Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart
I think I took part in practically all the debates in this House on these issues—indeed, the hon. Gentleman and I would have sat on the same Benches when arguing against what new Labour was trying to create with these measures. He is right: are such measures necessary? One individual in the country is subject to a TPIM, yet we are discussing the issue in Parliament and ensuring that what will probably be expensive resources are allocated to ensure that this new restrictive measure goes through. Is it worth while?
I do not like TPIMs—the Minister knows that—and I disliked control orders even more. Are they necessary? I suspect not. Do they do anything to make our nation safe? No, they do not. Should we be doing other things to make our country safe? Yes, we should, but unfortunately no amendment has been tabled that will deal with those issues. I hope that the Minister is not in the mood to accept Labour’s suggestions—
Pete Wishart
I see by his response that he is not. I hope the amendments are rejected and that in future we do something that will make our country safe without having to resort to measures such as TPIMs.
Mr Howarth
I am interested in the hon. Lady’s intervention. Later in the proceedings we will discuss intercept evidence, although I suspect that she will take an entirely different view on that from me, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the Minister. I hope to comment on the limitations of intercept evidence because it is not always feasible to rely wholly on evidence that in some cases may not exist. Some people may operate in a world where they are not connected online, and do not make telephone calls or give any indication of their intentions. The obvious example is Roshonara Choudhry who was convicted and is now serving a prison sentence for trying to kill a Member of this House. It would have been impossible to find out through intercept evidence what she was intending to do, so there is not always the possibility of relying on that entirely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked the Minister a series of questions and I hope he will respond positively. For some people the court system is not appropriate although they are known to be a threat for various reasons, and there must be some way of dealing with that.
James Brokenshire
The contribution by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, encapsulates some of the challenges and difficulties surrounding the principles of this debate. It is notable that contributions over the past hour have been about some of the principal issues concerning the types of measures that should be available to deal with the threat of terrorism, as well as—obviously and rightly—more detailed examination of the Bill.
We have had this debate on previous occasions, and I respect the view of the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), whose approach has been entirely consistent. In some cases, however, there will be an inability either to prosecute or deport an individual, yet a significant risk will be attached to them—the point made by the right hon. Member for Knowsley. The Government have a responsibility to deal with that risk.
My strong preference would be for prosecutions—absolutely, there are no two ways about it—but that is not always possible for a range of reasons. That is the challenge the Government face in terms of seeing the threat and the risk, and being able to assure national security, as the public and the House would expect. Therefore, reluctantly, a measure is required, and we judge that TPIMs are the appropriate way to meet that risk and challenge. I would prefer that that were not the case—in that I agree with the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion and for Perth and North Perthshire—but from the intelligence picture that I have seen and the advice I have been given, sadly and regrettably I believe that TPIMs are necessary to be able to guard national security in that way.
Since April 2010 more than 750 people have been arrested for terrorism-related offences. More than 210 have been charged and more than 140 successfully prosecuted. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) that the introduction of TPIMs was part of a careful and considered counter-terrorism review. She will recall the debates. Consideration was not rushed, but made on the basis of careful analysis of all counter-terrorism legislation to examine the risk and the threat, and what was appropriate and proportionate. That led to a number of changes under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the point that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire was underlining. An assessment was made of which powers were no longer necessary because they no longer added to the protection of the public. That is why we made a number of changes and I was proud to be the Minister leading that Bill through the House. It was part of the process of constantly evaluating and assessing the measures in place in order to consider what is proportionate, appropriate and necessary to guard our national security. In our judgment it is appropriate to make further changes, which is why we seek to bring these measures before the Committee today.
TPIMs have always been part of a package of legislative measures and investment provided to the police and security services to undertake further investigations. That investment will have led to other prosecutions. People who not have gone on to a TPIM have been brought before the courts as a consequence of that investment in capabilities. That is a positive result and something I think right hon. and hon. Members wish to see.
The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 provides a powerful range of measures to manage the threat from terrorists who cannot be prosecuted or deported. TPIM notices are imposed only in cases that require stringent measures, but where they are used, they provide a valuable capability. The Government are committed to ensuring that the appropriate tools are available to our security services and the police for the protection of national security. That is why clause 12 introduces a new power for the Secretary of State to compel a TPIM subject to reside anywhere in the UK, subject to the restrictions we have talked about in the debate thus far. It is important to recognise the benefits that accrue and that there are safeguards in place. The Secretary of State has to make an assessment to determine whether a TPIM should be granted, why we judge it is human rights compliant and how that view has been upheld by the courts.
Caroline Lucas
Perhaps I am pre-empting the Minister, but I wanted to press him on clause 13. He talks about safeguards and so on, but how can he justify the fact that a 10-year prison sentence could be handed down to someone who may never have been arrested, let alone convicted, of a terrorism offence? That length of sentence is higher than that given for many violent offences that have been properly proved.
James Brokenshire
It is a question of the seriousness of the measures. We recognise, because of the changes we are making, that there should be a higher burden placed on the Secretary of State in determining whether one of these measures should be provided. That is why we have moved this up to the “balance of probabilities”. Let us not forget that under the previous control orders regime it was not at that level, but two notches down at “reasonable suspicion”. Under TPIMs, we brought it up to “reasonable belief” and, on the balance of the measures we now have, we judge that moving to the “balance of probabilities” is the right stance to take. I will come on to clause 13 later.
The changes are being introduced in the light of the changing threat picture: the ongoing conflict in Syria and Iraq; the fact that 500 subjects of interest have travelled to that region; the risk that they may pose on their return; and the risk of more people seeking to travel out. It is against that assessment that the threat level has been raised to severe, the second highest threat level, and that has had an impact on our assessment of the measures that need to be available to the police and the Security Service, and it is why we have brought forward the measures in this way.
The measures also follow the recommendations from David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, in his most recent annual report on TPIMs. As he has said, however, there is no need to turn back the clock. Control orders were not working and were being struck down by the courts, whereas TPIMs have been consistently upheld and therefore provide a basis in law that is robust and has withstood the scrutiny of the courts. TPIMs have been endorsed by the courts, counter-terrorism reviewers, the police and the Security Service. This change enhances the powers available to manage TPIM subjects by moving them away from harmful associates and making it harder for them to engage in terrorism-related activity. That is why we judge, at this time against the threat picture we see, that it is appropriate to introduce these measures.
It is important, however, that appropriate limits are placed on the use of the powers, and the Bill seeks to do that. We are also acting on David Anderson’s other recommendation to increase the test for imposing a TPIM notice, so that the Secretary of State must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that an individual is, or has been involved, in terrorism-related activity, as well as narrowing the definition of what that activity can entail.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I intervene on my hon. Friend as someone who supported the original move from control orders to TPIMs and thought the Government had got the balance about right in the original proposals. I am just wondering what the particular reason is for reintroducing the location requirements. What has been revealed to be missing by getting rid of them? They were thought to be a great restriction on freedom. The shadow Minister appears to believe that two people absconded because there was no location requirement. I think it is possible to put on a burqa wherever one is living and that it is quite possible to get into a black cab if someone has let one keep one’s passport. If that is being used as a reason, it strikes me as an excuse for letting two people go.
James Brokenshire
In large measure, it has been the changing nature of the threat picture. My right hon. and learned Friend will know from his time in government that in the past two years we have seen a very altered threat picture and, as he will no doubt recognise, a rise in the threat level earlier this year. The Government need to consider, in a responsible fashion, that changed threat picture and the advice we received from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The proposals in the Bill are formed with that insight clearly in mind and David Anderson’s specific recommendation on this point. It has been against all those factors that we have judged that the right thing to do is to introduce the measures in this way, subject to the safeguards I have spoken about in respect of the change in the burden of proof and the specific limitation on relocation being limited to 200 miles from the location of the individual. I will come on to speak on that in a more direct fashion, recognising the point the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North rightly raised in her amendment.
Pete Wishart
I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), with his years of distinguished service to the House, deserves a better answer than that pathetic response from the Minister. The question the Minister has to answer is: why? What evidence does he have to suggest that relocation is now necessary? Why relocation? Why now?
James Brokenshire
If the hon. Gentleman is not able to recognise the change in the nature of the threat and the evolving picture taking place in recent months, I am sorry he is blind to it. The Government have a responsibility to respond to it in a fair way. We have to take into consideration the advice we receive from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and listen to the Security Service and the police, who we have consulted, to ensure we have the right package of measures, challenging ourselves and others, to do all we can in a proportionate and necessary way to ensure that those agencies have the appropriate powers to guard against the changed risk picture, as well as ensuring an appropriate balance between privacy and security. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and learned Friend on the issue of absconds. A point that David Anderson made directly was that the only way in which one could be absolutely certain that someone was unable to abscond was by putting them in a prison cell, which is why my preference always is to seek a prosecution, when the evidence is there. The challenge is that it is not always available.
James Brokenshire
This is intended to be a very focused power on the basis—rightly, as we have discussed—that our strong preference is to see prosecution, and that it is only in the cases where prosecution, or indeed deportation, is not available to us that we would need to rely on the use of the TPIM measures. As no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there have been 10 TPIM notices imposed since their introduction. Perhaps that gives him some reassurance that this is not reached for as the first option. Indeed, we always look for prosecution, and there is a requirement in the TPIM legislation to show that those steps have been explored and that there is no reasonable prospect of being able to secure that.
The impact on communities was carefully considered at the time of the counter-terrorism review and, indeed, led to the creation of the TPIMs Act and the measures that we now have on the statute book. In placing this type of restriction—now that we are saying we believe that relocation is appropriate in the light of the changed picture—it should not be unbounded; hence this restriction is in place so that an individual may only be a few hours’ away from their family rather than relocated to the other side of the country.
Should exceptional circumstances arise that require more stringent measures, we retain the ability to enact the Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, which has passed pre-legislative scrutiny. This Bill includes a range of more stringent powers, including curfews of up to 16 hours. As we said at the time of the counter-terrorism review, we reserve the right to be able to do that in those exceptional circumstances.
Clause 13 amends the TPIMs Act and allows the Secretary of State to impose restrictions on an individual from leaving either the UK or a specified area within the UK within which they reside, and increases the maximum sentence for breaching this measure to 10 years, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has said. This underlines the Government’s commitment to ensuring that TPIM subjects are appropriately managed, but that if they breach their TPIM notice, appropriate sentences will be given to recognise the seriousness of the issues at hand. I hope that the House is reassured that these measures strike the right balance between privacy and security and, on this basis, I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 7 would insert a new clause 6B after clause 14, which is entitled “TPIMs: weapons and explosives measure”. Both the weapons and explosives measure and the proposed new clause 6B are designed to put beyond doubt what a TPIM subject is permitted to have access to on a TPIM notice. This amendment seeks to add an additional requirement in that respect.
The hon. Lady asked a series of questions that were linked to this issue in relation to the vetting and barring service and what might apply. Perhaps I can reassure her that someone who wants to work in a school or other educational establishment will be eligible to obtain an enhanced criminal records certificate from the Disclosure and Barring Service, as the hon. Lady will know. The certificate will include convictions and cautions held on the police national computer, plus any other information that is available to the police and which a chief police officer both reasonably believes to be relevant and considers ought to be disclosed. This may include the fact that a person was or is subject to a TPIM notice. In addition the legislation governing barring allows specific criteria to be prescribed that would require someone to be automatically barred. There would be scope to use the provision in relation to a TPIM if that were considered appropriate. This is something that we already cover in the TPIM legislation, in that the Act provides the ability to prevent TPIM subjects from taking part in a regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults and children under the association measure in schedule 1(8) or the work or studies measure in schedule 1(9).
The association measure in schedule 1 allows the Secretary of State to impose a requirement that a TPIM subject must not associate or communicate with specified persons, or specified descriptions of persons, without permission. In addition, the work or studies measure allows the Secretary of State to impose a restriction on a TPIM subject carrying out specified types of work, which includes unpaid work, or studies without the permission of the Secretary of State. We can and do use these measures to prevent TPIM subjects from associating with particular people or working or studying in areas that are assessed to be inappropriate. The measure proposed in this amendment duplicates that measure, which is why we judge that it is neither appropriate nor needed.
Diana Johnson
Just to be clear: if somebody is subject to a TPIM order, work that is voluntary and is not in a regulated activity could, under the current legislation, be something that the person is not allowed to take part in by decision of the Home Secretary.
James Brokenshire
That is the very point; we have that ability from the work and studies measure to be able to control that, and the Secretary of State effectively has to give permission for work to be conducted. There is an additional measure, plus the information that will be provided. The police update the police national computer when a TPIM subject has a notice imposed to ensure that this information can be taken into account in relation to any decision and checks on the subject, so it is flagged in that way. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady assurance on that specific point.
As I said, amendment 7 would amend the appointments measure in clause 15, which allows the Secretary of State to require an individual to attend meetings as specified by the Secretary of State. The appointments measure is already a broad power that allows the Secretary of State to require a TPIM subject to meet relevant organisations or people who can contribute to their ongoing management. The measure already includes the ability to require TPIM subjects to attend a deradicalisation programme, with persons involved in delivering programmes established under part 5, chapter 2 of the Bill. In our judgment, it is therefore unnecessary explicitly to specify this as part of the appointments measure. In essence, the existing language is broad enough and sufficient to allow us to require the link with deradicalisation programmes.
The hon. Lady flagged up some other issues relating to offensive weapons and explosives. On that, we are seeking to put the issues beyond doubt. There is, of course, existing legislation that governs some of these issues, and it is our judgment that it ensures that these items are properly and firmly addressed. As I have indicated, the link to the police national computer is already there. This further underlines and underpins each of the specific issues already on the statute book.
On the boundary that could be imposed, there is further specific provision on the requirement for the Secretary of State to provide certain guidance and indications on the factors that will be used in the assessment. These can include the original location of the TPIM subject; access to services; ability to prevent or restrict involvement in terrorism-related activity; proximity to airports or ports; and proximity to other TPIM subjects or prohibited associates. Those are the sort of factors that can be taken into account.
The definition of terrorism-related activity, to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North referred, was followed through in David Anderson’s recommendations. His concern about the existing definition was that it has people almost three steps removed from the activity. We have consulted the police and security services in respect of this amendment, and they have been reflecting on David Anderson’s consideration. We continue to judge that the measures remain appropriate.
I will gladly answer any of the hon. Lady’s questions if I have omitted to do so, but I think what I have said covers the bulk of what she asked.
Diana Johnson
I do not recall the Minister responding to my point about families and whether a relocation of an individual could also include young children and a partner. It would be helpful to understand that situation.
James Brokenshire
Yes, families could live in the accommodation to which the TPIM subject has been relocated. In that relocation situation, it would be for the Home Office to provide the accommodation, as has happened under previous arrangements. We would seek to adhere to the same circumstances.
