Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I came somewhat late to the debate—for which I apologise—so I may have missed this. There is an issue about the counter-productive nature of control orders, as was, in terms of radicalising sections of the community, just as internment did with regard to the Irish community in Northern Ireland. Is there any estimate, or provisional estimate, of the scale of the use of TPIMs as envisaged in the Bill?
Mr Howarth
I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say. I acknowledge that he and his supporters have a valid point to make. I just think it is a tricky area in which to legislate and there might be a better way of doing it that we have not thought of yet.
John McDonnell
Everyone else who has spoken so far seems to have explained my amendments, and I am grateful to them. I tabled new clause 1 and amendment 11 because there is now a sense of urgency about dealing with this matter. I speak as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists group in Parliament—a group of MPs drawn from various political parties in the House. Throughout proceedings on RIPA and DRIPA and now this Bill, we have been discussing this issue. To put it simply, this House has always recognised in legislation the need to protect journalists, because we see journalism as one of the bulwarks of democracy in this country. Although we may not be enamoured of journalists or individual newspapers at times, we believe they play a vital democratic role in exposing what happens, particularly in regard to the behaviour of public authorities, Governments, corporations and others. That is why over the years we have written into legislation protection for journalists, as well as for other professions where there are issues of confidentiality, and the House has accepted that in all the debates so far.
Sir Alan Beith
It might be better expressed as “protection for sources”, because the primary concern is not to give a special elevated status to the journalist, but to avoid a situation in which the questions are asked, “Who told him and how can we get him?”
John McDonnell
Exactly. I was not arguing for preferential status for journalists—God forbid that I do that here. I was coming on to that point: this is about the ability to make sure a source is protected—as we all know, sources are often whistleblowers, blowing the whistle on abuses by public authorities and others—but it is also relevant to the protection of journalists themselves. We have seen across the world how, when the confidentiality of journalists’ sources is undermined, journalists become just as much a target as their sources, and in recent years large numbers of journalists in various countries have died as a result of persecution. What I am trying to say is that it is critical that we protect the role journalists play and enable them to undertake their work.
We have legislated in accordance with that principle—in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, for example. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) that it is always difficult to find the mechanism, but the mechanism under PACE was the ability of the court to determine whether a production order should be made. We gave it over to the courts to determine that. What was important about that is that the journalist was notified of the application and could contest it before the court, and a decision would then be made that commanded the confidence of all those involved. The classic case since then is when the police failed to get an order under PACE and then used RIPA to obtain an order against a journalist to get information relating to articles that were being written, including the sources of that information. I think it was generally felt in the House that that was not what we intended when we passed PACE and was not in the spirit of RIPA. We have for some time consistently tried to get Government and this House—the responsibility falls on the shoulders of us all—to do exactly as my right hon. Friend said and to find an appropriate mechanism.
I tabled new clause 1 because I cannot find an effective mechanism other than the use of the courts at some stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked whether it is a mechanism to enable the court to determine whether due process has been followed or the merits of a case. I have left that open for now because I welcome the discussion, but in my view, it is both.
John McDonnell
I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to ask me a detailed question about my long-term future policy.
Julian Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a mechanism is already in place, because David Anderson is conducting a review of the rules and regulations? In tabling the amendments, the hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun. Surely we have to wait for David Anderson’s report.
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.
Mark Field
I very much agree that we should be proud of the traditions of a free press in this country. The hon. Gentleman has not yet answered on the extent of the definition of journalism. I accept that new clause 1(6) is not exhaustive, but he has not mentioned religious counsellors, whom many would consider to have a similar duty of care. Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts on that, though I accept that he has not made an exhaustive list at this stage? [Interruption.]
John McDonnell
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley says that my local parish priest rather optimistically describes me as a lapsed Catholic. The secrets of the confessional need to be included; otherwise, there might be an excommunication.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) makes a good point about journalism. I would like the definition to be membership of the NUJ, but there you are. These days, I would have the widest interpretation, but if it is to be contested, I would like to see a court make the decision on the basis of the evidence before it.
Sir Alan Beith
It is important that we distinguish what we are talking about here—the protection of the conversations that take place between lawyers and their clients and between doctors and their patients, discovered by entirely different processes. We are looking at the identification of the person who tipped someone off or provided some information. There may be good criminal law reasons for finding out who that person is, but I agree that some kind of measure is needed to ensure that those who warn a journalist or perhaps a Member of Parliament that something serious is going wrong have protection.
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.
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.
Modern Slavery Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman sits on the Government Benches, so I am not sure it is in order for us to agree again. The British Retail Consortium supported our proposals in Committee. This is not some kind of mystical issue; this will help to protect the work force, stop undercutting and protect legitimate businesses working in specific areas. What is good for the three sectors currently covered should be good for others too.
I do not just pray in aid Oxfam, the TUC and the Joint Committee. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said:
“Many have called for extending the authority…of the GLA to cover all industries where there is known risk of exploitation and forced labour associated with labour providers. The evidence from the JRF’s programme points to the same recommendation.”
In Committee, I prayed in aid Andrew Boff, who is not a member of my party but the Mayor of London’s representative and deputy. In a report on slavery in London, he recommended strongly the extension of gangmaster legislation. That is very important, because we need to send a very strong signal on exploitation.
An answer to a recent parliamentary question revealed that the number of criminal investigations under the current gangmaster legislation has dropped from a high point of 134 in 2011, to 76 in 2013 and 65 to date in 2014. This information has come to light since the Public Bill Committee last sat. The Minister said in Committee that this was a growing problem. I would welcome her view on why the number of investigations into gangmaster activity has dropped over the four-year period.
The National Crime Agency, the general secretary of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the leader of the Conservative group on the London Assembly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the British Retail Consortium and the Ethical Trading Initiative have all said we should consider extending gangmaster legislation. New clause 1 would give the Minister the chance to do that speedily. I pressed her on this in and outside Committee. With due respect to her talent as a Minister, I do not think she has made an effective case for why we cannot extend it to the areas suggested by me and the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire.
I think there is a general consensus outside the House that exploitation is exploitation, be it in relation to shellfish or care work. We therefore need to look at this in an effective way. This is not, dare I say, a fly-by-night issue for the hon. Gentleman. He has pursued it over many months. His amendments do not deal directly with the matters addressed in new clause 1, but we sat on a Bill some time ago in the mists of this Parliament and he raised the same issues then. He has a real opportunity to ensure that his amendments enhance the 2004 legislation and build on the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. He has our support, and if he wants to use that on his election address in due course I am sure that will be even better for him.
