial to the United Kingdom. That would be considered on a case by case basis—there would not be a tick-box, mechanistic approach. All circumstances would be looked at in considering whether it was appropriate to apply the new power to an individual. There are safeguards within the proposal, such as the seriously prejudicial nature of the activity that an individual must have undertaken.

I had not quite finished my response to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) when I allowed the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to intervene. I repeat the response that I gave earlier to the former: the law will apply only to those who are naturalised, not those who are British by birth or those who acquired citizenship under other provisions of the 1981 Act, such as those that provide for children to acquire British citizenship. I hope that I have perhaps made that clearer to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras.

--- Later in debate ---

There is an issue about the sort of wording used. I think the Bill goes further than the new clause. The new clause allows “manifest and overwhelming harm” to a child to override deportation, even for the most serious criminals, but the test of whether there would be manifest and overwhelming harm to a child is unclear. We can argue about whether that is a weaker test than requiring “very compelling circumstances”, but I think such issues raise concerns about my hon. Friend’s new clause.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Home Secretary help the Opposition by clarifying the Government’s position? If the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) presses his new clause to a vote, will the Government vote for it, against it, or abstain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee on any specific case, but the Bill will make it easier for us to deport foreign criminals. It clarifies the interpretation of article 8 in a way that will make it easier for us to deport foreign criminals. It ensures that foreign criminals can be deported first, unless there are particular circumstances in the country to which they are going, and appeal against their deportation afterwards. However, on people who have been convicted of a crime and who are in our prison estate, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary is working hard with Home Office immigration enforcement people to ensure that we can remove more foreign criminals to their country of origin in a number of ways, such as through prison transfer agreements.

The House shares the concern that we should be able to deport more foreign criminals. The Bill strengthens our ability to do that. I would not wish to see it weakened in any way. As I have said, I have concerns with some aspects of new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, because it could weaken our ability to deport more foreign criminals. However, I recognise that he has sought to strengthen the language in the Bill. The public want an immigration Bill that strengthens our ability to deport foreign criminals to get through Parliament. That is a shared aim. I believe that that is what the Bill, as drafted, does.

[Mr Hanson]

The Home Secretary spoke for just over an hour and a half, but at the end of her contribution I am still not clear on key aspects of the Government’s proposals. I am not clear whether the Government as a whole have a united position on them. Do the Liberal Democrat members of the Government have a different view? The interesting proposals in new clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), are yet to be considered the Government in a full and frank way.

I want to mention measures on which I agree with the Government, as the Bill does contain measures that the official Opposition support. On new clause 11, the Home Secretary has our full support for her proposals to tackle sham marriages. Sham marriage is a serious problem. The Home Office estimates that 4,000 to 10,000 applications to stay in the UK each year are based on sham marriage or sham civil partnership—the Minister for Crime Prevention and I discussed this extensively in Committee. That is a significant number of cases and action is needed.

New clause 11 deals with the situation in Northern Ireland and Scotland, which the Opposition raised in Committee, and contains measures we support. We can support the measures on same-sex marriage, on which we sought clarification in Committee. New clause 11 is welcome, and the Opposition support it.

As I have mentioned, we have four and a half hours for the debate. The Home Secretary took one third of that time for her opening contribution. She explained the issues, and I look forward in due course to listening to hon. Members’ concerns. I will try to take less time than her, but I have some things to say.

I reach out a hand of friendship on new clause 12. The Opposition will not oppose it today. It is reasonable to try to recoup charges from individuals who use our services, but we might disagree with the Government, because we believe we need to improve those services. As the Home Secretary has recognised, we need to ensure that the charges do not deter the brightest and best, and those with skills, from coming to work here to create jobs and growth in our economy. We need to ensure that they do not deter students. I am afraid that Government policies currently deter students from coming to the UK. We need to ensure that we do not turn away people who will contribute strongly to our community. The tourism economy is particularly important. We need to ensure that the level of charges, which we will discuss shortly, does not damage investment in our economy through tourism.

The Opposition have three concerns. The Home Secretary devoted around 45 minutes to new clause 18. I accept and understand that it deals with a serious problem. We are dealing with people who are undertaking activities—terrorism—that are of great concern to the state. Having been a Home Office Minister in the previous Government dealing with terrorism and counter-terrorism activity, I understand the need to examine those matters. I should tell the Home Secretary clearly that it is not acceptable, at least as far as the Opposition are concerned, to bring a major new clause to deal with that to the House 24 hours before the debate on Report and Third Reading. We have only four and a half hours to debate important issues, including European accession—the Opposition and the Government have different views on that, but it is valid to discuss them—new clause 15 and the concerns of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton. I tell the Home Secretary that that is not the way to discuss sensitive issues such as taking steps to deprive individuals of their citizenship.