With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Lady will be minded to withdraw the amendment.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the many lengthy questions I put to him. We have had a useful opportunity to understand the thinking behind clauses 12 to 16. As I indicated at the outset, the amendments I tabled were probing ones, intended to allow us to have this debate and to understand more fully the thinking behind the Government’s approach.
It is clear, however, that no one absconded under a control order with a relocation power, and it is worth reiterating that, but on the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Retention of relevant data
John McDonnell
That is a valid point. I tabled the amendments to say that there is a sense of urgency. Something needs to be done now; some steps need to be taken immediately—before the Anderson review, to be frank.
I have raised this matter previously and engaged in dialogue with the Minister. I have a clutch of papers here, because I wanted to be sure of the accuracy of my remarks. I raised it way back on 22 July, in the debate on regulations made under DRIPA. The Minister responded in a letter received on 28 July:
“The Government…intend to bring forward amendments to the Acquisition and Disclosure Code of Practice to make this clear”.
What he was making clear was, I think, the importance of some form of understanding of the role of journalists and their sources, and therefore sensitivity in the approach taken. That becomes even more important now that in this legislation we are extending the range of the data to be collected. I take the point that this does not identify individuals, but on the information provided by Big Brother Watch and contained in the House of Commons research paper, the definitions have been narrowed. Big Brother Watch is concerned about
“the possibility of more personal information being accessed than first implied. … This means that the identity of an individual has the potential to be fully revealed by these powers.”
There is thus some uncertainty about how the powers could be used to drill down into the information to identify an individual and therefore a source and put everyone at risk.
I do not believe that the code has yet been published. I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to tell me.
James Brokenshire
I intend to address that point specifically when I respond to the debate, which I hope will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
John McDonnell
I am never sure what it means when a Minister says that he is about to be helpful. He was helpful when I led a delegation from the NUJ with its lawyer to meet the civil servants who were drafting the new code of practice. We put some suggestions to them. I note—I am sorry to scramble around with these bits of paper—that the new code of practice on covert surveillance comes into effect on 10 December, and it covers legally privileged and confidential information. It demonstrates that particular care should be taken in cases in which the subject of the investigation or operation might reasonably expect a high degree of privacy or where confidential information is involved. Confidential information consists of communications subject to legal privilege, communications between a Member of Parliament and another person—the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley raised—on constituency matters, confidential personal information or confidential journalistic material, so there is an element of reference to privilege and the role of journalists in other codes coming into force this week.
At this stage, it is critical that the code is published and implemented as quickly as possible, as a stepping stone to what might then come out of the wider review. I tabled an amendment to ensure that the legislation should not be implemented until the review is concluded, and I can argue that case. Hon. Members can see where I am coming from. I want a sense of urgency to give at least some protection to journalists in the interim before the review is published, which I believe it will be in a period of time that has been designated. I hope that the review will contain a recommendation that there should be some process in which the courts are involved. I do not believe that there will be sufficient protection against in-house decisions by any authority, be it the police, the intelligence services or, as we have seen with RIPA, local authorities and other agencies, which have used RIPA to investigate their staff, journalists and others on some of the most trivial grounds. In one instance, it was for the protection of the council’s reputation. I do not believe that in-house procedures would satisfy the general public or Members of this House. That is why I hope that some process will come out of the review which will involve the courts. My view is that there should be not just a review of the process but in some instances a review of the merits of the case itself.
I note that not just this review but a range of reviews are taking place. I also note that some momentum is building for involving the courts. The Deputy Prime Minister and—well, blow me—the Mayor of London have called for the law to be changed to require a judge to sign off applications involving the data of journalists. The Government would be wise, once the review is finished, to come forward with proposals that involve some form of judicial oversight of the process. That would build the confidence of professionals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North raised the issue of other professions. I understand her particular example involving the medical profession, but that would be determined by a court. The merits of the case plus the process would be argued in such a case.
John McDonnell
Let me give one example of where RIPA was used. The case of Kirsty Green was in the evidence presented to the Home Affairs Committee by Michelle Stanistreet, the general secretary of the NUJ. Kirsty was a former regional newspaper journalist. Derby council spied on her meeting with local authority staff in 2009. Two Derby city council employees watched her when, as Derby Telegraph’s local government correspondent, she met four current and former council employees in a Starbucks coffee shop. The local authority said that RIPA was used to get surveillance authority for officials because they were protecting the council’s interests. The consequences for those individuals was a risk to their job in the local authority.
It is important that communication is protected, but names and sources also have to be protected, especially for whistleblowers, as we have seen when social workers have come forward in child abuse cases. The right hon. Gentleman makes the point well, but to me it emphasises even further the need for some judicial process in the oversight of access to the data and the way in which the legislation has been proposed.
James Brokenshire
We have had an interesting and informative debate focusing on the broader aspects of the ability of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies to do their job in a fast-moving environment where technology continues to change, and their ability to continue to protect us in those circumstances. I will argue that we have an eroding capability and although the measure will deal with one element, there is still more that we need to do. That is a point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has intervened on other speakers in the debate and he is right to make the point. I will come on to the possible next steps in the context of the various reviews that are taking place.
The gap was highlighted by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). I know that his Committee is looking carefully at the issue of privacy versus security. The need to strike a balance between them and some of the issues arising from that have rightly been played out in the context of interception, data retention and communications data. I look forward to the publication of the Committee’s report, which I expect to be extremely informative in this regard.
Mark Field
Without giving a preview of anything in the Committee report, I think it is important, for the benefit of the House and those Members who take the matter very seriously, that we should remember that privacy and security are not a zero sum game. Although my hon. Friend uses the word “balance”, as many of us do from time to time, there is also a sense that these are important safeguards individually and in their own right. One of the broader recommendations that we make from the evidence we took from a wide range of people is that the notion that there is a balance and a zero sum game should be dispelled.
James Brokenshire
I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, he will recognise the challenges. He is right to underline the significance and to reiterate what I said on Second Reading—that security and liberty should be mutually reinforcing. His point about it not being a zero sum game is well made.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who speaks for the Opposition, identified a list of 10 points, and I will do my best to respond to some of them. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) underlined the role of sensitive categories of person and additional safeguards that may be provided in respect of them when we consider communications data and the ability of the police to request such data. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) pointed out, we are looking at metadata—who said what to whom, when and where—rather than the content.
It is clear from the contributions that we have heard that gaps in communications data capability have a serious impact on the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to carry out their functions—the point that was made clearly by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and the shadow Minister. One such gap is internet protocol address resolution. The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 maintained our lawful data retention regime. It did not create any additional powers, nor did it address any of the gaps in capability. To respond to the point made by the hon. Lady, we remain confident about the manner in which it did that in seeking to address the points raised by the European Court of Justice.
Clause 17 amends that Act—DRIPA—to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time. Every internet user is assigned an IP address to ensure that communications service providers know which data should go to which customer and route it accordingly. Addresses are sometimes assigned to a specific device, such as a broadband router located in a home or within the work environment, but they are usually shared between multiple users—hundreds or even thousands—and allocated automatically by the provider’s systems. Many providers currently have no business reason for keeping a log of who has used each address. It is therefore not always possible for law enforcement agencies accessing the data to identify who was using an IP address at any specific point in time.
The provision would ensure that these data are available to law enforcement. It would improve the ability of the police and other agencies to identify terror suspects who may be communicating with each other via the internet and plotting attacks. It would also help to identify and prosecute paedophiles, organised criminals, cyber-bullies and computer hackers, and to protect vulnerable people. For example, it could be used to identify a child who has threatened over social media to commit suicide. The IP address has direct relevance to all these issues and it is evidence that can be brought before the court. In the context of the previous debate, it is often instrumental in bringing prosecutions. Communications data are used in about 95% of all serious crime prosecutions, so they have a direct utility.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Just a question to the Minister—does this also apply to medical in confidence communication between, say, a doctor and a patient, and documents being intercepted, or am I totally out to lunch, as it were?
James Brokenshire
I am not sure that my hon. Friend would ever be out to lunch, particularly at 3.26 in the afternoon. I think he is talking about interception. The clause is about the connection, the metadata—about who communicated with whom—rather than the content of the communication. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke specifically about interception and the way in which certain protected categories of individual may be affected. My hon. Friend highlights a specific point, but I will come on to communications data, DRIPA and the codes of practice, and the status of certain individuals in respect of requests that may be made for that information.
Amendment 5, as the hon. Lady explained when she moved it, seeks to limit the scope of the provision to the retention of data that is necessary to allow the identification of a user from a public internet protocol address. I am pleased to say that there is no difference of principle between us on this issue. It is important that this provision goes no further than necessary to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time.
I can confirm that the provision is already limited in the way the Opposition propose. Subsection (3) defines the data to be retained as data that
“may be used to identify, or assist in indentifying, which internet protocol address, or other identifier, belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.
As such, any data that cannot be used to identify, or assist in identifying, the user of an IP address are already outside the scope of the provision. A requirement to retain the data may be imposed only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so.
On the hon. Lady’s specific point about web logs, I can assure the Committee that the Bill is already tightly drafted. In particular, clause 17(3)(c) excludes so-called web logs. It provides for the retention of data relating to IP resolution, and only such data. Anything else is already beyond the scope of what the clause permits. Accordingly, although I entirely agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary.
Mr George Howarth
I have a suggestion. Where a situation is changing rapidly, such issues are sometimes dealt with in legislation by adding a schedule that can then be updated by order. It is not necessarily the best way, but it is one way of dealing with that type of situation.
James Brokenshire
I recognise that in certain circumstances that might be appropriate, but the challenge in this case is the fast-paced nature of technology, which means we would always be playing catch-up. The original RIPA legislation was therefore intended to be technology-neutral so that, if the technology moved on, it was still able to capture that, just as our criminal law is intended to cover all forms of communications. I think that might be a better way of seeking to achieve that. However, that is part and parcel of David Anderson’s review of RIPA, and therefore the existing legislation and a number of the themes that have been touched on by right hon. and hon. Members in this debate, and also the continuing utility of these provisions.
Julian Smith
It will be almost two years since the Liberal Democrats and one or two other Members scuppered the Communications Data Bill. What is the Minister’s assessment of the risk of waiting until next year, because my concern is that the enemy is not going away?
James Brokenshire
This issue is not going away, and we need to make further changes. I can see the eroding capability of our law enforcement and security agencies. While this plugs an element, there is still more to be done to ensure that our police and security services are able to protect us, and that there is evidence that can be presented in court. On these issues relating to communications data, we are talking about evidence, not merely intelligence. These are hard pieces of information that can be presented in court to secure prosecutions. This is really essential because of the underpinning that it provides to our prosecutorial system.
The Bill does not incorporate provisions on weblogs, but apps and weblogs can be directly instructive in this respect, and the House will need to confront that in, I hope, an informed way. The reviews that the Intelligence and Security Committee and David Anderson are undertaking will inform that debate rather than its being completely informed by belief or emotion, important as those elements are to ensure that it is properly reflective of the view of our communities and the public. We must ensure that the facts are there as we examine the picture, in order to provide the basis for a rational debate when the House considers the legislation it will need to pass before December 2016.
Mark Field
Does my hon. Friend accept that another issue, which was skilfully outlined by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is arbitrage, in the sense of authorities being able to choose one piece of legislation rather than another—for example, as he said, RIPA rather than PACE? Given the complications arising from there being more and more legislation in this area, is it not almost essential to move towards a consolidation to ensure that we entirely understand our rights and responsibilities?
James Brokenshire
I am sure that that issue will be presented in representations made to David Anderson as part of his examination. Clearly, none of us will wish in any way to prejudge the way in which that evidence is presented. He intends to report back by May. That is the right timing to ensure that the new Parliament after the next general election has the benefit of seeing his report, which will have examined these issues in close and careful detail.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked about the role of the interception of communications commissioner. He will oversee the acquisition of data retained under clause 17, just as he oversees the acquisition of all communications data retained under DRIPA. The Home Office will ensure that he has the necessary resources to discharge his function.
The hon. Lady referred to multiple requests for traffic and subscriber data. Public authorities can request communications data only when it is considered necessary and proportionate for one of the purposes set out in DRIPA. A communications service provider could disclose only data that have been requested. It is an operational matter for the public authority as to how it makes such requests for data. Where it holds limited information at the outset of the investigation, it is likely that it will need to make more than one request, which means there may be multiple requests relating to a particular criminal inquiry.
The hon. Lady highlighted the issue of costs. The totals that were put into the impact assessment published alongside the Bill were based on studies of IP resolution conducted by the industry and prior work with service providers and the industry on similar projects. This has been an informed process in which there has been consultation with individual service providers likely to be most affected by the provisions of the Bill.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling new clause 2 to highlight the oversight of the acquisition of communications data retained under these provisions. The data retention regulations passed earlier this year specifically require communications service providers, subject to a data retention notice, to retain data in such a way as to ensure that they are available without undue delay in response to requests. I assure the Committee that in the vast majority of cases, data retained under this obligation are disclosed in a timely fashion. Of course, things may not always work perfectly, but there are systems in place that seek to resolve such issues should they arise. Indeed, there are industry groups that work on precisely that. The law enforcement community works closely with the communications service providers, and the Home Office seeks to establish the best technical solutions to support that.
The issue that we hear about more often than that highlighted by the hon. Lady is the broader one of key categories of communications data which communication service providers do not currently retain and which are therefore unavailable to the law enforcement and security agencies that require them. The hon. Lady raised the issue of additional regulations. The provision amends the definition of “relevant communications data”. The regulations use that definition, so there is no need to amend further or to put it in other regulations, because the intention is that they will follow the change being made to this Bill.
On deep packet inspection, no solution will provide for the retention of or access to the content of a communication. Obviously, it is for the companies themselves to decide how best to implement the legal requirements that would be put upon them, but I wanted to make that point clear.
On compatibility with the European Court judgment, we are confident that the legislation passed by Parliament this summer, and this Bill, are fully compliant with all relevant legal provisions.
Although I share the Opposition’s wish to see the most efficient and timely provision of data, I do not believe that the special review proposed by new clause 2 is required. Indeed, if there are concerns they can be referred to David Anderson as part of his review. With that assurance, I hope the hon. Lady will be minded to withdraw her amendment.
In new clause 1, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington raises the specific and important issue of the position of journalists and others in relation to sensitive provision. He and I debated the issue when the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 made its way through Parliament this summer. Let me be clear that a free press is fundamental to a free society, and the Government are determined that nothing be done to put that at risk. Although most of the focus in the debate has been on journalists, the same issues arise equally in respect of other sensitive occupations, as Members have highlighted. Individuals should be able to speak freely and frankly to their lawyers if we are to have justice in this country. Similarly, patients must be able to speak freely to doctors, and constituents to their Members of Parliament.