New clause 2 addresses protection from slavery for overseas domestic workers. The previous Government put in place a regime for migrant domestic workers who accompanied employers to the UK. The current Government changed the regime in April 2012. Overseas domestic worker visa holders are now tied to their original employer and the visa is not renewable beyond its initial six-month duration. We have had two-and-a-half years of the new regime since April 2012, and there is real concern that it has been detrimental to domestic workers and is causing real challenges in the system that need to be considered.
That is my view—I am open and honest about it—but it is shared by the Joint Committee that scrutinised the Bill, including Members in their places today who supported recommendations on a cross-party basis. Andrew Boff, the Conservative leader of the London assembly, is of that view, too. In his report on human trafficking, he said:
“I don’t think it intends to be, but the Government is actually licensing modern-day slavery… through their changes to tie a visa to an employer.”
There is cross-party support for the Government to review the issues covered by new clause 2. In agreement are a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, comprising and dominated by Government members, the leader of the Conservative group on the London assembly, along with many organisations interested in this topic from outside the House—notably Kalayaan, which carried out a study on the impact of the Government’s proposals.
Kalayaan has thrown up some really concerning figures. Between 6 April 2012 and 3 April 2014, 402 migrant domestic workers registered with Kalayaan. Of those, 120 were tied to their employers and 282 had entered the UK prior to April 2012. There was a real difference between the way in which these groups were treated. The Minister said in Committee that it was a “small sample”. Yes, it is, but if that sample shows that 62% of overseas domestic workers on tied visas report being paid no salary at all, and if 85% of those on tied visas are not given their own room to sleep in, with 86% saying that their passports have been taken off them by their employers, 96% not allowed to leave the house unsupervised, 74% reporting having suffered psychological abuse and 95% paid less than £100 a week, the size of the sample is not the crucial thing. Whatever the size of the sample, real and difficult challenges are evident, and they can be traced back to the change in the granting of these visas in 2012.
The Joint Committee recommended in its draft Bill that we return to the position of April 2012—prior to the changes the Government made. That proposal was put in Committee, and there was a tie with nine votes to nine votes. Members of the governing party voted with other members of the Committee; some Members did not, which was their choice; some Members supported the draft Bill’s recommendations and voted against them in Committee, which was their choice. I believe, however, that there is a real consensus on ensuring that this issue is looked at in the other place. I hope the Government will consider it further. New clause 2 provides an opportunity to do so.
Let me move on from new clauses 1 and 2 to the other contentious and wide-ranging issue suggested by this group of amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) raised this initially in Committee—the issues of how to deal with sex workers and prostitution and of how prostitution should be dealt with by society as a whole. My hon. Friend will undoubtedly speak to her new clauses. MPs do not need to look far into their inboxes to realise that a range of views are being expressed, including by the all-party group chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker). My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has also filtered through a range of issues for Members to consider. People have different views about how to deal with this.
Let me put it on the record from the outset, however, that all the different views focus on the fact that there are around 80,000 people, mainly women and girls, involved in prostitution today. Nobody can deny that many of these workers carry out this work voluntarily, yet a lot of them are involved in sexual slavery, having got here through different routes. They are often pimped by people they know and can be trafficked by organised gangs. They are often extremely vulnerable, having been abused in the past. About 95% of women in street prostitution have problematic drug use; over half of women involved in prostitution in the UK have been raped and/or sexually assaulted; and the vast majority of those assaults are committed by people who have purchased sex from them.
According to recent statistics, there has been a recent and rapid increase in the number of non-British women selling sex on the street in a significant number of London boroughs. There are real concerns about trafficked women being exploited in on-street as well as off-street prostitution and about the fact that this exploitation is now being controlled and organised by criminal gangs. This is a real issue that the House needs to address.
A number of solutions have been proposed. The Nordic model, which is effectively the basis of the proposals from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, looks at how we diminish street prostitution—particularly by making it an offence for people to buy sex. One argument put forward is that street prostitution has diminished by half and that the number of brothel businesses is also diminishing, or certainly has not increased. There is evidence of the flow of human trafficking having been slowed in Sweden because of that. In Norway there is evidence that that is contributing to the reduction in demand for and volume of prostitution. But we do not have to look far into our email inboxes to know that there are very strong views from people involved in the trade that that potential model and others could lead to further violence against those who are involved in the industry and/or to driving prostitution underground.
The Opposition have tabled new clause 22, which seeks to place upon the Government a legal responsibility to undertake a review of these issues in detail. We are seeking to deal with this matter effectively. We have said that within six months of Royal Assent the Government should look at all the discussion points that are before us today. The review would investigate the extent to which current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales acts as an effective deterrent to demand for sexual services from exploited persons. It would look at the extent to which current legislation governing prostitution in England and Wales enables effective enforcement action against trafficking people and sexual exploitation, and at the very points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough in her amendments today: the legal frameworks for governing prostitution adopted by other countries within the EU, including Northern Ireland. The review would look at the examples of Sweden and of Norway to help inform the debate.
All of us will have different experiences in our constituencies about the impact and challenges of this problem and I am not intending to come to conclusions today. The purpose of new clause 22, effectively, is to give a spur to a wider discussion on the topic. I hope that the Minister can look at it in that way because there are strong views on how we deal with the issue. It is important to have a proper debate.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I just want absolute clarity. The review in new clause 22, which I support, is a review before legislation, not after, so I am somewhat confused by subsection (3).
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I will speak very briefly, but I want to commend the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing in this important Bill.
I vividly remember, more than two years ago, that some of the members of the Southampton Stop the Traffik group came to my constituency surgery to explain in detail some of the problems associated with people trafficking and modern-day slavery in the city and the wider area. When I mentioned those problems to other constituents, they found it shocking and could not believe that it was happening in somewhere such as Romsey. One key problem we face in tackling the scourge of slavery is that in many cases it is out of sight, and therefore very much out of mind.
I have absolutely no intention of being partisan on this issue. As a member of the Public Bill Committee, what came across very clearly to me was the massive consensus for having something on the statute book. It has taken a long time to get to this point—I know that previous Governments wanted to act—and there is a sense of pride that the current Government have brought forward legislation.