I have listened to what the Home Secretary has said on a number of measures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) has concerns. Others, including the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) and, dare I say it, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) have raised pertinent issues of concern. However, we have less than three hours to reach conclusions on these major measures.

[Mr Brazier]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a legitimate point about time. Putting the detail aside, in the kinds of cases raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee, where people abroad are believed to be—in some cases they are found to be—in arms in opposition to British interest, should we or should we not make it easier to have their citizenship removed and their ability to return to the UK ended?

[Mr Hanson]

As a Minister in the previous Government who dealt with terrorist activity and looked at terrorist plots and the information to which the Home Secretary is now privileged, I know there are circumstances where the Government need to address serious issues. The question I put to the hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary is this: new clause 18 was tabled 24 hours ago and there has been no consultation—[Interruption.] The Minister for Immigration says that it was tabled on Tuesday, but it was published yesterday morning; the first sight of it was then. A range of outside groups would like to examine the consequences of the proposed legislation, yet today the House of Commons is expected to approve it. The Opposition want to reserve judgment on some of the details that have been mentioned. We want to look at the measures, take advanced legal advice and consult outside bodies, which the Government should be doing, so we can consider the implications.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is what my right hon. Friend saying on new clause 18 not indicative of the whole approach to the Bill? It has not been adequately debated anywhere. Most of it will be not be debated today and it will pass through this House unexamined. The Bill will have appalling consequences for an awful lot of things in society, not just the new clause he is discussing now.

[Mr Hanson]

I have to say to my hon. Friend, with the greatest of reverence for his long service in Parliament, that the Minister for Immigration and I spent far too long in Committee on this matter through most of October and November, and we are doing so again today. There has been discussion and division on some of the measures in the Bill.

New clause 18 was published yesterday morning. The Immigration Law Practitioners Association sent a brief at 4 am today. That was the first opportunity it had to put down its views on this matter:

“The amendment on the order paper on 29 January 2014 and on that date we first had sight of the Government’s European Convention on Human Rights Memorandum pertaining to the clause. We do not attempt to address herein the complex questions of the present day effects of the UK’s declaration”,

and in the light of that it will have to look at the matter when it comes to another place. The ILPA may or may not have valid points, but we are 24 hours from passing a serious piece of legislation. We had a long period in Committee. The issues relating to the al-Jedda judgment of summer to autumn 2013, which the Home Secretary mentioned, have led to her introducing these measures. We will have to look at them in detail. This is not a good way to place such an important issue, which has the potential to impact on people’s liberty and citizenship.

[Dr Huppert]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that we discussed some of this at great length in Committee. I share his view that there should be more pre-legislative scrutiny. This Government have done more than previous Governments, but there is much more to do. I also share his concern about amendments and new clauses being tabled only two days ahead of time. Does that mean that he and his party will ensure that Opposition day motions are never tabled just a day before debates? That would make it easier for all of us to read them.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman politicises a point I am trying to make about process. He knows how Opposition motions are drawn up and he knows that they do not have the same impact as legislation. The proposed legislation will have the effect of depriving citizenship. If an Opposition motion is voted on and defeated one thing will happen: there will be political noise about an issue. This is about the deprivation of someone’s citizenship. We may, ultimately, make the judgment to support the Government, but this is an important point about process that I think we need to make.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. I agree entirely with his comments and it is unusual for the Home Secretary to be filibustering her own Bill. Where does he think the Government could have learned these tricks? Could it have been from the Blair Government?

[Mr Hanson]

I was honoured to serve for 12 years in the Blair Government and I do not think we filibustered that much.

The Home Secretary addressed some issues relating to new clause 18, but they still need to be examined in detail. For example, what definition does she have of “seriously prejudicial”? Who applies that definition? What type of person does she expect to lose citizenship? How many individuals does she expect to be impacted by this?

So late in the day was the new clause tabled that we have had to table two manuscript amendments this morning, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and me, that include the potential for discussion on judicial oversight. The Home Secretary touched on her role and responsibilities relating to judicial oversight, and we need further clarity on that. In the winding-up speech, whether delivered by the Home Secretary or the Minister of State, I would welcome a view on our amendments. Judicial oversight would give us some comfort on whether this is an appropriate measure to take, given the seriousness of removing someone’s citizenship.