I do not believe that anyone would question that those are important principles, but equally I hope that no one would take issue with the proposition that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies need the tools to carry out their vital roles. They carry out a difficult job day in, day out, protecting the public from crime and from terrorism. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides a clear legal basis for many of their critical investigative powers, including the acquisition and disclosure of communications data. The current process is clear and accountable and includes a strong and rigorous system of oversight. I have already explained what communications data are, but they do not contain the content of the communication.
I should like to point out that the interception of communications commissioner has said that communications data
“do not contain any details of what was said or written by the sender or the recipient of the communication. As such, the communications data retained by CSPs do not contain any material that may be said to be of professional or legal privilege—the fact that a communication took place does not provide what was discussed or considered or advised.”
The point that the data do not attract any form of legal or professional privilege is important. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that they are sensitive data that need to be protected accordingly.
The process of acquiring communications data requires a designated person—a senior officer of a rank stipulated by Parliament—to examine applications for such data, which can be authorised only when the officer is fully satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate to acquire those data. The applications are facilitated by individuals known as single points of contact, who are trained in this area and can provide expert advice and support to the designated person.
John McDonnell
I am grateful to the Minister for launching the consultation on the code of practice. It is important to have a balanced view of the Home Affairs Committee report, which concluded that
“RIPA is not fit for purpose”.
Although it did go so far as to make a specific recommendation on the involvement of the courts, the Committee suggested that
“the Home Office use the current review of the RIPA Code to ensure that law enforcement agencies use their RIPA powers properly.”
What action has the Minister taken on that point, bearing in mind that a legal action is also taking place at the moment?
James Brokenshire
I am constrained in what I can say because of the legal action that the hon. Gentleman highlights, but I hope he will see that the code of practice and the consultation address a number of the key recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee report that was published on Saturday, such as those on the manner in which the existing legislation is operated in practice.
The hon. Gentleman will know that David Anderson is conducting a broader examination of the legislation, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and will report in May. That will inform consideration in the next Parliament of the provisions that are on the statute book. I assure him that it will address the issue of separation and the need for additional consideration to be given to requests that touch on protected professions.
However, I would not want an amendment that was passed today to pre-empt the interception of communications commissioner’s inquiry. We do not know what he will conclude. It is right that we should wait for him to report and then consider his recommendations, rather than make a major change now, when questions have been raised about the benefits and utility of such an approach.
Finally, I hope to deal swiftly with amendment 11, which would prevent the provisions relating to IP resolution from being brought into force until the interception of communications commissioner had completed his review of the accessing of journalists’ communications data, to which I just referred. I think I can reassure hon. Members on that point. As I have said, the commissioner intends to report by the end of January. The Bill will not complete its passage through this House until after the Christmas recess. After that, it needs to go through the House of Lords and there might have to be consideration of Lords amendments in this House. Even without that, there seems to be no way the Bill could achieve Royal Assent before the commissioner reports at the end of January. We therefore do not believe that amendment 11 is required.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.
Diana Johnson
I thank the Minister for going through all the questions that I posed. On the basis of what he has said, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Authority-to-carry schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Amess)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 19 and 20 stand part.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
James Brokenshire
Part 4 and schedule 2 deal with aviation, maritime and rail security. For the benefit of the Committee, I will go through each of the provisions, listen to right hon. and hon. Members’ contributions and then respond to their questions. I welcome the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to the Opposition Front Bench. He has taken a close interest in these issues.
Clause 18 provides a new legal basis for the operation of authority-to-carry schemes, which are commonly known as no-fly schemes. We have a scheme in place that relates to passengers being carried to the UK. The clause makes provision for a broader scheme that relates to individuals who are arriving or are expected to arrive in the UK, and individuals who are leaving or are expected to leave the UK.
Authority to carry is necessary to prevent the entry or return to the UK of foreign nationals who pose a terrorism-related threat and to mitigate the threat of an attack, primarily on aircraft. It is also necessary to disrupt the return to the UK, and prevent the departure from the UK, of British nationals who are subject to legal restrictions on their travel. Under the clause, any scheme must set out the carriers to which it applies and the classes of individuals a carrier may be refused authority to carry to or from the UK. Classes of individuals may be specified in a scheme only if it is necessary in the public interest. When travelling to the UK, that could include persons who are excluded or have been deported from the UK, individuals whose presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good, and those who would otherwise be inadmissible to the UK. It may also include individuals subject to a temporary exclusion order under clause 2.
When travelling from the UK, carriers might be directed not to carry individuals subject to a TPIM or a post-custodial licence preventing travel following a conviction for a terrorism-related offence. The scheme may also include individuals who have had their passport cancelled or not issued on public interest grounds, or seized under powers in schedule 1. Any scheme must set out the process for carriers to request authority to carry, and state how that authority is granted or refused. That may include requirements for carriers to provide passenger information by a certain time before departure, or for carriers to be able to receive information that grants or refuses authority to carry in a way compatible with the Government’s border system.
We will work with carriers to resolve any compliance issues, but if a carrier fails to comply, clause 19 provides regulations to impose a civil penalty on those who breach a scheme. The new regulations set out how a penalty will be calculated, imposed and enforced, and must provide a means for carriers to object to a proposed penalty. The regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, and the authority-to-carry scheme to which the regulations refer must be laid in Parliament at the same time.
Clause 20 makes provision for schedule 2 to the Bill. Part 1 of schedule 2 amends passenger, crew and service information relating to aircraft and ships, and may be extended to international trains through secondary legislation. Paragraphs 1(2) and 1(3) mean that a carrier may be required to be able to receive communications about information that it has provided to the border authorities in a way compatible with the Government’s border system. That might be a simple receipt, or an alert about errors in the format of the information.
Paragraphs 1(4) and 1(7) of schedule 2 allow the regulations to introduce requirements for advance information about persons on flights or voyages to and from the UK that do not operate to a published schedule—collectively referred to as “general aviation” and “general maritime.” The regulations will set out the classes of ships or aircraft to which they apply, the information required, the time by which it must be supplied, and how it is to be supplied. That will allow a much clearer picture of incoming and outgoing traffic and the identification of aircraft and ships that require close attention from the border authorities. Those paragraphs also provide for regulations to impose a civil penalty for a failure to comply with new requirements to provide information. The regulations may set out how a penalty will be calculated, administered and enforced, and make provision for an appeal.
Bob Stewart
The Minister has not mentioned this so far, although I assume he will come to it, but is it correct to say that if a carrier brings someone to this country whom we do not want to come, not only will it receive a civil penalty, it has a responsibility to take that person back to whence they came immediately?
James Brokenshire
As my hon. Friend will realise, provisions in the Bill overlap with other issues and provisions. He will be aware of sanctions that are already available and establish penalties for those who have no lawful authority to be in the UK, and of the checks that are obliged on people to ensure that appropriate visa or other requirements are in place. These measures build on that and there are established processes for the return of individuals who should not be here.
The new transport security provisions in part 2 of schedule 2 build on existing powers and enhance our ability to respond effectively to transport-related terrorism threats. They amend transport security legislation to strengthen existing powers and require certain security measures to be implemented before an operator may operate into the UK or, in the case of ships, a UK port. The schedule makes similar provisions for services in the aviation, maritime and rail transport industries.
The schedule inserts provisions into the respective aviation, rail and maritime statutes enabling faster collection of security related information from operators. It provides enabling powers to make regulations, imposing a wider range of methods for electronic service of security directions or requests for information, to ensure that security directions become effective in the shortest possible time. In addition, it inserts a power into the Aviation Security Act 1982 for the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce civil sanctions for non-compliance by the aviation industry, with information requests or security directions subject to the affirmative procedure.
Julian Smith
We are all aware that Eurotunnel is expanding its services, with more train services going to the continent. Will the Minister confirm that the provisions will apply to those services?
James Brokenshire
Under existing regulations and requirements, existing Eurostar and freight services through the channel tunnel are already obliged to meet security requirements on screening and other steps. The intent behind the provisions in the Bill is to look to a future where we have open access, and ensure we have the ability to impose similar controls, assurances and protections in relation to security. It is precisely for that future-proofing that we are introducing the provisions. I hope that explanation is helpful to the Committee.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
There has been a change on the Opposition Front Bench, while the Minister has had to continue, but I assure him that he will have our support on this group.
There is a substantial and severe threat of terrorist attack in the United Kingdom and the Opposition support the broad thrust of these measures. The Minister did not explicitly say it, but the explanatory notes indicate that about 500 individuals have travelled to Syria and Iraq because of their wish to join terrorist organisations, in particular ISIL. The measures are designed to enhance legislation—section 124 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, put in place by the previous Labour Government, and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Authority to Carry) Regulations 2012—in response to the changed circumstances. We support the broad thrust of the measures.
I have a few questions for the Minister and I hope he will reflect on them. They relate mostly to consultation, cost and scope. The Minister said that clauses 18 and 19 form the main provisions for the changes to authority-to-carry schemes, and that clause 20 and schedule 2 amend the law on the provision of information from carriers to the Secretary of State. The explanatory notes state that the Minister has undertaken a consultation, but I think he will recognise that the consultation was swift, if I may say so, and relatively short. I would welcome information on who responded to the consultation and what the responses were. If he does not have that information today, perhaps he could write to me.
I raise those issues because the Government’s impact assessment makes it clear that the measures, although welcome, relate to border security and will cost UK-registered businesses about £2.1 million net cost a year, with start-up costs approaching £10 million, at £9.7 million. The Minister has information relating to 11 scheduled registered carriers, but he will know that 144 carriers were not included in the assessment. Many carriers do not currently have the systems, which are referred to in previous legislation, in place. Scheduled carriers may be required to install interactive systems that would mean no-fly alerts and passenger screening requirements provided directly into carriers’ systems. The impact assessment makes it clear that while there are 11 registered carriers, of which only one already uses the system the Government want, there are 144 carriers operating scheduled flights into and out of the UK that are not UK-registered, of which only 11 use the system the Government want to introduce. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister not just as to the discussions he has had with the registered carriers, but on what assessment he has made of the wider costs for those carriers that are not registered. For a non-interactive carrier, the estimated cost of implementing an interactive system is £975,000, with annual maintenance costs of £125,000. That means that there could be costs of around £139 million to non-UK carriers who do not have those systems in place.
The impact assessment says:
“The consultation to gather relevant data was brief. Whilst data was provided by a sample of UK carriers we cannot be sure they are fully representative. In addition different carriers may face different costs dependent on their size or their existing systems. In the absence of this data we assume that carriers are all affected in the same way.”
That is the Government’s own impact assessment and it is really important that, as part of our consideration this afternoon, we have some indication from the Minister of the consultation responses. He may well already have published these—sometimes things pass one by in opposition—and if so, I would be grateful if he could refer me to where they are. If not, I would be grateful if he published the responses to the consultation.
It is also important—the Minister has touched on this—that the clauses ultimately include rail, maritime and non-scheduled aviation traffic as part of the regime that he is seeking to introduce. But I believe—I would welcome his confirmation—that there has been limited, or dare I say nil, consultation with rail, maritime and other suppliers. The Minister has indicated that there will be affirmative resolutions on these matters, but I would welcome him confirming at what stage he intends to undertake further consultation on costs and implementation with rail and maritime providers.
I have had a helpful brief from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which has raised a number of issues, some of which the Minister will be able to answer. But it is important that we are clear that the Minister’s aspiration—one shared by the Labour party—to have exit and entry checks undertaken at the earliest opportunity is separate from the measures in the Bill, particularly given the difficulties we have had with the e-Borders programme recently, the cancellation of e-Borders and the progress that the Government seek on an entry and exit check by April 2015. Helpfully the Minister has today answered a parliamentary question to indicate that that is still the Government’s objective but I just wanted to examine the relationship between the proposals in the clause, which may not be in law until February or March next year, and the wider exit and entry checks the Government are seeking to introduce.
I would particularly welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the measures in the Bill are fully compatible with EU law and with the laws of other states that passengers will travel to and from and with whose laws carriers must comply. It is important that we put in place measures in our own legislation, but I would welcome the Minister’s consideration of the compatibility between them and our obligations to our European colleagues and elsewhere.
The Labour party supports the measures because of the threat and the need to monitor and to take effective action against not just those coming to the UK, but those leaving the UK. The need to ensure that we prevent individuals leaving these shores from undertaking terrorist acts is paramount. The Minister will not find a cigarette paper between us on dealing with that issue, but I hope that he is able to reflect on the points I have made today on three issues: cost, compatibility with other legislation in Europe and beyond, and the key question of implementation, not just in terms of current carriers but in terms of the carriers who are not registered but who do currently travel both to and from the UK.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful for the warm welcome given to these provisions from all parts of the House this afternoon. That is because there is a recognition of the nature of the threat we now face, and of the fact that we face an enduring threat from terrorism. There are particular terrorist groups that will seek to attack aircraft and other forms of transport, which is why we must remain vigilant and continue to challenge ourselves on what further improvements can be made to legislation and the schemes that are in place to ensure we have the right information to prevent those intent on conducting such acts from boarding aircraft, trains or other forms of transport—and, indeed, ensure that our various forms of transport conduct appropriate searches and checks to make sure that appropriate standards are met and adhered to. We seek to respond through that approach and the pragmatic, practical measures set out in the Bill.
As the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) highlighted, there is the further requirement for additional regulations and details of specific schemes to be brought before this House. As that detail is then added to, it is appropriate that ongoing consultation take place with the relevant industry sectors. I shall say a little more about that in response to the various points the right hon. Gentleman raised.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) for bringing to my attention the work of DS Mike Redmond and the Sussex police based at Gatwick airport, and how bringing forward proposals is obviously about their practical implementation. Where there is good practice, there should be networks through which it can be shared, leading to greater consistency of approach. I know the police take that seriously, with the relevant structures they have enabling them to look at practice and share knowledge and learning. The work mentioned by the hon. Gentleman sounded very interesting, and I look forward to seeing further details of the BIG MAC that he will no doubt be sending through to me.
In terms of the utilisation of the powers, if it is necessary and proportionate we will use powers as a means of putting special additional measures in place to combat current threats. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his previous experience how we look at the threat assessments that are maintained by the joint terrorism analysis centre, and how that may mean that additional security enhancements need to be put in place in respect of particular routes or modes of transport. That will inform some of the additional protective security-type powers that could be drawn on in respect of these provisions, and therefore, those specific provisions would be used where justified by the prevailing terrorist threat and the assessed risk.