It is absolutely imperative to have a law that is practical and pragmatic, that will work and be enforceable, and that does not prescribe too tightly the roles of local authorities and of the anti-slavery commissioner in tackling the problem. We need such flexibility, because you can bet your bottom dollar that those involved in this illegal trade will also be flexible in seeking to find ways around new legislation. I therefore want the role of the anti-slavery commissioner to be able to adapt as time goes on, much as the role of police and crime commissioners is evolving in our counties. As their role evolves, so the anti-slavery commissioner’s role should be truly inventive and of critical importance. The Government are absolutely right to institute that role, but it must be given sufficient flexibility to allow it to develop over time.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
We are really short of time in this debate, so I apologise for taking more, Madam Deputy Speaker. If there are any talent spotters on the Government Front Bench, I think the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) has an excellent role in the other place.
I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group—we are writing to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority about the new clauses in this group—but let me say that we have now gone beyond the stage at which we can continue to will the objectives without willing the means. Adequate staff and resources are needed to ensure that the GLA is effective.
To turn briefly to the new clauses and the amendment tabled in relation to prostitution, I apologise to all Members of the House for inundating them with briefings over the past 48 hours. I am very sorry, but this debate came up in a hurry, and it was important to give people the chance to express their views. I have always respected my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who is very well intentioned. I support new clause 7 because developing a strategy is critical, and amendment 1, which is the decriminalisation amendment, but I am fundamentally opposed to new clause 6, because it is worrying, counter-productive and dangerous. New clause 22 would give us the opportunity and enough time to undertake a proper review.
I know that sex work is abhorrent for some Members. I must say that in the years since I convened some of the first meetings of the Ipswich Safety First campaign in this House, after five women were killed there, I have met a number of men and women who were not coerced into sex work and do not want their livelihoods to be curtailed by the proposed criminalisation of their clients. It is true that I have met many others who entered prostitution to overcome economic disadvantage—they suffered in poverty to enable them to pay the rent and put food on the table for their children—but that has been made worse by welfare benefit cuts, escalating housing costs and energy bills. The answer is not to criminalise any of their activities, but to tackle the underlying cause by not cutting welfare benefits and ensuring people have an affordable roof over their heads and giving them access to decent, paid employment.
The whole issue has focused on the idea that by stopping the supply of clients, prostitution will somehow disappear, as will all the exploitation, trafficking and violent abuse. The Swedish model has been suggested as an example, but there was absolutely overwhelming opposition to it in the briefings that I have circulated. Those briefings have come from charities such as Scot-Pep—the Scottish Prostitutes Education Project—which is funded by the state; the Royal College of Nursing, the nurses themselves; and the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, which is another Government-funded organisation to get women and others off the game, that nevertheless says that the Swedish model would be counter-productive.
The Home Office has commissioned academic research, and I have circulated a letter from 30 academics from universities around the country that basically says that the proposed legislation is dangerous. We must listen to sex workers: the English Collective of Prostitutes, the Sex Worker Open University, the Harlots collective, the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe—flamboyant names, but they represent sex workers, and all are opposed to the criminalisation of clients.
Michael Connarty
Could my hon. Friend quote some sources from Sweden? I understand that in Sweden they do not take that view.
John McDonnell
I will come straight to that point, but let me go through the other organisations we have listened to: lawyers, human rights bodies such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and UN Aid, and even the women’s institute down in Hampshire—I warn hon. Members never to cross the women’s institute anywhere—as well as members of the Ipswich Safety First coalition who dealt with the deaths those years ago.
What is the consensus? It is that there is no evidence that criminalising clients as in the Swedish legislation reduces the number of either clients or sex workers. I could quote at length—time we have not got—from the Swedish Government’s report that demonstrates that there is no correlation between the legislation they introduced and a reduction in numbers of clients or sex workers.
Fiona Mactaggart
My hon. Friend said that the Swedish Government have no evidence for that, which is true, but they did have evidence that the number of men who pay for sex in Sweden has gone down significantly.
John McDonnell
That was one survey where men who were asked, “Do you pay for sex, because you could be prosecuted for it?” naturally said no. The evidence has been challenged. The other part of the consensus concerns the argument that other Governments are now acting and following the Swedish model, but South Africa has rejected it, and Scotland rejected it because measures on kerb crawling were introduced. In France, the Senate has rejected that model on the basis that sex workers will be put at risk. There are even threats of legal action in Canada on the issue of the safety and security of sex workers.
The other consensus that has come from these organisations is that not only do such measures not work, they actually cause harm. We know that because we undertook research through the Home Office in 2005-06. What did it say? Sex workers themselves were saying, “It means that we never have time to check out the clients in advance. We are rushed and pushed to the margins of society as a result, which does us harm.”
There are alternatives. I do not recognise the view on the implementation of decriminalisation in New Zealand mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, because all the research says that it is working. Who says that we should look at decriminalisation? It is the World Health Organisation, UN Women and UNAIDS. I circulated a letter from Nigel Richardson, who is not just a lawyer who represents sex workers but also acts as a judge. He says that we can tackle abuse and sexual exploitation with existing laws.
I appeal to the House not to rush to legislate on such a contested issue where there is such conflicting research, evidence and views. New clause 22 would provide a way through as it would enable us to undertake the necessary research, consult, bring forward proposals, and legislate if necessary. I want to include in that consultation the New Zealand model and full decriminalisation. I am not in favour of legalisation; I am in favour of full decriminalisation. On that basis we should listen to those with experience. I convened some meetings with the Safety First coalition to brief Members on what it had done. It invested money in the individuals—£7,000 a prostitute—and it got people out of prostitution by investing money, not by decriminalising them.
Rev. Andrew Dotchin was a founder member of the Safety First coalition. He states:
“I strongly oppose clauses on prostitution in the Modern Slavery Bill, which would make the purchase of sex illegal. Criminalising clients does not stop prostitution, nor does it stop the criminalisation of women. It drives prostitution further underground, making it more dangerous and stigmatising for women.”
I fully support his views.
Mr Burrowes
If I had longer I would list a huge number of women’s organisations, campaign groups and those dealing with the issue that the Bill is supposed to be addressing—human trafficking—that support dealing with demand for prostitution, as that is also a way of dealing with demand for modern slavery. We have dealt with demand in terms of the transparency of supply chains and have sought to deal with the demand for cheap goods that are linked to modern slavery. Similarly, we should deal with the demand linked to trafficking, which includes prostitution.