[Rehman Chishti]

The shadow Minister raises concerns about the short notice given on the content of today’s debate. He also makes clear his expertise, having served in this area in the previous Government. Under the previous Government, five British nationals were stripped of their nationality. Will he clarify what happened to them? Were they sent back to their country of origin or not? Does he accept that there was a defect in the existing legislation and that we need to move forward with the new proposed legislation?

[Mr Hanson]

First, let me say that at the time the hon. Gentleman supported the Government as a member of the Labour party. In fact, he supported the Government so much he stood for election in 2005.

[Rehman Chishti]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, the shadow Minister is absolutely right that in 2005 I was a member of the Labour party. Soon after that I left the Labour party because, like everyone else, I was fed up with it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

That is so clearly not a point of order. In three years in Parliament the hon. Gentleman clearly has not got the hang of it yet, but he has got his point on the record. May we please now return to the very important issues in the Bill?

[Mr Hanson]

It was just a point of information that deserves wider knowledge.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I note the custom in the House to give notice before making personal remarks involving another Member. Does that include this case?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With respect, the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) has, having heard the remark, replied to it. I think we have a score draw there, so shall we continue? And that’s not a point of order, either.

[Mr Hanson]

I give way to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon).

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

In passing, may I say that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) has exactly got the hang of it?

The Opposition spokesman mentioned the need to have proper judicial oversight, and his manuscript amendment attempts to provide for it. I have some sympathy with the amendment, although probably not enough to vote for it. Given what he is saying now, however, why did the Labour Government, of which he was a member, bend over backwards when passing asylum and immigration legislation and do their absolute damnedest to avoid judicial oversight?

[Mr Hanson]

Lots of things are learned by experience, but this is an extremely serious issue. If the hon. Gentleman sees merit in our manuscript amendments (a) and (b), he should, between now and 4 o’clock, discuss that with those on his Front Bench, because I do not want to divide the House on such serious issues concerning the rights of individuals and the protection of people in the UK. I just think there is an issue here: this matter was brought to our attention late, and we want to ensure judicial oversight. I hope we can deal properly with the issue in another place, with full support and after full consultation. Let us discuss this matter genuinely.

[Mark Pritchard]

The shadow Minister is entitled to ask legitimate questions about the Bill, but does he agree with the principle of new clause 18, without necessarily knowing all the details at this stage?

[Mr Hanson]

The principle is the deprivation of the citizenship of individuals who are naturalised, and that might be a positive thing, but we would need to consider it in detail. We have only had 24 hours. I want to consider the legal implications, as well as the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. We need to look at judicial oversight and when and how notice should be given. We also need to look at what rights individuals have to appeal and what happens if someone is in another state when the decision is taken. What should be the responsibility and response of that other state? What should happen to the family? These are important issues which we need to cogitate and reflect on, and to return to in another place.

[John Hemming]

I have looked at cases of people who have had their citizenship withdrawn while they have been out of the country, and there is a big issue about people becoming aware of a decision to remove their citizenship and having an opportunity to challenge it. Does the shadow Minister accept that although his objective is an improved procedural protection, his proposal runs the risk, in certain circumstances, of reducing it, because by the time someone finds out about a decision, the matter will have already gone to court, on an ex parte basis, and a decision will already have been taken? Perhaps it would be better left to judicial review, with the person having an opportunity to challenge a decision when they become aware of it.

[Mr Hanson]

My objective is the same, I think, as the Home Secretary’s, which is to protect the British people from potential terrorist activity at home and abroad. That is a key joint objective.

New clause 18 raises complex issues on which a range of individuals will have a view, but on which there has been no consultation outside the House. Let us look at the manuscript amendments and consider whether we could tighten up the process so that we are all content, and we will reserve judgment until we reach another place, at which point I hope we can reach a conclusion that meets our objectives.

[Mrs May]

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the time to consider the new clause, and I am happy for the Government to have discussions with him to set out in more detail how it would operate. On that basis, I hope he will consider not moving his manuscript amendments, although obviously, following those discussions, the Opposition could come back to them in another place, if they felt it necessary.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her accommodation, and obviously we will reflect on her comments. This is an important issue, which is why we tabled the manuscript amendment. It is unusual for such amendments to be taken, so—I should have done this before—I would like to thank Mr Speaker for accepting it at this late stage. We tabled it so late simply because the new clause was also tabled late.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Teather]

Has the shadow Minister noticed an anomaly that concerns me and on which I hope the Home Secretary can give some clarification? It appears that if someone applies for variation in leave, that leave is protected if their administrative review is pending, but not if they appeal.