The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the issue of costs, and rightly referred to the regulatory impact assessment that was published alongside the Bill. On the number of airlines that were engaged—I will come on to talk about who was consulted—many airlines within the big global groups of airlines will share common booking systems. Therefore, whether they are part of one alliance or another, that will determine a number of the elements of the systems that may be in place, and smaller airlines may piggyback on some of the bigger airlines’ systems. All airlines are not necessarily operating specific individual systems; they may be utilising some of the bigger carriers’ systems as part of their global booking systems, because of the alliances and groups that they are part of.
The cost to the Government of an interactive advance passenger information system is currently £1.2 million per year, and the staffing costs of maintaining a help desk to assist with interactive API is around £302,000 annually. Border Force estimates that an additional £82,000 will be required for additional staff to bolster the help desk as a result of the legislation. Consultation with airlines has shown that they recognise the significant security and financial benefits that flow from interactive API systems.
Various Governments are increasingly requiring that their own carriers implement these types of systems and solutions, and carriers are likely to incur set-up costs, whether required to do so by the UK Government or not. The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the reference in the explanatory notes to 500 subjects of interest having travelled to Syria and Iraq from this country. It is important to understand, given the nature of the travelling threat, that individuals have travelled to that area from many other countries across Europe and across the globe, and there is a growing recognition of the utility and importance of being able to use advance passenger information. A number of countries globally are seeking to align that approach in this area.
On the proportion of advance passenger information that we hold, as the right hon. Gentleman will know from his parliamentary questions to me, we receive advance passenger information for just over 80% of all passengers travelling to and from the UK, which is up considerably from just over 60% at the end of 2009. That includes 96% of all air passengers. According to the European Commission, that is the highest for any European country and is among the best in the world.
As the impact assessment indicated, we consulted all UK-registered airlines, and their comments are reflected in the impact assessment, which the right hon. Gentleman has obviously seen. I will reflect after this debate on what further details it may be possible to provide, and if I may, I will write to him on any further information or background that can be shared.
On briefing others, we have briefed maritime carriers and Eurotunnel, but we will be consulting further on the detail of the regulations to be put before Parliament. With regard to rail, as I indicated in a previous intervention, the existing operators are already covered by a great deal of the existing legislative framework, but we will seek to continue to consult those that may be affected by any further changes introduced under authority-to-carry schemes, and it is absolutely appropriate that we do so, as the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted. On the broader legal issues he proffered, it is not for me to give legal advice on the Floor of the House, but I can say to him genuinely and directly that we have undertaken a full assessment of the legal implications of these proposals and consider them to be compatible.
On the work the Government are doing to introduce exit checks by spring next year, the provisions before this House are connected but separate, if I may put it in those terms. Information about passengers departing from the UK will inform the operation of outbound authority-to-carry arrangements, which the Bill will put on a statutory basis. Obviously, that is a significant difference between what is in this Bill and the existing authority-to-carry scheme introduced just before the Olympic games, which is focused purely on the inbound. The intent is to have statutory underpinning and a statutory framework in respect of the outbound, too.
I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr that legislation is in place to direct carriers on the form in which they must provide passenger information to the Government’s border system. That includes the timeliness with which data are provided relative to when the passenger departs to or from the UK. Obviously, the Bill’s provisions will also give specific statutory underpinning to that, to ensure that information is provided in a timely fashion.
I noted what the right hon. Member for Delyn said about e-Borders. The tone of this afternoon’s debate has broadly been one where everyone has shared the same approach, but I say to him that this Government have had to deal with some significant problems with a number of the previous Government’s systems, e-Borders being one of them. We have therefore made the necessary changes and checks to ensure that we have a system that delivers what it needs to deliver.
I am grateful for the support that has been provided from all parts of the House for these provisions, and I ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.
Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Bill
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) for taking the Bill through the House and for raising awareness of this serious issue, which affects a significant number of people throughout the country. I am certainly grateful for his kind words of introduction, and I am very pleased to be here to support him, as I have in so many different ways over the years, and to see this Bill progressing.
Stealing people’s identities, or creating false identities, is generally used as an enabler for a number of serious crimes such as fraud, terrorism, immigration offences or gaining access to children and vulnerable adults. I therefore agree with my hon. Friend that the Bill is a very important step in tackling a crime that has the potential to endanger the safety and security of our citizens. I welcome the support for the Bill across the House and endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who spoke for the Opposition. My hon. Friend, working in a cross-partisan way, has secured the support that the Bill requires, underlining the important issues, recognised on all sides of the House, that show why the Bill is needed.
It is important to tackle this issue at its source and prevent criminals from gaining access to the specialist printing equipment that is capable of making a range of identity documents, such as false passports, driving licences, travel documents and birth certificates. As the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) rightly pointed out in Committee, it is possible to prosecute individuals or businesses for conspiracy to defraud under the Fraud Act 2006. However, this is not easy to prove and requires a lot of time and resources to take forward.
The Bill will strengthen the police’s powers in this area and send the message that this Government and this House take criminal behaviour very seriously: if you are colluding with criminals, you are a criminal. There is strong support for this Bill from both the police and the specialist printing industry. Some 81% of respondents to the Government’s public consultation supported this measure, with 93% agreeing that legislation would act as a deterrent to those who seek to sell this equipment to fraudsters. That is important, because if fraudsters cannot get hold of the specialist equipment that they need to manufacture false documents, they will not be able to manufacture them, and we shall be able to prevent a range of crimes that could otherwise have been committed through the use of those false documents.
The Bill is proportionate. It does not affect the law-abiding majority, but introduces sanctions to deal with those who knowingly collude with identity fraudsters. I hope that all Members will support this much-needed measure, which is an important step in the tackling of identity crime. I congratulate my hon. Friend again, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Deferred Divisions
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
In responding to what has been a very good debate, it is important to underline the context and background to our discussions. As the Home Secretary emphasised in opening today’s debate, the terrorism threat to the UK is considerable and as bad as it has been at any time since 9/11. That is the assessment that we have been given. It is our duty as a Parliament to ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the tools and powers that they need to keep us safe.
I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Many of them have great knowledge of the subject matter and experience in their communities, which has ensured that the debate has had great breadth and has touched on many issues. It is notable that we have heard from four members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, a further member of the Home Affairs Committee, a former Attorney-General and other Members who have great knowledge, expertise and experience. That has contributed enormously to the debate. I believe that if we continue in that vein and with that approach, the Bill will benefit.
It is important to underline some of the themes of the debate, such as the need to ensure both privacy and security. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) made that point. The two things are not mutually exclusive, and should be mutually reinforcing—one goes with the other. Security brings us liberty, and liberty is basically what we are trying to provide and protect through the security arrangements.
The issues of proportionality and necessity have also been mentioned, and we believe that they are reflected in the measures in the Bill. We look forward to the House’s forthcoming scrutiny and examination of those measures. I note that, almost without exception, the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have recognised and understood the importance of the powers in the Bill and broadly supported them, even if some would like to see further focus and reflection on specific aspects of them. On a subject as vital as national security, and confronting and combating terrorism and the extremism that may lead to it, it is right that the House presents a united front to those who would seek to do us harm. The debate this afternoon and this evening has done precisely that.
The threat that ISIL presents to us is serious, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, but it is not the only threat we face. There are a range of other terrorist organisations, including Boko Haram, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and al-Shabaab, and we must also protect ourselves from the threat of home-grown extremists who have been radicalised here in the UK. I recognise some of the points that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) made, but the threat is not static. It is dynamic—it constantly evolves and changes. That is why it is right that the Government continue to challenge ourselves on what more we can do through legislation, but also through other processes such as the extremism taskforce. That is reflected in the Bill.
It important to recognise the excellent job that the police, MI5 and others do in keeping us safe through the actions that they take day in, day out and week in, week out. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, who has GCHQ in his constituency, made that point well. I should put on record, as other Members have, our recognition of and thanks to all those who work so hard to ensure the security of this country.
Some broader themes were also raised, such as the issue of counter-ideology and narrative. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) made points about ISIL, which is clearly neither Islamic nor a state. The extremists who seek to advance its poisonous narratives do not do so in the name of Islam, which is a peaceful religion practised by millions of people around the globe. It is important to underscore that clear message from this House—we recognise the threat, but ISIL’s narrative is twisted and poisonous and does not represent Islam, which is one of the great religions.
On the issue of a counter-narrative, a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), mentioned communities standing up. It is important to recognise that 100 imams have stood together and signed a letter absolutely condemning the actions of ISIL and others. That has shown a community coming together, and it has used social media to do so. It has used hashtags such as #NotInMyName and #MakingAStand to ensure that a counter-message is delivered in a way that is likely to reach those who need to be reached. Of course we want more of that, but it is important to recognise the stances and responses that the community has given to confronting and combating some of the sheer evil that has been perpetrated, and how it is making a stand in a direct and powerful way.
Keith Vaz
The Minister is making a sensible and thoughtful speech and his tone is absolutely right. May I put to him a point that I put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears)? Has any research been done on the tipping point and the moment a law-abiding citizen suddenly becomes a radical jihadist? We have a lot of experience in counter-terrorism and have spent a huge amount of money on the issue. Are we any closer to knowing where that profile changes?
James Brokenshire
This is a complex subject and we cannot point to one individual factor for a specific individual. We can examine the profiles and backgrounds of terrorists who have been convicted for their crimes, but it is hard to generalise. We can point to individual factors or circumstances that may have contributed over a number of years, and some contributions to the debate have been about the vulnerability of certain individuals. Equally, for whatever reason, some people have sought to create an identity by allying themselves to an extremist organisation in some way. There is good understanding, but answers will be different for different circumstances and individuals, and it is important to understand the layers and complexity. Equally, we must look at the safeguarding agenda. Our work through Prevent is to ensure that front-line professionals are acutely aware of identifying any issues, so that people are directed to support and measures and do not progress down the path towards radicalisation and terrorism. We will continue that important work.
Mr Khalid Mahmood
Following on from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, a study has been done by Professor Kam Bhui of Queen Mary university of 600 people from London and Bradford—it should have been Birmingham, but it was not—on a clinical and psychological basis. That provides a certain way forward although it does not address the issue of ideology.
James Brokenshire
That is why it is so important that we continue to see that response from the community and families. The Home Secretary mentioned FAST—Families Against Stress and Trauma—and the good work it seeks to do to encourage families who are concerned about a loved one or someone they know to have the confidence to come forward to talk to someone. That may not necessarily be the police—it may be another agency or someone from the community—but where there are concerns we should act earlier to prevent someone from moving down a pathway that might lead them to be radicalised or to want to make the journey to Syria or Iraq. We must give a clear message that that is not the way to help or assist in that conflict.
On oversight and engagement, I am keen to ensure that we respond to Select Committees—indeed, I will give evidence on the Bill tomorrow morning to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Home Affairs Committee will also hold an evidence session tomorrow, and we will respond to inquiries from various Committees that have an interest in this matter.
Today’s main contributions have largely focused on the temporary exclusion order and Prevent, so I will concentrate my remaining remarks on those issues. On discussions with our international partners, as the Home Secretary made clear in her opening remarks we are actively engaged with a number of countries, and those discussions have been positive thus far in relation to practical operations. On the ability of someone to request a return, I point right hon. and hon. Members to clause 5(1), which states that the Secretary of State “must” issue a permit to return. The concept is of a managed return when a request is made, and the only circumstances in which a permit can be refused is if a person fails to attend an interview with a police or immigration officer. Therefore, the sense that we will deprive people of their citizenship or make them stateless does not bear examination, because they will have that right to return and the ability to make that request.
The speedier mechanisms can operate in circumstances around deportation. We will seek to cancel someone’s travel documents and to ensure that they can be put on watch lists, so that they can be met and we know when that return will take place. That is our stance. I therefore tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) that we are not seeking to say that someone cannot return in perpetuity. As we have made clear, those concerned will have the right to return to the UK. We believe and are confident that the measures we propose are compliant with our international obligations and relevant human rights legislation.
Sir Menzies Campbell
But an individual can return only under the terms specified by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Can the Minister think of any other occasions or circumstances when the right of return has had conditions attached?
James Brokenshire
The power rightly reflects the challenge and threat we see from those returning from areas of conflict. They might have been radicalised and might have been acting on the instructions of a terrorist organisation. That is why we judge that the power is necessary. Equally, we know that the power deserves appropriate scrutiny, which I know the House will give the measures.
We think it is important to put Prevent on a statutory basis to ensure that there is greater consistency in the manner in which it is provided. It will also ensure that organisations recognise their responsibilities. The measure is about preventing terrorism. It is important to understand the specific frame in which Prevent exists, and to underline the work Prevent has undertaken since 2011. It has delivered 180 community-based projects; it ensures that front-line officers understand the context; and, in the 2013-14 financial year, Prevent local co-ordinators in our 30 Prevent priority areas worked with more than 250 mosques, 50 faith groups and 70 community groups.
In her opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary addressed a concern that has been expressed about university campuses. Her point was that universities’ commitment to freedom of speech and the rationality underpinning the advancement of knowledge mean that they represent one of our most important safeguards against extremist views and ideologies. We need to ensure that they take their responsibilities seriously and have the basic framework in place. That is what the guidance will seek to enunciate. I hear and understand the point made on giving greater clarity in the guidance. It is our intention not only to publish the guidance, but to put it out to consultation, to ensure that we receive appropriate inputs.
To the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) I say that it is the Government’s intention that the measure will apply to Scotland, on the basis that counter-terrorism and national security are reserved. The provisions will be subject to further consultation and discussion with Ministers in the devolved Administrations, which is apt, right and proper.
In conclusion, I reiterate that the threat we face from terrorism is real and severe. The collapse of Syria and the emergence of ISIL in Iraq not only threatens the stability of the middle east, but presents a clear danger in the UK. The Bill will ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to keep us safe. I hope the House agrees that this is a matter of the utmost importance. We are seeking to ensure that the Bill is passed speedily but not over-speedily, so that there is proper consideration. We believe that the time allowed in Committee and on Report will ensure that the House can do that. We will ensure the swift passage of this vital legislation, but in a way that enables appropriate examination. We recognise and appreciate that the Opposition will, as they have said, do that constructively. We look forward to working with them in that regard. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Committee of the whole House shall be completed in three days.
(3) The proceedings shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.