Electronic Communications
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I would like to vote against these regulations but will not, because I do not wish to eat into the time for the summer recess debate, which I also want to participate in—there is self-interest in that as well. I just want to raise again the issue of professional secrecy. The Minister said in his introduction that that would be dealt with. In last week’s debate, it was to be dealt with in codes of practice and guidance, but now it will be built into the decision-making process. The concerns raised relate to the legal profession and to journalism. I would welcome the opportunity, as secretary of the all-party group on the National Union of Journalists, to meet the relevant officials to talk through how the protections will be implemented and what advice they might be able to give to ensure that there is no incursion on the rights of journalists to report accurately and truthfully.
I see that, in paragraph 6.1 of the explanatory memorandum, the Minister has signed off the usual caveat:
“In my view the provisions of the Data Retention Regulations 2014 are compatible with the Convention rights.”
Bearing in mind that a similar statement was struck down last time in relation to the directive, will he take the exceptional step of publishing the legal opinion on which he based his judgment? I have a sneaking suspicion that this one might be challenged as well.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful for the support for the regulations offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). I understand the concerns that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) flagged up last week during our debates on the Act. He has highlighted issues relating to different categories of what I might describe as either protected or special groups of individuals in relation to the powers under RIPA. It would be the intent to obtain data from a communications data provider that would principally be at issue in such a context, and that would appear to fit within the code of practice relating to acquisition and disclosure. We therefore intend to bring forward amendments to that code as part of the arrangements. However, I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has flagged up those issues, and I will perhaps write to him—
James Brokenshire
Equally, I will see whether it is possible to facilitate a meeting with my officials so that they can hear more directly any concerns that might be raised.
I can tell the right hon. Member for Delyn that the interception of communications commissioner will look at the operation of the new legislation, which includes the regulations made under it, as part of his six-monthly review. I hope that that clarifies that point and gives him further assurance.
I also want to make it clear that I stand by the statement in the explanatory memorandum about compliance with the European convention on human rights. That is the purpose behind the Act and the regulations, reflecting the judgment. That is why we have made these changes to secure the legal base—
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman asks about the legal advice. He will know that it is not the practice of the Government to share or publish our legal advice, but I stand by the statement that has been made. I welcome the support of the House this afternoon, and the regulations will come into effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Data Retention Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.
Relocation Scheme (Syrians)
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I do not want to bring a discordant note to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) on all the superb work that she has done for refugees; she will be a loss to this House when she goes. However, she mentioned the proud tradition of this country in rising to the challenge of refugees, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has just echoed her. To be frank, there is not a proud tradition; I do not accept the claim that there is. The one time that this country was asked to respond to the biggest refugee crisis in Europe was in 1939-40 and we failed to respond. As a result, large numbers of Jewish families, including their children, went to the gas chambers. I thought that we had learned the lesson then; I thought that we had learned that when there is an international crisis such as this one in Syria, our response is not only about providing financial help but about providing refuge. And to be frank, it is shaming of this country that among the European countries our performance is possibly the worst.
Here are the numbers. First, 50 families have been received here. And the other figures from the House of Commons Library that have been quoted today are absolutely staggering. The figures that the hon. Lady set out are just horrendous. Also, we can look at what the countries surrounding Syria have to face. There are 1 million Syrian refugees in Turkey; 400,000 in Iraq, which itself is in crisis; and 800,000 in Jordan, which has a population of 6.3 million, so a sixth of the country’s population now are refugees; and in Lebanon, there are 1.6 million refugees in a population of 4.5 million.
Here we are, a country of 60 million or 65 million people, and we accept 50 refugees. That is shaming—absolutely shaming. Providing financial assistance of £600 million is welcome, but what people are desperate for—we are talking about the most vulnerable groups within this category of those seeking asylum—is safety, and it is clearly not being provided, either within Syria or outside it. There are now 6.5 million Syrians who are internally displaced, and there were 2.4 million Syrians who had fled abroad but we think that the figure is now 2.8 million, of whom 2 million are children who cannot even go to school as a result of their displacement.
What those people want is somewhere to be safe and in many ways that means leaving the region, because it looks as though the accommodation and provisions within the surrounding countries are so overwhelmed that those countries cannot even provide basic shelter, education and—in some instances—supplies of food. So it is no wonder that people are desperately trying to get across the Mediterranean, risking their own lives and those of their family and children in boats. And yes, I was there on that boat that the hon. Lady referred to. In fact, it was relatively seaworthy in comparison with what we know of the boats that have been used to try and cross the Mediterranean.
It is no wonder that these people are desperate, yet we provide—so far—50 places. Some of the people who have already applied and who are being considered in the figures up to 4,000 are people who are already here and who cannot return to Syria, so that is not exactly “receiving” people either. I do not understand why we have responded in so small a way. I just wonder: is there a figure that the Government are willing to go to? Antonio Guterres set the goal at 30,000. Is the figure that we are going to accept 10,000? Or is it our objective to accept a higher goal? And have we taken only 50 people because of processing issues, or are there other obstacles that have so far restricted the number of people who can take up the opportunity to come to this country? What is the problem? Is there a target figure? If there is, let us hear it, and if there is not, what is preventing us from receiving more people? This situation is a disgrace. When people are absolutely desperate, this is a disgrace and we need to look at the system that is failing to enable people to come here and find the refuge that they seek.
As I say, our performance is absolutely shaming. This is not a party political point; this is a point that, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, has been made across the House in previous debates. We have been willing to say that we want to do more. If there is an administrative problem let us sort it out, but if it is a policy issue then let us have that out in a debate out in the open. At least let us confront the issue rather than letting the situation drag on, because these people are absolutely desperate and this level of refuge and support that we, the sixth or seventh richest country in the world, are providing by way of direct assistance and by allowing people to come here, is just not acceptable. It is not civilised behaviour. As a result of the performance of the programmes that we are considering, we are not meeting our obligations to fellow human beings.
I would welcome hearing the Government’s response to the question: what are we going to do about it? What sort of numbers do we aim to achieve by the end of this year? What emergency measures need to be put in place to improve our performance on this matter, because we are letting down not only the Syrians but our other European partners? And we will look back on this period and wish that we had done more, done it more effectively and done it much more speedily.
James Brokenshire
To respond directly to my hon. Friend, we said we would support several hundred of the most vulnerable Syrians over the next three years. It was always envisaged that there would be a focus on a steady process of identifying families and seeing that they have the support that they need to be settled, working with the UNCHR, delivering the commitment to taking several hundred over the next three years. I believe that we remain on course to deliver on the commitment as a result of the excellent collaboration with the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration.
John McDonnell
I calculate that there will not be several hundred if we are taking only two to three a month, but never mind. How did we arrive at several hundred? What assessment was made about only several hundred wanting to come here or whether we would cope with that demand?