[Mr Hanson]

That is another issue. Our amendment 1 would remove clause 11 from the Bill and allow the Government to reflect on the concerns raised by the hon. Lady—she speaks from the Government Benches, but I appreciate that she has an independent frame of mind—and on those expressed outside, in evidence to the Committee, and by my right hon. and hon. Friends about the impact of abolishing tribunals on the sort of people currently having their appeals upheld. Individuals are having their appeals upheld at tribunal, but under clause 11 such appeals will not be possible. Our proposal is either, in amendment 1, to remove clause 11 or, if the Home Secretary cannot accept amendment 1, in new clause 13, to provide for an assessment beforehand so that we can consider this matter in detail.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that I am coming to my final point, although I have only spoken for half an hour—considerably less time than the Home Secretary took. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton has a range of support for his new clause 15, and in due course I will want to hear again what he has to say about it. Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I want to see foreign criminals deported. That is right and proper. I was pleased, as well as doing counter-terrorism, to serve under my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in the Ministry of Justice. He went to Vietnam to negotiate a deal to deport terrorists and prisoners there, and I went to Nigeria to do the same. We also negotiated a deal with the EU for it to accept foreign criminals, which the Government are now implementing and from which they are reaping the benefits. We have an interest in ensuring that foreign nationals living in this country who commit crimes and go to prison serve a sentence and then are ultimately returned to their home state.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a fundamental difference between deporting foreign criminals and deporting suspects?

[Mr Hanson]

There is, and we can explore that in due course, but I want to focus on the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, as the principle of removal is a reasonable one. Let us look at some of the tests that the Home Secretary talked about. I am not one to do this very often, but let me give credit to the Home Secretary: she is trying to make progress on a couple of issues in relation to existing legislation to try to improve the process of deportation. We have given our support to do that, but that process has not yet been developed, examined or evaluated. There is scope for us to look at whether what the Home Secretary has proposed is right and proper and is put into effect.

The hon. Member for Esher and Walton has a long history inside and outside this House of dealing with these matters, but there are still some concerns on the Opposition Benches about the measures that he is proposing, not because we do not want to deport foreign criminals, but because we want to do it in a way that maintains our integrity in relation to the convention on human rights and our integrity with our European and world colleagues. I say that because in relation to a similar amendment that he tabled to the Crime and Courts Act 2013, I have seen a note that perhaps I should not have seen—

[Mr Bone]

Tell us!

[Mr Hanson]

I am going to. It is from the Home Secretary to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), who happens to be the Prime Minister. In the note, on the hon. Member for Esher and Walton’s amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill, the Home Secretary said that the amendment

“would be incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the ECHR… Nevertheless if this amendment passes both Houses of Parliament and becomes law the Secretary of State will be required to act in accordance with it and make deportation orders notwithstanding other ECHR obligations. This would significantly undermine our ability to deport foreign criminals.”

There are real issues that need to be explored. The Bill restricts appeals against deportation that use the right to a family life in article 8. We have supported the Government’s efforts to do that. There are foreign criminals who have committed serious crimes whom we cannot deport and who have used article 8 inappropriately, but the new proposals have not yet been tested in the courts. We support the Government’s view that the proposals in the Bill should be implemented and that gives us grounds to have severe scepticism about supporting the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. What I am not clear on is whether the Home Secretary shares that scepticism, whether she intends to allow the new clause to go forward, or whether she intends to block, support or abstain on it. I would welcome clarification by the time the hon. Gentleman has made his points.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman, whose judgment on these issues I value acutely, referred to leaked Government correspondence. What is his position on whether my hon. Friend’s proposals would contravene our responsibilities under the ECHR?

[Mr Hanson]

I have served with the hon. Gentleman on a number of Committees. We have had useful and positive cross-party discussions. I say to him honestly that we have taken legal advice and we believe that the proposal would put us in contravention of ECHR responsibilities. The Home Secretary, I think, has had the same advice and the Home Secretary, I think, shares our view. The question for the Home Secretary is whether she wishes to exercise her judgement today or at a later date.

[Mr Brazier]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. We have had a valedictory speech from Lord Judge, the previous Lord Chief Justice, in which he stated very clearly that it is time for it to be made clear which is the supreme court of this country: our Supreme Court or the court in Strasbourg. Does he have a view on that?