(4) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
Table
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day | |
Part 2, new Clauses relating to Part 2, new Schedules relating to Part 2 | Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first day |
Part 3, new Clauses relating to Part 3, new Schedules relating to Part 3, Part 4, new Clauses relating to Part 4, new Schedules relating to Part 4 | Six hours after the commencement of those proceedings |
Second day | |
Chapter 1 of Part 1, new Clauses relating to Chapter 1 of Part 1, new Schedules relating to Chapter 1 of Part 1 | Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the second day |
Chapter 2 of Part 1, new Clauses relating to Chapter 2 of Part 1, new Schedules relating to Chapter 2 of Part 1 | Six hours after the commencement of those proceedings |
Third day | |
Clause 21, Schedule 3, Clauses 22 to 27, new Clauses relating to Chapter 1 of Part 5, new Schedules relating to Chapter 1 of Part 5, Clauses 28 to 30, Schedule 4, Clauses 31 to 33, new Clauses relating to Chapter 2 of Part 5, new Schedules relating to Chapter 2 of Part 5 | Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the third day |
Part 6, new Clauses relating to Part 6, new Schedules relating to Part 6, Part 7, remaining new Clauses, remaining new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill | The moment of interruption on the third day |
Consideration and Third Reading
(5) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
(6) Any proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the second day.
(7) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
Programming committee
(8) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to the proceedings on the Bill in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(9) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed. —(Harriett Baldwin.)
Question agreed to.
COUNTER-TERRORISM AND SECURITY BILL (MONEY)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) payments in respect of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board;
(b) expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State;
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided;
(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
Question agreed to.
Home Department
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been removed from the UK under the Dublin Convention in each year since 2010.
[Official Report, 13 May 2014, Vol. 580, c. 450W.]
Letter of correction from James Brokenshire:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) on 13 May 2014.
The answer was given as follows:
James Brokenshire
The information requested is shown in the following table:
Number | |
|---|---|
2010 | 1,449 |
2011 | 1,308 |
2012 | 970 |
2013 | 1,020 |
Note: The figures quoted have been derived from management information and are therefore provisional and subject to change. This information has not been quality assured under National Statistics protocols. |
Removals fell in 2011 and 2012 because we stopped transferring asylum applicants to Greece under the Dublin Regulation in 2010. This was because it was found conditions there amounted to a breach of article 3 of ECHR. There then followed similar litigation around conditions in Italy, but we are still able to effect transfers there.
The correct answer should have been:
James Brokenshire
The information requested is shown in the following table:
Number | |
|---|---|
2010 | 1,351 |
2011 | 1,188 |
2012 | 902 |
2013 | 935 |
Note: The figures quoted have been derived from management information and are therefore provisional and subject to change. This information has not been quality assured under National Statistics protocols. |
Removals fell in 2011 and 2012 because we stopped transferring asylum applicants to Greece under the Dublin Regulation in 2010. This was because it was found conditions there amounted to a breach of article 3 of ECHR. There then followed similar litigation around conditions in Italy, but we are still able to effect transfers there.
Powers of Entry
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State (Lord Bates) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 required Ministers across Government to undertake a review of powers of entry. The Act required Ministers who are members of the Cabinet with responsibility for powers of entry to examine their powers and to consider whether they are still necessary, proportionate and contain sufficient safeguards.
Ministers of each Department have now concluded their reviews and prepared reports which will be laid before Parliament today.
These reports show that a total of 1,237 powers of entry have been subject to review. The Government are proposing a significant reduction in the overall number of powers which will leave a total of 912. The Government have also ensured that, where necessary, remaining powers will have additional safeguards added via legislation to ensure appropriate use of the powers. The number of powers for which it is proposed to add safeguards is 231.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 24 November, be approved.
By way of context for tonight’s debate, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre has raised the threat level for international terrorism from substantial to severe, as it assesses a terrorist attack on the United Kingdom to be highly likely. The House will be aware that the Home Secretary stated earlier this week that we believe that more than 500 British nationals have travelled to Syria and Iraq, and that thousands from other European and western countries have joined them.
The threat from ISIL is clear—it is one of the most serious security challenges we face today—but it is not the only threat we face. The House will note that the groups listed in the order operate in Libya and Egypt, as well as in Syria. Currently, instability and violence in Libya has provided an environment for groups such as Ansar al-Sharia-Benghazi to operate. Syria and Iraq have become a crucible of terror and violence in which groups such as Jaysh al-Khalifatu Islamiya, al-Nusrah Front and ISIL operate. Egypt has seen a significant increase in criminal activity and terrorist attacks on police and security forces by groups such as Ajnad Misr and Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis.
We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, but we are determined to do all we can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Additionally, it is important that we demonstrate our support for other members of the international community in their efforts to tackle terrorism wherever it occurs. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities.
The three groups that we propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, by amending schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, are Ansar al-Sharia-Benghazi, also known as the Partisans of Islamic Law; Ajnad Misr, also known as the Soldiers of Egypt; and Jaysh al-Khalifatu Islamiya, also known as the Army of the Islamic Caliphate.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
How many months or years have those particular organisations been on the radar of the Government or the security services? We do not want to know the details of any private operations, but whether the organisations are new or have been around for a while.
James Brokenshire
It might help the right hon. Gentleman to know that I will go on to provide a brief summation of the three groups, which I think will answer his question.
Before I do so, I should explain that the effect of proscription is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, support or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or to wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.
Given the wide-ranging impact of the power to proscribe, the Home Secretary exercises it only after thoroughly reviewing the available relevant information and evidence about an organisation. Having carefully considered all the evidence, she believes that the three groups listed in the order are all currently concerned in terrorism. Although I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can provide a brief summary of each group’s activities.
Ansar al-Sharia-Benghazi is a Sunni Islamist militia group that takes an anti-western stance and advocates the implementation of strict sharia law. It has been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya. On 11 September 2012, its members took part in the attack against the US special mission and annexe in Benghazi, killing the US ambassador and three other Americans. AAS-B continues to pose a threat to Libya and western interests, and is alleged to have links to the proscribed organisations Ansar al-Sharia-Tunisia and al-Qaeda. The US designated AAS-B as a terrorist organisation in January 2014, and the UN listed it in November.
Ajnad Misr is a jihadi group based in Egypt. It is believed to be a splinter group of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, which was proscribed by the House on 4 April. Ajnad Misr has stated that it seeks to protect Egyptian Muslims and avenge alleged abuse against them by Egyptian security services. It is believed to have been active since 20 November 2013, when it attacked an Egyptian checkpoint. The group announced its establishment on 23 January this year and has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks on Egyptian security forces since 2013, including the attack in April at Cairo university, which resulted in the death of a policeman and injured three others, and the bomb attack near the Foreign Ministry in Cairo in September, which killed three police officers in September.
Jaysh al-Khalifatu Islamiya is an Islamist jihadist group that is active in Syria. JKI consists predominantly of Chechen fighters and is an opposition group. It has assisted the al-Nusra front and ISIL in conducting attacks. In February 2014, Abdul Waheed Majeed, a British individual who was linked to the group, carried out a suicide attack on a prison in Aleppo, resulting in prisoner escapes.
In conclusion, we believe that it is right that we add AAS-B, Ajnad Misr and JKI to the list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
James Brokenshire
I am afraid that I cannot comment on matters that may relate to intelligence. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that we always seek to present as much information as we can about groups that we are seeking to proscribe. The Home Secretary weighs various pieces of intelligence and open-source material in determining whether a group is engaged in terrorism. All I can say to him is that we have considered the tests clearly and believe that they are met in terms of whether the groups threaten our interests overseas or our national security.
With that summation, I hope that the House will agree that the order should be approved. If it is, it will come into force on Friday 28 November.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can think of no better way to celebrate my birthday than to discuss the proscription of three organisations in Libya, Syria and Egypt. I am therefore delighted that the Minister has brought this order before the House this evening. I promise not to detain the House for too long.
We of course accept it, as we have always done, when Ministers come to Parliament and say from the Dispatch Box that they have important and sensitive information concerning groups that are operating in this country and abroad, and want to use powers to proscribe them. The Minister for Security and Immigration put his case very eloquently as he always does. He is the classic safe pair of hands: when he stands at the Dispatch Box and tells us that he has information he believes is sufficient to allow the Home Secretary to sign off an order proscribing an organisation, I, for one, fully support what he and the Government are doing—as do those on the Opposition Front Bench. I want to raise a number of points, which I hope he will have the opportunity to address.
The first point relates, of course, to Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group we have discussed every time a proscription order has been brought before the House. The Prime Minister made a very important statement on the group when he was Leader of the Opposition. I was in the House at the time and heard what he had to say. He was very firm that this was a terrorist organisation and that it ought to be banned. Five years later, Hizb ut-Tahrir still has not been banned. I think it has been involved in the same kinds of activities as a number of groups mentioned by the Minister in the House today and on previous occasions. It would therefore be good when he replies to hear an update on progress on whether that organisation, which the Prime Minister has rightly turned his face against, is any closer to being proscribed.
In previous debates I have always asked whether the Governments of the countries concerned have been consulted about the three groups the Minister has mentioned today, or whether they have any particular information. I appreciate that it is difficult to do this in the case of Syria, Libya and Egypt at the present time. I am not sure what our relations with Egypt are at the moment, but certainly in respect of the other two countries it may be difficult to get a particular view. However, if the Minister has one, it would be helpful to the House to hear it. If he has consulted those Governments, it would be helpful to hear what they had to say. My concern is that the attack in Benghazi, which he mentioned a few moments ago, occurred in 2012. The American embassy was ransacked, burned to the ground and the ambassador was killed. Will he tell the House whether the organisation responsible has already been proscribed in the United States of America, and whether it has been proscribed in any other European country? Once we pass the order, it would be helpful to know whether, as a result of what we have done—
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether any other state had taken action against Ansar al-Sharia-Benghazi. It was designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States in January and by the UN this month.
Keith Vaz
That is extremely helpful. I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification. When he winds up, will he remind us of the process regarding other EU countries? Once we have taken a decision, does he tell EU colleagues of it, will it automatically be extended to other countries or does it have to go through other Parliaments? I assume that the United States and the UN have also proscribed the other two organisations, in Syria and Egypt, and that we will be urging our European colleagues to do the same.
The final point I want to make concerns de-proscription. I am not suggesting for one moment that, having agreed to proscribe these organisations, we would want to de-proscribe any of them, but I have raised several times, as has the Home Affairs Committee, our concern about the de-proscription process. I have mentioned before the concerns of my constituents regarding the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which no longer exists but is a proscribed organisation. Some of my Tamil constituents feel they are put at a disadvantage because the ban on the LTTE remains, even though it no longer exists. Has there been any progress on de-proscription, other than the only method we think exists to get an organisation de-proscribed, which is to take the Government to court? The People’s Mujahedeen Organisation of Iran did that a few years ago, and the last Labour Government were obliged to de-proscribe it.
Aside from asking for those clarifications, I fully support what the Minister has said. He is doing absolutely the right thing, and I am glad he has come here with so much information to share with the House.
James Brokenshire
I thank those who have contributed to this debate for supporting the Government’s proscription of the three organisations listed in the order. We take our responsibilities seriously when considering each group and coming to the House to seek an order in this way. I am grateful for the comments that have been made and add my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), whom I hope will celebrate his birthday after the debate has concluded. I am sure we all wish him well on this special occasion.
A number of questions were asked. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked whether we could review the definition of terrorism. As part of the review of counter-terrorism powers that we carried out at the start of this Government in 2010, we looked at that but concluded that it would be disproportionate to broaden the definition. Ultimately, pursuing a prosecution comes down to evidence and is not necessarily based on redefining terrorism. The issue has been examined. We are considering the issue of extremism more generally and what further action might be taken against organisations that might not cross the threshold for proscription. We will return with further proposals on extremism, and the Home Secretary has highlighted her intention to lead on such a strategy, drawing across government, that could include taking action against groups—and on extremism in our society more generally—that fall below the threshold of terrorism.
The hon. Lady highlighted the work of the counter terrorism internet referral unit, which I believe has been extremely effective since commencing its work back in 2010. Since that time, some 65,000 pieces of unlawful terrorist-related content have been removed as a consequence of its actions. There is more to be done, however, and the role and responsibilities of social media companies are key here, as the Prime Minister said in his response to the Woolwich report yesterday. We absolutely encourage the public and civil society organisations to refer terrorist and extremist content at scale to social media companies and internet service providers—in some ways amplifying the work of the CTIRU. It has good relations with a number of these companies, some of which have been responsive in dealing with a number of its requests. It comes down to actions taken, knowledge possessed and responsibilities better to share information with the agencies charged with protecting our national security. We want appropriate action taken to interdict, to intercede and to ensure that terrorist attacks do not occur.
Keith Vaz
I note that the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, who has responsibility for the creative industries, is in his place on the Front Bench. He is rightly held in high regard by those in the creative industries, including by some of the companies that have been mentioned. The issue is this: are we moving from a voluntary arrangement with internet companies and companies such as Facebook to a more compulsory approach? The voluntary arrangement has not worked, so does the Minister think we should be doing more by way of compulsion to make sure that such companies act in this way?
James Brokenshire
I do not necessarily want to expand this proscription debate into a broader debate about terrorism. However, there is legislation in place, and when we debate the security measures in the Bill published today, we will find that it deals with the resolution of internet protocol addresses issue, and with the question of the Regulatory and Investigatory Powers Act 2000. David Anderson, the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, is carrying out an ongoing examination, in the round, of a number of these matters.
There is more that the industry can do in the short term, such as looking at its terms and conditions of service and ensuring that they are properly upheld. Yes, there are legal issues that will continue to challenge, and more needs to be done in that sphere, as the Home Secretary said. Equally, there is work on which the industry itself can continue to focus.
Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady raised the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir. It is not a proscribed organisation—as the House will know, proscription can be considered only when the Home Secretary believes an organisation to be concerned in terrorism, as defined by the Terrorism Act 2000—but it is one about which we have significant concerns, and we will continue to monitor its activities very closely.
That brings me back to the broader issue of extremism, and why it is right that we continue to challenge ourselves in respect of what more can be done about it more generally. We must continue to take on board the points that have been made about social media. The extremism taskforce, which involves Ministers throughout the Government, is working to ensure that we seek to confront extremism in all its forms.
As for enforceability, I have already referred to the need for evidence and investigation, as did the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Between 2001 and 2014, 33 people were charged with proscription-related offences. The Terrorism Act covers a broad range of offences, and different offences may well be adopted on the basis of the evidence that is presented. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service continue to examine these issues carefully.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Leicester East raised the issue of name changes, which we keep under close review. When aliases are used for the same organisation, we can impose name change orders, and have done so on a number of occasions. The procedure involves a negative rather than affirmative resolution, which means that we can potentially act more quickly. If there is evidence that the name used by an organisation is a sham or a front, and the original organisation is extant and still operating, the police and the CPS will continue to be able to pursue the matter.