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights made the extremely valid point that it would have been useful if the Government had published details of how the legislation complied with each of the points that was raised in the judgment. May I take the Minister back to the point that I made earlier about paragraph 58 of the judgment? Will he point me to the place in the legislation, the regulations or the Bill that addresses the point in the judgment about providing exceptions for
“persons whose communications are subject…to the obligation of professional secrecy.”?
James Brokenshire
I know that point has been raised, and the hon. Gentleman will see that clause 1(4)(f) enables the provision of
“a code of practice in relation to relevant requirements or restrictions or relevant powers,”.
The intent is to have a statutory code of practice that will sit alongside the regulations, and there is scope to ensure that the issues relating to confidence highlighted by the hon. Gentleman are addressed in that manner. We are putting in place a legal mechanism to address his concerns and the points raised by the court.
John McDonnell
I am trying to be helpful. When will that code be published, and how will it be scrutinised?
James Brokenshire
We are seeking to ensure that the code is drafted effectively, and we are looking at ways that that scrutiny can take place, given the import we have mentioned. We will certainly look to engage appropriately to ensure that issues such as those highlighted by the hon. Gentleman on confidence, professional positions and matters such as legal professional privilege are contemplated and reflected on. Codes of practice already exist and it is now about putting that on a more statutory footing to give it statutory teeth, but I recognise his point.
Mr Charles Walker
I rise to support amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). This really is a ridiculous way to transact legislation in this place—to sit here and listen to a lot of nonsense from some quite respectable people. The idea that we should put something so important and worth while through in a day just takes the biscuit.
I am sure that there is a huge amount of worthy content in the Bill, and I am sure that it is extraordinarily important that business is transacted as quickly as possible, but we have a duty of scrutiny and reflection in this Chamber. We represent 65 million people. This is not simply a rubber-stamping process. The idea that doing this in a day is somehow no worse than revisiting it in December just does not hold water. That argument will have no resonance out there with our electorate.
There is a slight undertone in the debate that those in the Chamber who express concern about the way business is being done today are somehow complicit in putting the nation’s safety at risk. That really is the last hiding place of scoundrels. I do not mean that anyone in this place starts from that basis, but we have a moral duty here to scrutinise legislation. I totally and honestly agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich East that we need to revisit this sooner, rather than later.
John McDonnell
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) has formally requested a vote on amendment 2. If he has not, I would like to do so. I will deal quickly with some of the points that have been made. I think that the House is open to derision in putting such important legislation through in this time scale. The argument that the time is limited because we are abutting the summer recess and MPs are about to go on holiday opens us up to even more derision, so we will be held in contempt yet again. I say to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), for whom I have a lot of affection, no matter how infuriating he can be at times, that the argument that a piece of legislation that could be undertaken in the next five months is somehow not as good as one that we will put forward in 24 hours simply does not hold water.
The point is that we are appealing to the Government today to give us the opportunity not only to have a thorough debate in this House, but to go back to our constituencies, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said, and consult the people who put us here. With such a technical piece of legislation, I want to ensure that I consult my constituents and all those voluntary organisations and experts in the field. That includes taking expert legal advice on its exact meaning, because I no longer accept the argument—it has become confused today—about there being no new powers. I think that there are new powers, but I would like that to be verified by external advice. We have had no chance to do that. We have received, at best, a couple of briefings and a curtailed Select Committee hearing. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights, appealed to the Government and said that all we need is the original judgment from the European Court of Justice and the points it raised, matched with the legislation and with clarification on which points the legislation addressed. We do not even have that.
Furthermore, we have the draft legislation before us, but not the guidance, which is the really meaningful part. It will specify who will be included and how it will be implemented in detail. That is still to come, so we are passing this legislation virtually in the dark. On the argument that there will be review after review, the Government’s new clause 7 simply means that a report of the review will be sent to the Prime Minister, but if it
“appears to the Prime Minister that the publication of any matter in a report under subsection (4) would be contrary to the public interest”—
not just prejudicial to national security—the Prime Minister can ensure that it is not given to this House. The definition of the public interest can be as wide as the Prime Minister determines. That is unacceptable. That is not open or transparent.
We have all been in this House long enough to know that having review after review is almost meaningless unless, at the end of the day, the Government decide to legislate or change legislation. A review process is usually used to put something on the back burner so that we can all ignore it as though it has gone away. The reason for a sunset clause is to give the whole exercise of reviews some bite. Without that bite, I am afraid that Governments do not act. The idea of having some bite at a distant point at the end of the following year means that this country will labour and languor under what I think will be an unjust piece of legislation for a long period, which could result in miscarriages of justice and an imposition on our freedoms. It is too long to wait. That is why the short curtailment of the sunset clause is critical to ensure that we give the matter serious attention; otherwise, it will drift further away.
The next five months give us the opportunity for full consultation, proper advice and full display of information, particularly on the Government’s statutory code. We could then come back after the recess and examine new legislation in detail, which may address some of the points that have been raised about the operation of RIPA. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) has said, this is no way to legislate and create laws that could have significant consequences for our constituents.
I have raised the issue of the secrecy of professional advice, which was provided for in the European judgment. That is supposed to be covered by the code of practice, but we have yet to see it. That advice could relate not just to lawyers, but to the operations of journalists who wish to expose matters of public interest and to trade unionists and others. This is a risk to civil liberties that I am not willing to support. That is why I support amendment 2.
Dr Julian Lewis
Having made a brief intervention earlier that was largely helpful to Members on both Front Benches, I will now rectify the balance by saying that, however one looks at this debate in terms of whether or not enough time has been made available for those who want to speak to have their say, the overall impression that has been given to the public has been unfortunate, to put it mildly. My understanding is that this Bill has been made necessary because of an ECJ judgment that was arrived at in April. It is now mid-July. Why on earth has it taken so long to get from that judgment all those weeks ago to the position now, whereby it appears to the public that we have to make what I believe to be very necessary changes in a terrible rush? They are under the impression—in the context, it must be said, of the paranoia over the Edward Snowden affair—that we are doing this in a desperately swift and ill-considered way.
Personally, I accept that there is some strength in the argument that the time the Government have made available at this very late stage is probably enough for most of the people who are likely to contribute to the debate in the Chamber to do so; but not enough time has been given to those in the country who want to develop the wider public argument. One would not like to give the impression that one was trying to get this Bill through in a rush before a suitable momentum of public concern had the opportunity to build up, but, if that was not the reason for the delay, what was?