[Mr Hanson]

I am dealing with the practicalities of the issue before us today. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer, I will say that the ECHR is a valuable tool and we should uphold our obligations within it.

Provisions in new clause 15, according to our legal advice—I think it is shared by the legal advice that the Home Secretary has received—could cause more difficulties and breach our ECHR responsibilities. Those issues are to be tested, but we are left saying that if this is pushed to a vote we would potentially be looking at not supporting the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, depending on what he says. We will see in due course.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Move on, then.

[Mr Hanson]

I will do so, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have served on Committees and whom I greatly respect, that I have had just over half an hour. The Home Secretary, for a range of reasons, talked for one and a half hours. I am trying responsibly to set out the view of the official Opposition so that Members can form a judgment.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I am genuinely trying to wind up, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Huppert]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Before he finishes, will he comment on my amendment 74 about writing into law the end of child detention? Does he share my pleasure that this will now happen and that it will stop any future Government doing what the last Government did and detaining over 7,000 children within five years, including for 190 days? Is he pleased about that change?

[Mr Hanson]

I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s judgment on most issues, but that could be looked at. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) attended discussions yesterday on this matter and we will look at those matters in detail.

We are not the Government today; we are the official Opposition, on behalf of whom I say that we have severe concerns about new clause 15 and about the process and potential implications of new clause 18, but we will reserve judgment on that. The issue of the removal of tribunals is one that we need to address and to delete from the Bill. We need to look at some of the other issues before we give the Home Secretary unqualified support.

After many weeks of discussion, we have an Immigration Bill on which the Government appear to me, as a simple Front Bencher, to be in chaos on some of the key issues on which they will be judged. We must judge the Home Secretary on what she says, but there are real issues that need to be resolved. I would welcome hearing from the hon. Member for Esher and Walton why he believes that his proposal will not breach the ECHR on these matters. With that, I conclude to ensure that hon. Members have an opportunity to contribute.

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

I wish to speak to new clause 15 and amendment No 62 in my name and that of 105 other hon. Members from across three parties in this House. Subject to the will of the Chair, of course, I intend to press them to a vote to test the opinion of the House.

I welcome the engagement and consultation with officials and Ministers over what has been a two-year period, and with Opposition Members. I think what the shadow Minister said was code that they are going to abstain and I welcome that as well.

[Mr Hanson]

My gut instinct at the moment is not to support the hon. Gentleman by actually voting against him. I want to hear what he has to say and I also want to hear from the Home Secretary on whether there are further measures that we could jointly take to tackle the curse of foreign criminals not being deported in an appropriate way that meets our ECHR obligations.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention, which was a very elegant way of sitting on the fence again.

The problem with which the new clause and amendments would deal results from the judicial expansion of the right to family life under article 8 of the European convention, which allows serious foreign criminals to evade deportation. It is, I think, common ground that the Strasbourg Court has steadily eroded United Kingdom deportation powers over the past few decades, but the tightest fetters have come from the UK courts as a result— rightly or wrongly—of the Human Rights Act 1998.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

On 24 November 2003, a young girl aged 9, Amy Houston, was killed on the west side of my constituency of Blackburn by a man driving a motor car, Aso Mohammed Ibrahim. He was an unfounded asylum seeker with no basis for remaining in the United Kingdom, and at the time of the motor accident had a number of convictions for driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. He received a relatively short prison sentence for causing death by careless driving. Thereafter, he developed a relationship with a woman in my constituency who already had two children by other men. He then went on to commit further offences.

When the Home Office made efforts to deport Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, he resisted them on article 8 grounds. The matter went before a tribunal, which found in his favour. I was Justice Secretary by that time, and I spoke to the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who ensured that a vigorous appeal was mounted in respect of that tribunal judgment. A new appeal was established, but that too was lost. Principally, it was lost on the ground not of Strasbourg law but of the way in which the British courts had widened the basis of article 8 beyond that of Strasbourg in order to protect individuals in this situation.

Knowing far more about the background of the case than ever went before the tribunals, my opinion was—and remains—that that man had abused his position in this country and set out to develop a relationship with a woman and have children with her solely in order to evade deportation and immigration controls. It is a matter of regret to me and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle that the courts appeared to endorse his wilful decision to evade those controls.