The change that we make tonight will have an impact on other EU member states and on international bodies. We do consult member states that have a direct interest in the relevant groups. We will inform them if parliamentary agreement is secured in this House and in the other place, and we will consider whether to pursue EU listings of the groups concerned. Obviously, those are separate processes. I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman: we must consider the evidence properly, rather than automatically taking on board what other states may say. We will consult when that is appropriate, but I think it right for us to make our decisions in the House of Commons.
Our advice, and the clear advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is that British nationals should leave Libya by whatever commercial means are available. Our ability to provide direct support is limited because of the closure of the British embassy in Tripoli, but I know that my colleagues in the Foreign Office are very conscious of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, and that they keep them under close review.
I hope that the House will be minded to support the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Immigration Act 2014: Marriage and Civil Partnership
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I am pleased to inform the House that, subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary secondary legislation, I plan to implement important new provisions under Part 4 of the Immigration Act 2014 to tackle sham marriages and civil partnerships on Monday 2 March 2015.
Part 4 of the Act will give us a much stronger platform for effective, systematic action to disrupt and deter sham marriages and civil partnerships and prevent them gaining an immigration advantage.
It will extend the marriage and civil partnership notice period from 15 days to 28 days for all couples in England and Wales marrying following civil preliminaries or forming a civil partnership.
Couples involving a non-European Economic Area (non-EEA) national who wish to marry in the Church of England or the Church in Wales will be required to complete civil preliminaries and give notice at a register office.
From 2 March 2015 I also plan to implement under Part 4 of the Act a new referral and investigation scheme for proposed marriages and civil partnerships across the UK involving a non-EEA national who could benefit in immigration terms. All proposed marriages and civil partnerships involving a non-EEA national with limited or no immigration status in the UK, or who does not provide specified evidence that they are exempt from the scheme, will be referred to the Home Office. Where we have reasonable grounds to suspect a sham, we will be able to extend the notice period in these referred cases to 70 days in order to investigate and take appropriate enforcement or casework action where we establish a sham. A couple will be unable to get married or enter into a civil partnership on the basis of that notice if they do not comply with an investigation under the scheme.
By extending the notice period and channelling to the Home Office all proposed marriages and civil partnerships which could bring an immigration benefit, the new system will give us much more time and information to identify and act against sham marriages and civil partnerships before they happen and, where they do go ahead, we will have the evidence we need on file to be able to refuse any subsequent immigration application in terms which will withstand appeal.
The referral and investigation scheme will be extended to Scotland and to Northern Ireland from 2 March 2015, subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary secondary legislation. Those who give notice of marriage or civil partnership before 2 March 2015 will not be affected by the changes.
Transitional arrangements will apply for couples where at least one party is resident overseas, who have made arrangements before 2 March 2015 for a marriage or civil partnership in England and Wales and who intend to give notice and get married or form a civil partnership in one visit on or after that date. Couples in this situation will be able to apply, at the time of giving their notice of marriage or civil partnership to the registration official, to have the notice period reduced to 15 days.
Transitional arrangements will also apply for couples involving a non-EEA national who before 2 March 2015 have been granted, or have applied for and are later granted, a common licence to marry in the Anglican Church in England and Wales. Couples in this situation will be able to marry on the basis of that licence and will not be required to complete civil preliminaries before marrying.
Further information about the Immigration Act 2014 can be found on gov.uk at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ collections/immigration-bill
Further information about the changes is available on gov.uk at: https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/ giving-notice-at-your-local-register-office.
Oral Answers to Questions
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
3. When she next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to discuss student immigration.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary meets colleagues regularly for discussions on a range of issues, including on how we can continue to attract the brightest and the best to the UK while bearing down on abuse.
Mark Lazarowicz
The Government’s arbitrary immigration target has clearly been shown to be both unworkable and misguided. A particularly misguided aspect is the decision to include international students in the target. There is now consensus—from the Labour party, political parties across the House and even Government Members, as well as from universities, trade unions and business—that the target should not include international students. Will the Home Secretary and the Minister join that consensus?
James Brokenshire
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no, we will not, because students continue to use public services. If we look at the Office for National Statistics data for the 12 months to September 2013, we see that 50,000 non-EU students left, whereas 124,000 entered the country, which suggests that students have an impact on net migration.
I say to the hon. Gentleman and the sector generally that there is no cap on the number of legitimate students who can come to study within the UK. Indeed, we have seen significant increases from a number of countries, including China, Brazil and Malaysia. The UK very much remains open to business for students.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The Minister spoke at the Home Affairs Committee seminar on international students, but at the sessions in which he did not speak, there was heavy criticism of his policies. Indeed, the director general of the Institute of Directors, Simon Walker, said:
“When some politician in the House of Commons thinks it would be wonderful to say something [detrimental] about international students, or some clever minister thinks of sending out a van to hound immigrants, they don’t think what it would look like in international papers.”
Will the Minister listen to the voices of the Institute of Directors, universities and the business sector, and look again at such policies?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have heard from reports of that particular session in the conference hosted by the Home Affairs Committee that I made it very clear that we approach this issue in a measured fashion. The number of visa applications for our universities has gone up 5% this year, with an 8% increase for Russell Group universities. I very clearly say to the sector that trying to talk down the offer we have is not in the best interests of the sector or of our country. I certainly look forward to continuing to work with the sector to ensure that we attract students to our world-class institutions.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
4. What steps she is taking to reduce sickness and stress leave and raise morale in the police service.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
13. What recent steps she has taken to speed up the process of deportation.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Changes to the appeals and removals system introduced under the Immigration Act 2014 have reduced the number of immigration decisions that can be appealed from 17 to four. New appeal provisions now allow us to deport harmful individuals before their appeals are heard if there is no risk of serious, irreversible harm. We have also introduced new powers to stop foreign criminals using family life arguments to delay their deportation.
Richard Graham
I am encouraged by what the Minister has said, and I appreciate all that he and the Home Office are doing to deport criminals—including EU nationals—who are guilty of serious crimes. He will know of the case of Mr Peter Pavlisin, a Slovakian national who brutally attacked his pregnant Gloucester girlfriend in January 2013 and was sentenced. Will he update me on when a decision on Mr Pavlisin’s deportation will be made?
James Brokenshire
I cannot comment on the specifics of my hon. Friend’s case, but I can underline the Government’s commitment to removing foreign national offenders from this country—just under 5,100 were removed last year. There is a cross-Government approach to ensure that we do all we can to redocument and remove foreign national offenders and, with the changes in the Immigration Act 2014 that I underlined, we have changed the law to ensure that we speed up those deportations.
Andrew Bridgen
My constituents are rightly concerned about the £800 million annual cost to the taxpayer of housing more than 12,000 foreign offenders in UK jails. Will my hon. Friend outline what steps can be taken to reduce that cost, while still ensuring that justice is served?
James Brokenshire
I can certainly underline the steps that we are taking to speed up the process. Moving offenders straight from prison to deportation is saving the taxpayer £27.5 million, and Operation Nexus ensures that police officers work alongside immigration enforcement officers to ensure that the information needed to aid deportation later in the process is provided. We are taking an end-to-end approach.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Recently, the Australian Government decided to deport an individual following serious concerns about the impact of his views on the safety of women. To prevent us from having to deport individuals as the Australians did, and given that his seminars promote choking and sexual assaults in order to seduce women, will the Home Secretary consider using her powers to exclude Julien Blanc from the UK if, like me, she assesses that his presence is not conducive to the public good?
James Brokenshire
The Government firmly underline their commitment to promoting the role of women within government, business and the whole country, and they condemn any action that might stand against that. The hon. Lady has alluded to a case highlighted in the press. I cannot comment on the specifics of that particular case, but I can assure her about the steps this Government are taking, and about the record of this Home Secretary in excluding more people on grounds of unacceptable behaviour than any of her predecessors.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
6. How many vehicle scanning machines to identify stowaways at UK ports of entry the Government plan to buy in the next 12 months.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Border Force operates an array of search techniques as part of its multi-layered search regime, including detection dogs, carbon dioxide monitors, heartbeat detectors and scanners. In the past 12 months nearly £10 million has been invested to support and increase those methods of detection and bolster port security in the UK and at juxtaposed controls. The Government have also committed to invest £12 million at the port of Calais further to enhance security.
Stephen Barclay
May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that written parliamentary question 213850 on the number of lorries screened by body scanning machines and sniffer dogs when they enter the UK has not been answered? The Government have confirmed that currently just five vehicle scanning machines cover all our ports, including 51 points of entry. Will the Minister clarify why five is an adequate number?
James Brokenshire
Border Force uses an array of different techniques to secure our border which, as I have highlighted, include body detection dogs, carbon dioxide detectors, heartbeat monitors and scanners, as well as physical searches. I will look into the outstanding parliamentary question highlighted by my hon. Friend. Last year 18,000 people were detected at our juxtaposed controls—a 60% increase. That underlines the focus of our Border Force officers on preventing people who should not be here from coming to this country.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Minister is right: those pieces of equipment are useful, but they are not 100% effective. As of today, 2,300 illegal migrants are in Calais, seeking to come to the United Kingdom. According to the mayor of Calais, in her evidence to Parliament on 28 October, some will risk their lives to do so. Does the Minister agree that we need to do much more work with the countries at the point of entry—Greece, Turkey and Italy—to prevent people from going there, rather than waiting until they get to Calais when it could be far too late?
James Brokenshire
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that we need to look beyond the borders of the EU. That is precisely the emphasis that has been given by several countries, including the UK and France. Indeed, Italy is hosting a conference in a few weeks to do precisely that in relation to the horn of Africa. He is right to make that point, but equally the Government are focused on security at Calais, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has agreed with the French Government an investment of £12 million in security at that port.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
8. What recent progress the National Crime Agency has made in tackling online child abuse.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
10. How many Syrian refugees have been resettled in the UK under the Government’s vulnerable persons relocation scheme.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
We remain on track to relocate several hundred people under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme in the next three years. Between the first group of arrivals on 25 March and the end of June, 50 people were relocated to the UK under the scheme. Numbers are released as part of the publication each quarter of the Home Office official statistics, and the increased number of arrivals under the scheme up to the end of September will be published on 27 November.
Heidi Alexander
On 9 December, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is staging a Syrian resettlement conference in Geneva. Given the unprecedented magnitude of the Syrian refugee crisis, will the Minister ensure that the UK Government are represented at that conference? Will he also take the opportunity to commit to expanding the vulnerable persons relocation scheme?
James Brokenshire
We certainly recognise the contribution and role played by the UNHCR. Indeed, the vulnerable persons relocation scheme has been developed alongside UNHCR and the specific cases we accept depend on referral by it. I underline to the hon. Lady the contribution the UK has made to the region: £700 million in aid, the vulnerable persons relocation scheme and the asylum claims we are accepting here.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
In the past few months there has been increasing evidence that the countries surrounding Syria have begun to close their borders to reduce the number of refugees they allow through, leaving many in a desperate situation. I join the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) in urging the Government to step up to the plate at the pledging conference because we have no ability to put diplomatic pressure on other countries if we are doing so pitifully ourselves.
James Brokenshire
The contribution of the UK stands up to scrutiny and our overall contribution bears comparison with any international country. We are providing £700 million in aid, which is assisting hundreds of thousands of people each month. The vulnerable persons relocation scheme deals with the most vulnerable individuals, and I underline the fact that we have granted asylum to 3,000 people from Syria since the start of the conflict.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
23. I welcome what the Minister says on Syrian refugees coming in this direction, but will he comment on British citizens travelling in the opposite direction? He may be aware of a story in today’s Daily Mail regarding allegations that British citizens have been involved in barbaric and brutal beheadings in Syria and Iraq. Will he assure me that those claims will be investigated very urgently, including claims that an individual from Cardiff was involved? Will he join me in welcoming the absolute condemnation of those acts by the Muslim community across Cardiff?
James Brokenshire
I am sure that the whole House would join the hon. Gentleman and me in utterly condemning those responsible for the brutal murder of Peter Kassig and the appalling images we saw over the weekend. The Government remain resolute in confronting terrorism in all its forms and pursuing those responsible for heinous terrorist acts, and I endorse his comments about British Muslim communities across the country standing up against this brutality and heinous evil. We stand together in condemning these actions and taking whatever action is appropriate.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
The UNHCR report published in July called for participating states to plan for the resettlement of more vulnerable refugees from Syria in 2015 and 2016. Given that this tragic conflict shows little sign of abating, will my hon. Friend indicate what responsibilities we have regarding such forward planning?
James Brokenshire
As my hon. Friend will know, we have stated clearly that we intend to accept several hundred people under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme over the next three years, and we are doing exactly that and will be following through on it, but clearly we remain focused on getting a solution in-region, given the significant numbers affected, which is why our aid programme—the £700 million and the assistance it is directly providing—matters so much.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
11. What steps the Government are taking to identify and safeguard girls at risk of female genital mutilation.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
14. How many foreign criminals have been deported from the UK in the last 12 months.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Last year, we removed just under 5,100 foreign national offenders—a 12% increase over the last two years—and since 2010 the Government have removed more than 22,000 foreign national offenders, despite a 28% increase over that period in the number of legal challenges and appeals designed to frustrate or delay removal.
Mr Bain
The Minister did not mention that the number of deportations of criminals has fallen by 7% since 2010. The recent National Audit Office report suggested that 40% of the delays were down to avoidable processing errors. Will he explain why the Home Office is so inefficient?
James Brokenshire
I do not think the hon. Gentleman was listening. Since 2010, we have seen a 28% increase in the number of legal challenges to deportation decisions designed to frustrate or delay the removal of foreign national offenders, and that is why we introduced the Immigration Act 2014 and other changes to speed up the deportation process. This Government are focused on this issue, unlike the previous one, who failed so miserably in office.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
What responsibility does the Home Office accept for its failure in the pre-vetting and walking-out process for the Libyan personnel who unleashed a tidal wave of criminal offences across the UK and then had to be deported from this country?
James Brokenshire
I think the hon. Lady is referring to the Libyan soldiers who are receiving training in Cambridgeshire. Clearly, action was taken in those circumstances and they were removed. Clearly, unacceptable offences took place, which have been investigated and the appropriate steps have been taken.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
15. What changes there have been in levels of crime in (a) Kettering, (b) Northamptonshire and (c) England since May 2010.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
T3. As the Minister will know, over the last few months I have been chairing an inquiry in which a cross-party group of Members of Parliament has been investigating immigration detention and the treatment of detainees. We have heard some very disturbing evidence from detainees themselves about the impact on their mental health, and also from representatives of the Royal College of Psychiatry and the British Medical Association. The panel would like an opportunity to discuss the Minister’s written evidence with him in person. May I encourage him to come and give evidence to our inquiry? We should be very happy to work around all manner of difficulties in his diary.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I welcome the work of the all-party parliamentary group. Let me emphasise that our priority is to ensure that detention is as short and possible, as well as being safe and secure. Obviously we have made changes in relation to the process for mental health provision, in which Public Health England has been involved, but I will certainly continue to reflect on the recommendations that the inquiry makes.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
T5. Magistrates in Dudley tell me that as a result of the reduction in the number of police officers people accused of quite serious crimes such as burglary, assault, domestic violence and even rape are no longer being taken to court in the black country. The number of cases taken to court by the police is down by a third. Why do the Government not understand that my constituents want to see police on the streets, offenders in court and criminals in jail?