John McDonnell
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said that those of us who oppose the Bill lost the debate today. I do not think we did. We lost the vote, but the debate will continue on a number of fronts. That Parliament can countenance legislation as important as this going through in such a hurried and ill-informed way—to be frank—has opened up a debate about its relevance and role. It will open the debate on the detail of the Bill: the regulations and the guidance we have yet to see—it was not published in advance of the debate—but it will be significantly important to its implementation. It will also open up the debate on whether the Bill meets the compliance criteria set out in the judgment against the previous directive. I think we will very quickly see a further challenge. We may be back here soon with more proposals for emergency legislation to address a further legal challenge.
I do not, therefore, think that the debate ends here. I think it actually starts here. It would have been more effective if we had had the time to have a proper debate and a sunset clause with a short period of time. That would have focused the attention of Parliament, rather than the drift into what I think will be the first stage in a wider debate on, perhaps, the resurrection of the communications Bill proposals that the Government, or one element of the coalition, brought forward earlier in their period of office.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I have a constituent who came down to London from Liverpool airport, where he worked, to try to gain knowledge about how one could increase access to the airport for people with disabilities. That was on the day of the London bombings. He was a great rugby player but when he finally went back to Birkenhead, he did so without both of his legs. How do I justify to him a Bill that says that phone records should be kept in case they form some pattern that somebody wishes to investigate? How could I, preciously, say that that issue is more important than my constituent’s legs?
John McDonnell
We have to clarify whether the implications of the Bill would have persisted in that case. A number of us are not convinced that there is a case. More importantly, in terms of parliamentary process, we could be in a situation where, literally within weeks, this legislation could be struck down again. We have rushed a procedure where we have arrived at legislation in which many do not have confidence but which is also seriously vulnerable to a challenge again. If we had taken the time and had a sunset clause that forced the pace to an extent—such as by the end of the year—we could have come back with more effective legislation that would have given my hon. Friend’s constituent more of an assurance that it would be effective in tackling those sorts of terrible crimes. That is why a number of us were offended by the speed of the legislation, which can result in ineffective legislation at the end of the day.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman expresses a lot of the concerns that are felt even by those of us who wish to see effective security legislation in place. Does he agree that had the Government acted when they knew that there was a challenge to the legislation, all of what he is asking for now could have been done?
John McDonnell
What I found extraordinary was the argument that a sunset clause for the end of this year would not have given us sufficient time to produce adequate legislation. Yet that is almost the same passage of time that the Government had to produce today’s Bill—from April to July. If we cannot produce adequate legislation in the next five months, how have the Government managed to produce adequate legislation within that three-month period?
If the Government and coalition had been more open and transparent, and had undertaken a full and open consultation—and brought a draft Bill to the House—we would have had an opportunity to secure legislation that I believe would have been effective and would have had the support of the wider community. That would have given confidence to the constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) that we really were tackling terrorism, rather than simply going through an exercise to comply with a European Court of Justice judgment.
I repeat what a number of Members have said. This is no way to legislate. I agree with my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary that this must be the last time we ever address an important issue in this way. If this is about coalition partners falling out, that is the weakest excuse for not being more open and transparent to the House about the problems we have to address.
I am fearful also that this is the foot in the door towards bringing back the communications legislation that was proposed previously. Many of my constituents have expressed the view that this is the start of widening the vista of snooping legislation. On that basis, I think it was important to have had the debate today and to put the Government on guard that the House will not tolerate being bounced into this type of legislation again.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to a vibrant and valuable debate. I note that some comments were made about the role of the House in defending liberty and ensuring that we strike a balance between collective freedoms and individual liberty. The speeches this afternoon have brought that to the fore, and I understand and recognise the significance of the legislation before the House this afternoon. The Government have to work quickly to address the problems created by the judgment of the European Court and declining co-operation from communication service providers. The Bill has undergone some good debate and challenge this afternoon.
I welcome the fact that, almost without exception, right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have understood the importance of interception and communications data in the fight against terrorism and other serious crime and have therefore supported the Bill. Several hon. Members highlighted its import in confronting child abuse and safeguarding children. It will play a crucial role in enabling our law enforcement agencies to bring crimes to justice.
Sometimes this debate can be framed round security—what the intelligence agencies are doing. Actually, much of it is about what our police and law enforcement agencies are doing to identify, prosecute and bring to justice those who would harm our constituents; about how the use of communications data is such an integral part of that; and obviously, as we all understand, about the importance of intercept. I was struck by the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), who referred back to the year that I was born and his role at Royal Mail, reflecting on how interception played such a role even then, but in a different way, and on how technology has moved on. We have discussed the vital importance of this Bill in ensuring that those who work to keep us safe can continue to have the tools that they need. That is at the heart of our debate.
Some speeches were framed on the basis that this Bill is extending powers. I reiterate, yet again, that it is not about extending powers but about maintaining the powers that already exist to retain data, including under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, in order that our police and law enforcement and security agencies, and others, can continue to do the work that they do now.
A number of Members mentioned the European Court judgment. Let me briefly go through some of the issues that were highlighted. On scope, the Bill will limit any data retention to a strict list of data types specified in the data retention regulations. It will enable the Secretary of State to issue data retention notices to communications services providers, on a selective basis, only if she considers the obligations to be necessary and proportionate.
On duration, each notice will have to specify the duration for which data is to be retained, up to a maximum 12-month period. If it is not proportionate to retain certain data for a full 12 months, that enables a lower period to be chosen. Again, that reflects some of the comments made in the European Court judgment, with a clear requirement for the Secretary of State to keep any notice under review. Access will be limited to that which is necessary and proportionate under RIPA.
On storage, the UK already imposes strict data security requirements on our communications service providers. These will become part of the notice requiring a CSP to retain data and will therefore be enforceable. It is right that we have reflected on the European Court judgment, but we retain our focus on what the powers are today as well as reflecting on some of the points that the Court made.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Part of the judgment proposes that the Government provide exceptions for persons whose communications are subject to an obligation of professional secrecy. That does not seem to be covered in the Bill or in the draft regulations.
James Brokenshire
I hope that in Committee we will be able to get on to the role that the statutory code of practice may play in that regard. The hon. Gentleman will note that there is reference to that in the Bill, and we will be able to discuss it shortly.