It is for those reasons that I, and those on my Front Bench, strongly support the amendments to the law that appear in clause 14 of the Bill. I have great regard for the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), and I have talked to him at considerable length about the merits of his new clause. I am also listening carefully, as I said I would, to the debate today. I have no difficulty with seeking to direct the British courts towards a different conclusion from that towards which they are currently directed by the higher domestic courts in this country. That is also the purpose of clause 14.

I do have a problem, however, with the House knowingly deciding to legislate in a way that the best advice suggests would be incompatible with convention rights. That is because I am a strong supporter of the European convention on human rights. If the House wishes to decide to leave the convention, or to abrogate individual parts of it, it should seek to do so explicitly, rather than through an amendment of this kind. I accept that the hon. Gentleman has thought carefully about this matter, but it is with regret that I shall be unable to support his proposal today.

I also want to say a few words to those who think that this is all about the Human Rights Act. I was the Minister responsible for the Act, and I am proud of it. I hope that I will not cause the Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), too many blushes if I say that I remember his courageous maiden speech in the House, in which he spoke out in favour of the Human Rights Bill, as it then was. Those on his Front Bench voted against the Bill on Second Reading, but by the time we reached Third Reading they had come round and wished the Bill well.

[Mr Hanson]

Given that the Attorney-General is in his seat, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be appropriate for him to help us by telling the House what advice the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and the Home Secretary have had on this measure? In that way, he could provide clarity to enable us to discuss the matter formally.

[Mr Straw]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

David Hanson Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The Leader of the House has announced the business and the time available for the Immigration Bill on Thursday. I recognise that there are a significant number of Government amendments. They are mainly small and technical but, like my hon. Friend, I would prefer that we did not have to bring so many technical amendments to the House at this stage.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Today, on behalf of the official Opposition, I have signed new clauses 7 to 10 to the Immigration Bill, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) and several other Conservative Back Benchers, which would strengthen future European Union accession arrangements. Given that new cross-party consensus, will the Home Secretary join us in supporting those new clauses on Thursday?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman must wait and see what happens on Thursday, but I have looked with interest at the amendments tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). I am pleased there is agreement across the House that we must take action in future on accession countries, and the number of people who may be coming to the UK from those countries.

Immigration (Bulgaria and Romania)

David Hanson Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Mills]

I think I am grateful for that intervention. It is not for me to answer for the Backbench Business Committee; my hon. Friend has more experience of that Committee, so perhaps he can explain later.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment to the Immigration Bill, which was last debated on 19 November. Although the Bill has completed Committee stage, there is no date, even in today’s business statement, for when the Bill will be brought back to the House of Commons. Does he regret that his party’s business managers did not give him that opportunity?

[Nigel Mills]

That is the point that I was alluding to. It would have been better to have had this debate during consideration of the amendment to the Immigration Bill on Report, so that we could have dealt with the issue on the Floor of the House before the restrictions were lifted, which, sadly, is likely to happen in less than two weeks’ time. However, I am afraid that House business management is even further above my pay grade than the machinations of the Backbench Business Committee, so it is probably not wise for me to be drawn on that subject.

The right hon. Gentleman takes me to my first theme. The Minister and I—alone, sadly—have debated this topic before, at Committee stage. A month has passed, and a few things have changed. I was the lone signatory to the amendment at that point, but more than 74 MPs have now signed it for Report. A few of the facts have probably changed since then as well; obviously, there was already a petition with more than 150,000 signatories, but since that point, we have learned that despite the Government’s many welcome measures over the course of this Parliament, net migration rose in the last year, which causes concern to those of us who are committed to our manifesto promise to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands. Can that be achieved, especially if large numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians take advantage of the lack of restrictions? The Government have made a series of welcome announcements of policies to tackle immigration. Welfare measures were introduced to Parliament yesterday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank you, Mr Benton, and your co-Chair, Ms Dorries, for sharing today’s proceedings. The debate has been interesting and has generated some important issues that we need to reflect on, and I welcome the opportunity to do so. In particular, I welcome the fact that today I have learned about, if nothing else, the new year’s eve and new year’s day arrangements of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). In itself, that has been illuminating—that was said before you were in the Chair, Mr Benton, but they are spending new year’s day morning at Luton airport to check on the immigration status of arriving individuals and their destinations accordingly.