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Further to the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), may I tell the Home Secretary that my Syrian Christian constituents, the Fallou family, have relatives who have fled from Nineveh across the border into Turkey? They have applied to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and been told that the first interview that could possibly be timetabled for them would be in 2017. Will the Home Secretary raise this crucial matter at the conference in Switzerland later this year?
James Brokenshire
We work closely with the UNHCR in respect of the vulnerable persons relocation scheme. I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made regarding the timetable for an interview, and I will certainly take that away.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary join me in praising the work of North Yorkshire police? They have launched a street triage scheme in which York-based mental health professionals join police officers on their patrols. That partnership will allow vulnerable people to receive immediate assistance and a proper mental health assessment at the scene.
British-Irish Visa Scheme (Indian and Chinese Citizens)
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I am today making a ministerial authorisation under schedule 3, part 4, paragraph 17 (4)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. This authorisation may be cited as the Equality (British-Irish Visa Scheme––Indian and Chinese Citizens) authorisation.
The authorisation will allow Chinese and Indian citizens to transit through the UK en route to the Republic of Ireland under the transit without visa concession (TWOV). To qualify, individuals must meet the criteria for the TWOV and hold an Irish short-stay visa or subsequent stamp conferring leave in Ireland endorsed with the BIVS. No additional requirements are being imposed on these individuals, other than those already required of them as visa nationals for the purposes of entry clearance to travel to the UK.
The UK and Irish Governments are working in close co-operation to protect the security of the external border of the common travel area. Joint work is under way to ensure our checks are effective at preventing individuals who intend either country harm from entering, while preserving the right of free movement for those who are lawfully present.
The UK will recognize certain Irish visas under the British-Irish visa scheme. It is therefore no longer necessary to impose a transit visa requirement on Chinese and Indian citizens who have been issued a visa under this scheme.
The British-Irish visa scheme is part of this joint UK-Ireland work, allowing eligible visitors to travel to the UK and the Republic of Ireland on a single visa. Subsequent roll-out of the scheme to other nationalities is envisaged but is subject to the outcome of an evaluation process of the first phase.
The authorisation will facilitate tourism to the Republic of Ireland and the UK by removing the requirement for Indian and Chinese citizens, eligible for the British-Irish visa scheme and subject to the enhanced Irish visa regime, to obtain transit visas to travel to the Republic of Ireland through the UK.
I therefore consider the ministerial authorisation to be reasonable, rational, proportionate and necessary for maintaining the integrity of the immigration system.
The authorisation shall come into operation on 13 October 2014 and remain in force until 1 December 2014.
I am placing a copy of the authorisation in the Library of the House.
Refugees and Migrants (Search and Rescue Operation)
James Brokenshire Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on why the Government have decided not to support search and rescue operations for refugees and migrants in the Mediterranean.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
The United Kingdom has a long and proud tradition of providing sanctuary to those who genuinely need it. We work closely with our European neighbours to provide assistance to those fleeing fear or persecution and to deter those whose criminal actions stand in the way of providing effective help.
The scenes we have witnessed in the Mediterranean in recent months, with people risking their lives to reach Europe, are hugely distressing. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that over 3,000 people have already died attempting to cross the Mediterranean this year, compared with some 700 deaths in the whole of last year. When people are risking life and limb—not just their own, but those of their loved ones too—it is clear that they are caught in a desperate situation. Nobody underestimates the sincerity of their plight. It demands an equally sincere approach from the governments of European nations, and that is what it has been getting.
Since Italy launched its Mare Nostrum operation in October 2013, there has been an unprecedented increase in illegal immigration across the Mediterranean and a fourfold increase in the deaths of those making that perilous journey. The operation has been drawn closer and closer to the Libyan shore, as traffickers have taken advantage of the situation by placing more vulnerable people in unseaworthy boats on the basis that they will be rescued and taken to Italy. However, many are not rescued, which is why we believe that the operation is having the unintended consequence of placing more lives at risk, and why EU member states have unanimously agreed that the operation should be promptly phased out.
It is, of course, vital that this phasing out is well managed and well publicised, to mitigate the risk of further deaths. It is vital that we continue to take action to provide real help to those who genuinely need it.
We have made clear our view that the only sustainable answer to the current situation in the Mediterranean is to enhance operational co-operation within the EU; work with the countries of origin and transit to tackle the causes of illegal immigration and the organised gangs that facilitate it; and enhance support for protection in north and east Africa for those in need.
We have agreed to a request from Frontex—the EU’s border management agency—to deploy a debriefing expert in support of the new Frontex Operation Triton off the southern Italian coast. This operation is not designed to replace Mare Nostrum, but will instead patrol closer to EU borders. We stand ready to consider any further request for UK support for the new Frontex operation.
The UK is also among those member states offering substantial numbers of resettlement places for refugees from outside the EU—more than 4,000 between 2008 and 2013—working closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In close partnership with other member states, we are developing a strong programme of work to tackle the causes of migration from the horn of Africa, including through investment in regional protection programmes.
It is not in the interests of anyone—most especially those who are genuinely fleeing persecution—if European countries have an uncontrolled and ineffective approach to immigration and asylum. It is not in the interests of anyone if the criminal gangs that exploit the fear and suffering of vulnerable people—endangering human lives for cold, hard cash—are allowed to continue their despicable work unimpeded. It is not in the interests of anyone if we fail to adapt to a situation which encourages more and more people to make that dangerous journey across the seas. That is why member states across the EU have unanimously agreed to act—to defend our borders, crack down on crime and protect those who so desperately need our protection.
Mark Lazarowicz
The Minister knows that many of those seeking to make the journey are fleeing war, poverty and starvation in places such as Syria and Libya. They know already that the risks of dying en route are high. They are exploited by people traffickers, as the Minister has accepted, and if they are picked up by European navies or border control, they know they will not be given free entry to Europe, but are likely to end up in a detention centre in Italy or to be sent back to their country of origin. Surely it is obvious that these refugees and migrants are desperate given that they are still prepared to make these terrible journeys. The idea that search and rescue operations should be discontinued and that people should be left to die in their thousands—presumably in order to discourage others from making the journey—is not just cruel and inhumane, but totally without logic
Is not the right response for Europe as a whole to support a comprehensive search and rescue operation for refugees and migrants in the Mediterranean? Will the Government now reconsider their position and try to persuade other European nations to bring that about? Why do the Government not listen to the refugee agencies when they say that the real answer to the problem is to provide more safe and legal channels for people to access protection?
This policy is shameful. Surely, when we know that hundreds of our fellow human beings face a terrible death and it is in our power to do something about it, it is our moral duty to act. And if we fail to do so, are we not complicit in their deaths?
James Brokenshire
I am very proud of this Government’s humanitarian work. The investment we have provided for places such as Syria—we have committed about £700 million to the aid effort that is providing direct assistance to those in need—reflects our response. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of search and rescue operations, but I want to highlight the fact that such matters are for individual member states in respect of their territorial waters. It is ultimately for Italy to decide how it conducts its search and rescue operations.
The Frontex operation, which I have outlined, provides surveillance capability and other support at the border. I find it inconceivable—the head of Frontex has said the same—that support would not be provided if a boat were in peril. Obviously, a rescue would be undertaken in those circumstances.
The Government’s view is that, because of the situation in various parts of the region, a regional solution is required. I have already made the point that assistance is required to prevent people from making such perilous journeys. The judgment of the UK Government and other Governments across the EU is that the emergency measures should be stopped at the earliest opportunity. Ultimately, we want to do something that helps, but sadly, in our judgment, the emergency measures are not achieving that end.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I commend the Minister for his statement, which, to be perfectly honest, was full of common sense. Is it not the case that since the search and rescue operation began, more and more people have tried their luck, with the result that there has been more and more illegal immigration and more and more deaths? The solution must therefore be to stop the search and rescue operation. Does he agree that the message that should go out from this House is not about restoring the operation, but about telling people to stop trying their luck in the first place?
James Brokenshire
Our genuine concern has been to provide solutions to prevent people from making those perilous journeys. As I said in my statement, the sad reality is that the number of those who have died in the Mediterranean sea has increased since the introduction of the Mare Nostrum operation. It is therefore right to look at what assistance can be provided on north African borders through direct aid, and at what further assistance the European External Action Service can give for such solutions. The approach of the Government and of other EU member states is about saving lives, not putting them in peril.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) for securing the urgent question, and the Minister for his response.
After days of silence, it is absolutely right that the Government should come to the House and answer for their decision to abandon search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean. No one is suggesting that the problem of migrants entering Europe from north Africa and the middle east does not need to be addressed, but leaving people to die in their thousands is not the answer.
This year alone 150,000 people have been rescued in the Mediterranean and, as the Minister said, 3,000 people—3,000 men, women and children—have died on their way over. Most of them were fleeing desperate poverty or war zones, and many of them were under the control of human traffickers. Instead of trying to reduce this appalling loss of life, the Government have decided to allow it to increase. The 150,000 people rescued this year will in future be left at the mercy of the sea: if their overcrowded, decrepit boat sinks, they will be left to drown. This is a barbaric abandonment of British values.
Moreover, this decision was taken to distract from a failed immigration policy. With a net migration target in tatters, border security downgraded, a crisis at Calais to which the Government have no answer and in desperation at the prospect of a by-election loss to UKIP, the Government needed to be seen doing something—anything—to appear tough on immigration, but it will not be effective. The Government have provided no evidence that abandoning rescue missions will reduce the number of people getting on the boats. When will the Government publish the evidence and the impact assessment?
Many of the individuals concerned have no choice in the matter because they are under the control of human traffickers, as has been said. What is being done, therefore, to tackle trafficking gangs in north Africa and southern Europe?
The Government need to start working with our European partners to address the so-called pull factors. Once people are on a boat and are drowning off the coast of Italy, it is too late. We need to intervene far earlier, so when does the Minister next plan to meet his EU counterparts to discuss the matter?
We must remember that Operation Triton is not only about attempting to stop those who make the dangerous journey to Europe in boats coming to harm, but about protecting our borders. Will the Minister confirm the reports that the Government are providing just one immigration officer to gather intelligence about those who arrive in Italy by sea? That seems to be totally inadequate. We need to know what more the Government intend to do to play their part in making Operation Triton a viable alternative to search and rescue.
Rescuing people who are in danger of drowning is a legal obligation under international maritime law, as is set out in the international convention for the safety of life at sea. The Government may be abandoning their efforts in that regard, but what will happen to commercial boats that intervene, as they are obliged to do?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady has sought to politicise this issue in a way that does not reflect the intent or focus of the Government.
I say to the hon. Lady clearly that the people who are responsible for the deaths of those at sea are the organised traffickers who seek to exploit the vulnerable by putting them in increasing numbers on boats that are entirely unseaworthy. Our judgment is that extending the emergency measures has encouraged that and put more lives at risk. That is our primary focus. Indeed, it is the focus not simply of the UK Government, but the unanimous conclusion of all 28 member states of the EU.
The hon. Lady made an appropriate point about intervening earlier and looking overseas at the flows of people across borders far from the Mediterranean sea. That is why I made the point about the aid, assistance and political leadership that the UK provides in that work. She asked when we would meet other European Ministers. The Italian Government will host a conference in the coming weeks to look at these very issues around the horn of Africa. We look forward to attending and supporting that conference.
The hon. Lady asked about the support that the British Government are providing to Frontex. I want to make it clear that the UK is not a fully participating member of Frontex because it is not in the Schengen area, and Frontex is an EU body that is designed to safeguard that area. However, we have always sought to respond as favourably as we can to any requests that Frontex makes of the UK. Indeed, the expert to whom she referred is being provided as a consequence of the requests that we have received from Frontex to date. We stand ready to look favourably on any further requests that Frontex may wish to make of the UK Government in support of Operation Triton.
I say again that the focus of the Government is not on short-term political issues, but on examining what will make a difference in the region and providing the necessary humanitarian support. Our judgment is that the steps that are being taken are about saving lives, not putting lives at risk.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
Claiming that rescuing people from drowning in the sea is somehow a pull factor for people who are fleeing war is an absurd and deeply unethical thing for the Government to do. Can the Government not see that more people are travelling because half of the middle east is burning? Has the Minister not seen the advice of his own Foreign Office? We cannot wash our hands of these people, Pontius Pilate-style. If we are to prevent people from boarding rickety boats and drowning at sea, we will have to work with our European colleagues and find safe routes of travel. Can the Minister not see that he has lost any sense of ethical reasoning here?
James Brokenshire
I entirely reject the analysis that my hon. Friend seeks to proffer in this regard. No one is turning a blind eye to humanitarian issues or needs. The purpose of the actions being taken is to put fewer lives at risk, and I am sorry that she is unable to accept the clear purpose of what we are undertaking. On the idea that boats in need of assistance would simply be ignored, I point her to the head of Frontex who said that if a boat in distress is spotted, rescue is the top priority. I am sure that that is precisely what will happen.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The mayor of Calais told the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday that the destination of choice for many who arrive in Italy is Calais and after that London, and £12 million has been allocated in Calais. The unintended consequences of not allocating support will be that more people will die in the Mediterranean. I understand why the Minister does not want to give succour to people traffickers, but that is what will happen. The real problem is the failure of Frontex to act appropriately to ensure that the borders are secure. He will see that at the Greek-Turkish border, and at Melilla in Morocco where people are climbing over the fence that the Spanish have put up, this issue will remain a problem. When he goes to Rome will he please also visit Lampedusa and ensure that the real long-term solution is with the countries of north Africa? We must support them in preventing people from leaving in the first place, and that is where our focus should be.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I commend him and members of his Committee for the focus they have attached to this issue. I know they have undertaken a number of visits to the region to see the situation for themselves. He is right to say that the solutions lie in north Africa, which is why I made a point about the need for focus and attention there. The mayor of Calais characterised the UK as the primary destination, but let us analyse where asylum applications are being made. The UK anticipates around 25,000 applications this year, but France anticipates around 65,000, Sweden around 80,000, and Germany more than 200,000. This is an issue for the whole EU, and it is important, as I have said, to continue to work together to find solutions.