It is important to note that the Intelligence and Security Committee has endorsed these proposals, with one notable exception. Indeed, the Home Affairs Committee has done the same, obviously recognising that there may not have been unanimity in that respect. It is important to say that Committees have reflected on and examined this and seen that it is about protecting the status quo.
Passport Applications
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
Does not the hon. Lady have some concern that neither the Home Secretary nor the chief executive of the Passport Office have been able to break down the increase in demand? They simply have not told us how much is due to the increase in foreign residents’ applications, which we know is taking place as a result of their policy decisions, and how much is increased demand from British residents. She simply has not given us those facts.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Whatever Mr Pugh said yesterday, let me read what he put in his annual report only a year ago. He said, on the transfer of work in 2014, that
“IPS will be providing passport services for approximately 350,000 additional customers worldwide annually.”
That is the increase in demand that he predicted.
Yvette Cooper
Exactly. We know there has been a substantial increase as a result of foreign residents applying for their British passports to be renewed, or applying for new passports for their children. Those who are living abroad are often the most complex cases, yet it is clear that the Home Secretary has not put in place the capacity to cope.
Mrs May
I am sorry if the hon. Lady did not hear what I said earlier in my speech. Contingency arrangements have not just been introduced. Contingency arrangements have been being introduced since January of this year when it became clear that there was an increase above forecast in the demand for applications. As the demand has increased, and as the increase has been greater than that initially experienced, of course the Passport Office takes greater measures. That is right and proper. The Passport Office has increased its capability.
John McDonnell
I join the Home Secretary in congratulating the staff on their hard work, and I think that that is shared across the whole House, but is she aware that Passport Office staff are paid £3,000 less than equivalent grades in the Home Office?
There was a mechanism in the Passport Office where if the backlog got to 150,000, measures would automatically be put in place to deal with it. Management took the decision to increase that figure to 350,000. Was the Home Secretary aware of that, and why did it happen?
Mrs May
I am, of course, aware that there are different pay structures for HMPO and Home Office staff, and I will come on to address the issue of what people are referring to as a backlog and whether the figures people are referring to as being a backlog are actually a backlog. I take issue with the figures the hon. Gentleman has given. I want to turn to some of the claims that have been made.
Mrs May
I will get the exact figure checked and give it to the right hon. Lady.
The Opposition have repeatedly compared current staffing levels with those in 2010 but, as they well know, HMPO was not just a passport office in 2010. It was called the Identity and Passport Service because of the previous Government’s plan to maintain an identity database and introduce identity cards. One of the first things this Government did in 2010 was scrap ID cards and destroy the identity database. The Opposition know therefore that their comparison with 2010 does not stand up to scrutiny.
Thirdly, it is not true that the delays have been caused by the decision to close certain premises.
John McDonnell
Will the Home Secretary be absolutely clear about how many of those staff were employed on ID work?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman has been ploughing this furrow for some considerable time. He knows full well that, as a result of doing away with the ID card scheme and the identity database, it was possible to take action both in relation to staff numbers and to the closure of certain premises. The Opposition consistently raise that issue. They say that the delays have been caused by the decision to close certain premises. Those measures were taken because HMPO had too much office space after we scrapped ID cards. The Newport passport office continues to operate as a customer support centre and to offer face-to-face passport application services for premium and fast-track customers. It has 150 full-time equivalent posts.
HM Passport Office
John McDonnell Excerpts(9 years, 11 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
Mrs May
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of that. In all the debates on the Passport Office, people have lost sight of the fact that the Government were able to cut the cost of passports. That will have been welcomed by hard-working people in Harlow and across the country.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Part of the anger and frustration is that these problems were not just predictable—they were predicted. They were predicted by the front-line staff. Will the Home Secretary review the correspondence of the past two years, at least, from Public and Commercial Services Union front-line staff representatives, who wrote consistently that
“the closure of 22 interview offices and one application processing centre and the sacking of 315 staff…around one in 10 of the workforce…has been a major factor in creating this current crisis.”?
She has set up a review. It is best to talk to the front-line staff doing the job. Will she meet a delegation of PCS representatives from the front line to talk about how we can go forward urgently and in the long term?
Mrs May
The point of the review, as the hon. Gentleman understands, is to see whether the processes are the best possible we can have in place. As part of that review, I would certainly expect information to be taken from front-line staff, not just from union representatives in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests. I will certainly look at the possibility, which happens anyway, of Ministers—either myself or the Immigration Minister—meeting front-line staff. That is what I think is important: to meet front-line staff. The views of a variety of people will be taken in the review, but I return to a point I made earlier and to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer: the very high level of demand experienced by the Passport Office. It has already taken steps to deal with that.
Immigration Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I pay tribute to him for his work on the Bill and for the steps he took, quite properly, to consider not only this issue, but the provisions more broadly. We will no doubt move on to those provisions in considering the Lords amendments. My hon. Friend highlighted the fact that the law was changed in 2002. In many respects, we are seeking to bring the law back more closely to the pre-existing position. The law was changed in 2002, and changed again in 2006. There is, therefore, a long history, with clear precedents to setting provisions that comply with our international and UN obligations on statelessness.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want clarification about what the reasonable grounds are. Amendment (a) could be interpreted to mean that someone has to prove that no country or territory on the globe is willing to accept them as a citizen. That cannot be the interpretation of reasonableness in this amendment, can it?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that the particular concern—the gap that has been identified—relates to someone with dual nationality who surrenders their second nationality to prevent the deprivation provision from applying to them and to prevent the Secretary of State from using the powers as she can now do for dual nationals. The Home Secretary needs to consider such factors in considering whether she is satisfied that the relevant test set out in amendment (a) has been met. She would need to show such reasonableness, and that reasonableness might be tested in the courts, because whether her determination was reasonable would be justiciable or challengeable in the courts.
John McDonnell
It is a disgrace that we are talking about civil liberties and yet we have only nine minutes left, the debate in the Lords ended only 18 hours ago, and the amendments land before the House when it is likely to rise early next week because of insufficient business. Our job is responsibly to look after our constituents’ interests, which means both their human rights and their protection and security. Not one of the amendments we are considering is capable of doing that as a result of this bouncing of the House. I have been in this place only 17 years now and the worst civil liberties violations have occurred when the House has been bounced into urgent decisions. That is what is happening today and I resent that.
I resent it on behalf of my constituents. The practicalities of the provisions mean that we will deprive some of their citizenship and, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) has said, we will do so in a way that will not even allow them to answer the charges themselves. That is the SIAC process, which I voted against all those years ago.