I also welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) brought the debate to the House. We had a similar debate on his new clause in the Immigration Bill in Committee on 19 November. We completed consideration in Committee on that day, but the Bill has still not returned to the House—according to today’s business statement, its return is not planned even for the first week of January. The hon. Gentleman has, however, tabled another amendment to the Immigration Bill for consideration on Report.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the new clause tabled by the hon. Gentleman. The debate on it will be an interesting one to have—in essence, it will be the same as today’s. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others who have referred to the new clause, however, that that is still primary legislation. For the measure to take effect, the Bill would have to complete its passage through the Commons and another place and, even then, as the Minister said in Committee on 19 November:

“The only way of doing so would be to negotiate a change to those treaties. Given that this would require the unanimous agreement of all member states, including Bulgaria and Romania, the Government’s judgment—which I think is the right one—is that there is no prospect of achieving it.”

[Mr Bone]

Is it right for the House to interpret therefore that Her Majesty’s official Opposition will not be supporting the new clause?

[Mr Hanson]

That is perfectly correct. The new clause is trying to unpick treaties that are the responsibility of Government to negotiate. Primary legislation would not impact on that. Even the hon. Member for Amber Valley said in Committee a little later that

“trying to get this country to breach various treaties it has signed is probably not a very sensible way of pursuing our diplomatic mission, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2013; c. 401-02.]

I say that simply because the issue is important, and we need to address it, but I am not clear that the new clause or having the debate before or after Christmas would change the fundamental position.

[Nigel Mills]

For clarification, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that I was saying that trying to do that in a Committee of a dozen or so MPs was not the right way forward. It was better for the whole House to consider it.

[Mr Hanson]

My contention still stands. Having said that, we have had a calm and rational debate, which is the best way in which to approach the issue—in a calm and measured way. I agree with the approach taken by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), at least in the first half of his speech, on some of the benefits that wider immigration can bring to the United Kingdom.

In response to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone)—I say this on the record for the House—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) have said clearly that mistakes were made in 2004 when transitional requests and controls were not put in place. It is a reasonable presumption to say that now. It is something that I am aware of, although at the time I was dealing with other matters in Government, and we have to accept that difficult, challenging and mistaken decisions were made at that time.

[Mr Hollobone]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I will, although I am anxious to make my points, because I only have 15 minutes.

[Mr Hollobone]

Is that an apology? I have not heard the word “sorry”.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman should accept that, as the Front-Bench spokesman for my party in this Chamber today, what I am saying on behalf of my party is in support of what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, that we made some mistakes in 2004. Those mistakes had consequences; we should have interrogated the numbers further and we should have looked at the possible impact both culturally and economically over that time. I know that the combination of immigration and inadequate labour standards in many cases meant that there was a pressure on wages and employment; some of the jobs that came into the country through economic growth were taken by people from outside the United Kingdom. I know from my own constituency in north Wales that there are pressures even now on the labour market and on cultural issues, because of that immigration.

[Mr Ellwood]

As the right hon. Gentleman is in confessional mode, perhaps I can encourage him to recognise as well that, even once the gates were open, the reason why so many chose to come to the UK was simply the benefits system—people could come here straight away, not even bother to work and gain benefits immediately. Does he agree that that was also a mistake back in 2004?

[Mr Hanson]

That was, which is why in March of this year my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), on behalf of the official Opposition, suggested the measures that the Prime Minister introduced only yesterday—some 14 days before 31 December, when transitional controls for Romania and Bulgaria expire.

Lest we think that the problem is now solely an Opposition one, let me quote what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) said in 2005, on 24 November, in the debate on the accession for Bulgaria and Romania:

“There is broad cross-party agreement on the objective of bringing Bulgaria and Romania into the European Union…The Conservative party has always been an enthusiastic supporter of enlargement, whether that has involved the 10 states that joined last year, or Bulgaria and Romania, or Turkey and Croatia.”

There are no Liberal Democrats present in the Chamber today, but in the same debate the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“I should also like to join in this festival of cross-party consensus, which I trust will be a rare, if valuable occasion.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2005; Vol. 1641, c. 1716-18.]

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend is taking absolutely the right approach. Another feature of the previous Government, however, was that Ministers constantly went to visit their EU counterparts and engaged in a dialogue about what was happening concerning enlargement. Does he agree that what we should have seen in the run-up to the restrictions being lifted is British Ministers going to see their Romanian and Bulgarian counterparts to look at the push and pull factors and to work out what could be done to assist?

[Mr Hanson]

That would be valuable. We have to have some positive dialogue. Statements have been made in the Chamber today that paint a picture of people from Bulgaria and Romania in one particular category—not all individuals are in the categories referred to today by some hon. Members. We need to look at what measures we can put in place before 31 December, including those the Opposition have suggested in response to the issue.