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The flow of migrants across the Mediterranean is now more than just a trickle, and the Minister is right, as is the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), to say that the solution is to work on the causes of migration. I commend to the Minister the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee on instability in north and west Africa, and I put to him a question posed in that report that did not get a very clear answer: if a British warship finds a boatload of refugees in the middle of the Mediterranean, is the policy to escort it back to north Africa, or to usher it into a European port?
James Brokenshire
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee in looking at the pressures in north Africa and across the region. We have a keen focus on and interest in the Committee’s reports and recommendations. On identifying and rescuing boats at sea, clearly if vessels are in the territorial waters of a particular country I would expect the normal rules of the sea to apply. That is why Frontex, with its mission to protect the security of the external European border, will focus on the 30-mile limit off the Italian coast.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that, for many British people, including those who share his concern about protecting our borders, the decision on search and rescue represents a new low? Of course the solution to those problems lies in north Africa, and of course there must be a regional solution, but consciously pursuing a policy that will allow people to drown should play no part in protecting Europe’s borders. Some of us are reminded of nothing more than the Exodus, the boat that, at the end of the second world war, tried to take Jewish refugees to Palestine and was turned away by the British Government on precisely the kind of realpolitik grounds the Minister has advanced this morning. Just as people look back in shame at what we did in relation to the Exodus and the fleeing Jewish refugees, we will look back in shame on the decision he is trying to defend today.
James Brokenshire
I respect the hon. Lady’s passion and that of other hon. Members, but the harsh reality is that more people are dying in the Mediterranean following the introduction of Mare Nostrum and the emergency measures. If we want solutions that save lives, we need to examine different options and alternatives. Not just the UK Government but 28 other EU member states have come to that same conclusion. The measure cannot therefore be characterised as a specific action of the UK Government. There has been an EU-wide recognition that things are simply not working and not saving lives. The very thing that the hon. Lady wants achieved is what we want: we want fewer lives lost and to ensure that fewer people head out to sea in dangerous boats. That is why I make the points about going after organised traffickers, and about finding a regional solution in north Africa and elsewhere.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on reducing the push factors that drive a lot of immigrants to Europe, by our expenditure through the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to improve governance in Africa, but may I also challenge the Minister? Does he believe that the evil people traffickers are likely to issue a press release saying, “If you make this journey in future, you are unlikely to be rescued”? Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) from the Opposition Front Bench, does the Minister share my concern that there might be an international lawsuit against this country and possibly Europe through the UN convention on the law of the sea and the International Maritime Organisation sea regulations? The IMO is the only UN body, and it is based just 1 mile from Parliament.
James Brokenshire
I do not underestimate the sheer evil of the traffickers. They exploit the vulnerable and put them to sea in boats that are not seaworthy and are not necessarily able to reach the shores of the European Union. That is why I was clear in my statement about ensuring that the changes are well communicated and well understood. That must be part of the approach. Rescuing people at sea is a member state competence, not an EU competence, so it will always be for individual member states to ensure that search and rescue operations are undertaken appropriately, in accordance with the normal laws of the sea.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I do not think I have heard a more shameful statement from this Government. This is where we are: this poisonous debate about immigration—this monstrous race to the bottom between the Government and the UKIP as to who can be hardest on immigration—is leaving people to die in the Mediterranean. Is the Minister not absolutely ashamed of himself?
James Brokenshire
The only shameful thing I have heard is the hon. Gentleman’s comments. The debate has been impassioned, but there has been an understanding of the challenges that individual Governments face in seeking to address a problem that has got worse. We argue that the steps that have been taken have not assisted in the way that was intended. We cannot turn our eyes away from a situation that is getting worse and not better. That is why we focus on steps to ensure that regional solutions are established and supported, and that we have an external border that is surveilled through Frontex. If boats are identified as in need of assistance, that is what will happen.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Am I right in thinking that this was a unanimous decision by all Home Affairs and Justice Ministers throughout the European Union at a Justice and Home Affairs Council? Labour, Liberal and Scottish National another party colleagues who oppose this are actually out of step with every Government—left, right or centre—in the EU. It was never the intention of the United Nations convention on refugees, which was brought in just after the second world war, automatically to give indefinite leave to remain to anyone trafficked from a third country into Europe.
James Brokenshire
My right hon. Friend makes a clear point. This did arise from the most recent Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting, and it was the unanimous conclusion of 28 member states across the EU. Frankly, to characterise this as a short-term political issue completely misses the point and does not have proper regard for those who are in peril and fleeing persecution.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Everyone condemns the criminal gangs and everyone would like to see people discouraged from coming to Europe for obvious reasons, but is the Minister aware that this policy will be summed up in three words, namely: let them drown?
James Brokenshire
No, I do not accept that. We will see Frontex, through Operation Triton, conducting surveillance operations around the coast of Italy. Matters of search and rescue remain with Italy and other member states in respect of their territorial waters. They will remain a matter for the Italian Government, who I am sure will take their responsibilities extremely seriously.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
In 2005, the European Union unanimously pledged to give 0.7% of gross national income to overseas development assistance. The EU, with the honourable exception of the UK and a number of other countries, will singularly fail to meet that pledge. Is today’s announcement not putting the cart before the horse? Should the EU not be investing in measures such as those outlined by the Minister before withdrawing support? I ask him to think again. The EU needs to fulfil the pledges it solemnly made in 2005 and ensure that work is done in north Africa before this kind of support is withdrawn.
James Brokenshire
To be clear, the EU is not withdrawing anything. Mare Nostrum is an Italian initiative. It is supported by the Italian navy, and ultimately decisions will be taken by the Italian Government. However, my hon. Friend makes a profound and important point about the responsibility of all Governments in the EU to look at international development in the way that we have: state-building and providing long-term solutions, as well as ensuring that clear messages are sent and clear policies are undertaken bilaterally, or through the external action service of the EU, to do the very things he has outlined.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Why can the Minister not see that it is not a case of either addressing the causes in north Africa or dealing with the consequences now, but a question of both? The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) mentioned the International Maritime Organisation. Why can the Minister not also see that this is not simply an issue for nation states? It is an issue that needs to be addressed across the EU, and the Government should be playing their part. On the so-called pull factor, that is an argument that could have been used to discourage people from setting up the Kindertransport before the second world war.
James Brokenshire
We play our part within the EU. We continue to lead discussions with individual member states and across the EU membership on long-term and short-term solutions to why people are getting on those boats and to the transit of people across nations to the north African coast. We take that responsibility very seriously, backed up not just by rhetoric but by investment through our international development focus and the money provided to support it. We stand proud of the UK Government’s record in providing that assistance.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
It would help to reduce the attractiveness of this country as a destination for illegal immigrants if being an illegal immigrant was made a specific criminal offence, as provided for in the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), the Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s support for that measure?
James Brokenshire
Our focus is on ensuring that we have strong and effective borders, which is precisely what our Border Force is doing, with more checks undertaken under this Government than under the previous Government. We are also focused on ensuring that where people are not here legally—when they come to this country and are not found to be in need of humanitarian protection—we put in place measures to see that they are returned. Indeed, I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise the work done under the Immigration Act 2014 to achieve precisely that: to ensure that, through measures on rented accommodation, bank accounts, driving licences and other issues, the very steps he is advocating are actively assisted.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
The coincidence of events does not necessarily prove a causal link. The Minister has told us that he believes the search and rescue operation has increased the number of people trying to cross the Mediterranean, but this is during a period when unrest and wars have continued to grow. Can he prove there is a causal link? Should he not get the evidence first before acting?
James Brokenshire
We expressed our concerns and reservations in respect of those very issues in advance of the introduction of Mare Nostrum, but we are not talking about the assessment simply of the UK Government; we are talking about the assessment of 28 member states across the EU that have come to that conclusion.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I speak on this issue having experienced both sides of the coin as an east African Sikh. With all the emotionally charged comments we have heard in the Chamber today, it would be helpful to remind Opposition Members that many of us of Indian descent who came out of Africa were not particularly proud of the fact that we were promised British passports and were then faced with a Labour Home Secretary who, when push came to shove, pulled up the drawbridge.
As for today’s issue, as a constituency MP in Wolverhampton, I am struck by the size of the backlog of cases that immigration staff have to deal with. Will the Minister update the House on the legacy bequeathed to us by the last Government, not just in the economy but in terms of immigration and asylum cases?
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting his direct personal experience and the need for care to be taken in the tone we use. I am sorry that some have sought to characterise this issue in the way they have. He is also right to underline the shambles that this Government inherited and the steps we have taken to deal with the problems. The situation is improving and we are dealing with the backlogs—something that was simply ignored by the last Government, who were incapable of dealing with them.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
This is indeed a shameful decision. How many lives does the Minister estimate will be saved as a result of abandoning search and rescue missions?
James Brokenshire
The reality, as I have already indicated, is that more lives have been lost to date this year than were lost in 2013. Our focus is on ensuring that this is about reducing the tragic human cost we see in the Mediterranean sea. If we can telegraph that clear message to the traffickers in north Africa who are exploiting very vulnerable people, I absolutely believe that is the right thing to do to save lives.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
The wars in the middle east and consequent humanitarian situation are so dire there that Europe is unlikely to have an impact on the push factors in the near term. The pressures on countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey and the refugee crisis there surely mean that Europe needs to face up to its responsibilities better than it has done to date. I welcomed what the Minister said about co-operation with UNHCR and getting more placements here in the UK. Will he add some detail to that announcement?
James Brokenshire
On the latter point, we work closely with UNHCR, in connection with the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme, for example. We work with it in identifying those most acutely in need of help and assistance. It is a good partnership and I think it is effective. On the broader issue of various middle east countries, my hon. Friend is right to underline the contributions that need to be made by all European Governments. I certainly stand proud when it comes to the work of the Department for International Development, which is contributing £145 million to the Arab Partnership programme, with the aim of supporting a more stable and prosperous middle east and north Africa.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am not going to beat the Minister over the head about this, because Members on all sides of the House share a great responsibility for the turmoil in the middle east and other places, which has caused much of the migration in the first place. I would say, however, that morally I cannot stand by without saying that I think it is repugnant that we leave children and families to perish in this way. What I dislike is that we do not have an alternative positive policy. We know the point of embarkation for many people—often Libya—so why can we not have a European partnership to tackle the problem proactively?
James Brokenshire
That is precisely what is happening through the work of member states and, indeed, our Foreign Office and DFID. The harsh reality is that we are seeing those deaths at sea. Our judgment is that extending the search and rescue approach that has been taken close to the Libyan coast will mean more people putting out to sea in less seaworthy boats in greater numbers. That is making the situation worse.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Since Mare Nostrum was established some 12 months ago, 3,000 or more people have lost their lives, notwithstanding the presence of more than 30 Italian vessels patrolling the Mediterranean sea. Does my hon. Friend agree that the root cause of the problem is the activities of the people traffickers and that one of the best services that both this country and the EU could perform would be to conduct an information campaign in north Africa to try to inform and persuade people that if they put their lives in the hands of these people, they will very likely end up losing them?
James Brokenshire
I agree with my right hon. Friend on the messaging and communication around the strategy. However, I say to him most acutely that the organised traffickers are absolutely responsible for the exploitation of the vulnerable, leading to the deaths of scores of people. That is why we are working very closely with a number of European nations to step up our intelligence sharing and actively to go after those organised crime groups that are trading in human misery.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
In all my years in academic philosophy, I never heard such sophistry as I have heard from the Minister today. The solution is of course on the north African coast, but if that is the case, that solution must be implemented so that people do not leave in droves before the safety net is taken up. Why is the Minister taking the safety net away while people are still falling out of a burning building?
James Brokenshire
It is for the Italian Government to determine, as they are the lead in the search and rescue operations off their coast, when Mare Nostrum is or is not terminated. It is ultimately a matter for them. As I have underlined on a number of occasions, this Government are not turning a blind eye to any of the humanitarian suffering. That is why we stand ready to support Frontex on Operation Triton and to take the lead on communications around the approach. I say again that the reality—the harsh reality—is that the current arrangements are, in our judgment, making matters worse, and that is what drives our approach.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Over the summer, the UNHCR drew attention to an increase in the number of deaths following the introduction of Mare Nostrum in October last year. Has the UNHCR made any comments since the announcement of the changes?
James Brokenshire
I am aware of a number of points that have been made in this House and by other agencies. We are keen to ensure that the approach is well communicated and well addressed. Our focus, and the focus of the aid agencies and the UNHCR, is on saving lives. That is the Government’s motivation, and the motivation of many other agencies.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
In response to the question from the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), the Minister referred to the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme. It has been reported that, under that scheme, just 50 of the people who have had to flee their homes and their country have been given safe haven in the United Kingdom—just 50 of the 3 million refugees who have had to flee Syria as a result of this crisis. The Minister is a decent man. Why does he not want the United Kingdom to do more to give those who are fleeing brutality a safe and legal route to this country?
James Brokenshire
I respect the manner in which the hon. Lady has asked her question, but the United Kingdom is playing its full role. For instance, we have invested £700 million in the region, because given the numbers that are involved, a regional solution is required. That money is providing direct support for hundreds of thousands of people in the region who are in desperate need of assistance. Our Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme is intended to assist those who are most acutely in need of help; we have said that it will provide assistance for several hundred people over the next three years, and that is precisely what it is doing.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
It is clear that the EU’s external frontier is as leaky as a sieve—whether we are talking about the land border with the ex-Soviet Union, the islands between Greece and Turkey, or the Mediterranean coast off north Africa—and that Frontex is a highly dysfunctional organisation. Surely part of the solution would be an effective policing operation off the north African coast, using close-to-shore patrol vessels. Frontex should be encouraged to work with the north African Governments to register such vessels under north African flags, so that people can be caught close to the shore and returned to their countries of origin.
James Brokenshire
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, but Frontex adds an important element in respect of the Schengen external border—the EU border—and the establishment of Operation Triton. As I have said, the United Kingdom stands ready to support any requests that may be received, and we will consider such requests very carefully. We are not a full member of Frontex, but it is important that there is that continued focus on ensuring that the EU’s external borders are properly maintained.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Lest we forget, this Government, supported by Her Majesty’s Opposition, backed military intervention in Libya. The people who are drowning in the Mediterranean are fleeing the chaos in that country. Is there not a simple moral imperative? Do we not have a moral obligation to those people until there is a stable Government in Libya?
James Brokenshire
As has been made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is the Minister with responsibility for north Africa, we are focusing very directly on north Africa, and on Libya in particular. We have a nominated representative to lead that activity after 40 years of misrule in the country. As I have said, Frontex is providing support at the external border through Operation Triton, and it is the Italian Government, not the EU, who are actively providing search and rescue assistance. That applies in the case of all member states. Ultimately, it is the Italian Government who will decide on matters relating to their own territorial waters.