What are the practicalities of depriving someone of their citizenship when they are a threat, particularly if they are abroad? In the other House there was a discussion about the comity of interest between individual states. What are we to do? Will we deprive a suspected terrorist of their citizenship and leave them as the responsibility of another state? Will that protect our citizens’ interests, if that person can then roam free to take action against this country? That is not fair, just or based on human rights, and it does not practically tackle the issue of security.
Their lordships want time to set up a Joint Committee to give this difficult area of policy the detailed consideration it needs. The Minister referred to the Government’s proposed review as independent, but the amendment makes no reference to independence. The reviewer will be appointed by the Government, not by an independent process. In addition, the Secretary of State will have a veto over what is reported to the House and that applies not just to national security but, as the amendment says, to public interest. Public interest has been used in this House by successive Governments to avoid embarrassments and to avoid providing the House with information on which we can make considered judgments.
The Government’s amendments are not acceptable. I do not think they resolve the concerns that the other House has raised and I hope that that place holds firm so that we can negotiate a proper process. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that we need a reasonable process within a limited period of time to allow us to return to the House to consider proper proposals that protect civil liberties while, just as importantly, protecting the security of our constituents.
Mr Buckland
I feel like I am in an episode of “Just a Minute”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but here goes.
I support the Government’s amendments, as we must focus on the issue. This is not some descent into despotism; all we are talking about is a return to the law as it stood before 2002. We are not even talking about the principle of statelessness, because the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allows for a person to be stateless when that nationality has been obtained by fraud. We are talking about only a very small cohort of people who pose a serious threat to the safety of the citizens we represent.
It is important that the Government ensure that they do not end up with decisions being made in an arbitrary or disproportionate way, which is why the provision about reasonable grounds is important and goes a long way towards answering that point. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a Member, correctly said that the decision to deprive people of their state per se does not breach any international conventions. That is the case that was not properly answered by the Opposition.
In the seconds I have left in which to speak, all I can say is that the Government have moved a significant way and that that allows me and others to support their amendments and reject the Lords amendment.
Immigration Bill
John McDonnell Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Buckland
I think that the new clause is capable of achieving perfection, perhaps in the other place. As it stands, however, it does not work in terms of what it sets out to do. I am going to consider my position before deciding whether to abstain or to oppose it today.
I have looked carefully at the exceptions set out in section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007, and at the discretion that the Home Secretary is given under the legislation. That discretion is based on a series of factual events such as the existence of hospital orders or other Mental Health Act dispositions. The exception proposed in new clause 11 gives a subjective discretion that does not sit well with the wording of the UK Borders Act. Once we opened the door to that kind of subjective discretion, what would be the difference between what the new clause hopes to achieve and the wording of the Bill in relation to the discretion that is to be given to the courts? In a nutshell, the Bill’s existing provisions, as amended, already do the job of dealing with serious offending and of making a proper distinction between offences for which sentences of more than four years’ imprisonment are imposed, and those for which under four years are imposed. There is a clear logic to the provisions, and the new clause is therefore unnecessary. It would create the risk of upsetting the entire apple cart when it comes to the important work of deporting serious criminals from our country.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Mr Deputy Speaker, you have rightly asked us to curtail our speeches and I shall try to complete mine in four minutes, but I am seething with anger. The Bill affects many of my constituents, and this is the only time for Back-Bench MPs to introduce or speak to amendments on Report. I am being denied that opportunity because most of my amendments will not be reached today.
I will speak to only one amendment in the group, amendment 79, which deals with the restriction of bail for detainees. I have 1,000 detainees in my constituency, at the Harmondsworth and Colnbrook detention centres. The Bill will deny many of them the right to apply for bail in the 14 days before their removal. I deal with detainees in my office almost every working day of my life. Large numbers of them are parents and, in those last 14 days, they want to get bail so that they can see their children. Others need bail because they are sick or suffering from a mental illness. The Bill will deny them that opportunity, on the approval of the Secretary of State.
The Bill will also mean that a person will be unable to apply for bail if they have already applied 28 days beforehand. That means that there could be new set directions under the first rule, and a rolling programme could mean that people never have the opportunity to apply for bail. Some might think that spending 28 days in a detention centre before someone can apply for bail is not that significant. I suggest that they visit a detention centre. I also suggest that they read the report on visits to the Harmondsworth detention centre during 2013. It sets out the number of people who doctors had determined were mentally ill, had ill health effects from their experiences or had been subjected to torture. Of the 125 being held under rule 35, only 12 were released.
I also ask hon. Members to read the report on mental health in detention centres that was published in January this year by Medical Justice. It states:
“There is a crisis of mental health in detention, as demonstrated by the many Court cases…Evidence and experience shows that mental illness is the greatest health issue for detainees. The safeguards to prevent the detention of those with serious mental illness are not working. The rate of mental illness is already high in those who are subject to detention, in part due to the stresses in their life journey to that time. Detention serves to increase that mental illness and distress”.
The reasons for that distress are clear. When someone is detained, they may be told that they cannot appeal for 28 days, then they may lose that appeal and bail as well. There then follows another 28 days, and so on. The detainee never knows when they will be released. That is why detention impacts on people’s mental health.
The report from the chief inspector of prisons came out earlier this month. It explains what is happening in detention centres. There is an increase in the number of self-harm incidents. A significant number of detainees are refusing to accept food. In Harmondsworth, we now have regular hunger strikes. The place has been burned down twice as a result of detainees’ anger at being detained. The report said:
“Disturbingly, a lack of intelligent individual risk assessment has meant that most detainees were handcuffed on escort… and on at least two occasions, elderly, vulnerable and incapacitated detainees, one of whom was terminally ill, were handcuffed in an unacceptable manner”.
These men were so ill that
“one man died shortly after his handcuffs were removed and the other, an 84-year-old man, died while still in restraints.”
Those were
“shocking cases where a sense of humanity was lost.”
That is what Her Majesty’s inspector of prisons said four weeks ago.
It is unacceptable to detain people on such a scale. Harmondsworth has gone from a row of Nissen huts where no more than 30 people were detained to effectively two prisons with 1,000 detainees. To deny people the right to bail in the way in which the Bill proposes takes away hope, and increases the pressure and mental stress and the number of mental illnesses. At the same time, it brings about this level of abuse and inhumanity. I urge Members to be careful. This Bill will increase harm and be counter-productive. It will deny justice to the most vulnerable people in our society. It is unnecessary. All people want is the right for their case to be heard in the normal manner, as we would all expect it to be. They are crying out for justice.