Members have mentioned a number of issues. There is potentially downward pressure on wages, because of people being undercut. There are recruitment agencies recruiting solely from eastern Europe, which was mentioned again by the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood and for Christchurch (Mr Chope). There are pressures on certain economic markets run by gangmasters with minimum wage, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley); people are coming to this country because they believe that a £4 or £5 an hour wage packet is better than a £2 an hour equivalent wage packet in their home country. Whatever happens on 31 December and whatever numbers of individuals come to the United Kingdom, I therefore want to see a real focus by the Government on enforcement of the minimum wage as a starting point. We need to put some effort in, not only through Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, but by looking at the possibility of giving local authorities the power to enforce the minimum wage, so that we can have greater enforcement, potentially stopping the undercutting of wages that the hon. Gentleman and others have referred to.

We need to look at enforcement of the Equality Act 2010. The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned recruitment from eastern Europe. It is illegal to recruit individuals based on their race or nationality under that Act, but it is not widely enforced. I have discussed that with the Minister and he has agreed to look at it and refer it to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

[Mr Harper]

I have done so.

[Mr Hanson]

I am glad the Minister has done that, because I recently gave chapter and verse in the Immigration Bill Committee on a number of recruitment agencies that are recruiting to fill positions in the United Kingdom solely with people from abroad.

We need to take greater action on the enforcement of housing regulations. Only yesterday, I was pleased to see the Prime Minister—again, I give credit when it is due—visiting a raid on a beds-in-sheds encampment in Southall. One aspect of immigration that greatly upsets my constituents in north Wales is when individuals share properties in squalid conditions and so are able to undercut wages locally, because the low standard of their accommodation means they do not have the outgoings that other people have. We also wish to look at extending legislation on gangmasters. It is perfectly reasonable to put controls in and extend gangmaster legislation to sectors to which it does not apply at the moment, such as catering and tourism.

There is action that we can take, but—and this is not intended to provoke a political fight—I genuinely do not think that the approach that some hon. Members are taking, of arguing that the transitional controls should be extended beyond 31 December, is the right one: we know, as do they, that that is a matter for treaty negotiation. Nor do I think, speaking with genuine humility, that the approach of withdrawal from the European Union is one that I can support. The European Union provides significant investments to constituencies such as mine. It also provides significant employment and a proper standard of working conditions across the board.

Furthermore, although this might not be a common thought at the moment, just under 100 years ago my grandfather was fighting Germans, Romanians and Bulgarians in the trenches and Turks in the middle east. But now, we have not had a world war for a generation and there is a stability that would surprise my grandfather if he were alive today. People from Germany, Romania, Bulgaria and Britain now sit in the same chamber to discuss issues of common economic and social interest whereas in his generation Europe was at war. That view of the European Union and the potential of a strong future Europe might not be a common one, but it is one that I hold passionately.

[Mark Reckless]

I am sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman’s grandfather was fighting the Romanians during the first world war, because I understand that Romania was on the allied side in that conflict.

[Mr Hanson]

My grandfather was fighting Germans and Bulgarians, but let us put that aside. He was in the trenches at Neuve Chappelle in 1915 and at the Somme in 1916, and in Sinai in 1917. He was fighting people who now sit in the same Parliament here and elsewhere in Europe. That is good for the stability of Europe. Perhaps I made a slip, but the point I am making is that the stability we have gained, through a wider economic union and through shared social conditions, is a good thing. Hon. Members have stated we should withdraw, but in my view that would be a bad thing.

We need to look at how we can put labour market conditions in place after 1 January to strengthen our position. I would also, if I may, stretch out a hand of friendship to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, who made a strong case for looking at other areas of immigration, including student immigration, tourism and business investment. There may not actually be that many people coming from Bulgaria and Romania in January at all—whether to claim benefits or to work—but the danger is that today’s debate could send a signal that Britain is closed for business, when there is a positive case to be made for some aspects of immigration and for managed migration. However, we need to have controlled migration, to remove people who are here illegally and to ensure that we have strong borders. We also need to ensure that we deport foreign criminals, as the hon. Member for Kettering said; I have to tell him that since my time as Prisons Minister, the rate of removal of foreign national offenders has fallen by 13.5%.

There are things that we can and should do, but we should approach the matter in a calm and measured way on 1 January. I also look forward to a calm and measured debate on the remaining stages of the Immigration Bill.