Stalking

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and he will have heard the voices of other victims. People have said to me, “The only reason there is police interest in your case is that you are a high-profile person.” I think that is an honest assessment, and I have said that that should not be why there is interest in any case.

We heard from the family of Clare Bernal and the Clough family during the inquiry, and Sam Taylor, who was a victim of stalking, is an amazingly inspiring woman for her fortitude in dealing with this. The police need to understand the range of behaviours and identify the different types of risk people face.

I will talk about online activity shortly, but first I want to point out that victims must also be asked about what they think should happen. When people are under this sort of pressure, we should not flinch from saying that the impact on the victim is paramount. Therefore, if someone is distressed, that is reason enough for the police to act and the CPS to be involved.

We also recognise that insufficient resources are put into this. There is a fear that we might open the floodgates, but if there are floodgates to be opened, we need to address that. That is one of the challenges we face.

I feel I can add a little insight in terms of online forms of behaviour, and I am very mindful of the fact that 50% of stalking cases involve both online and offline behaviour. That is part and parcel of modern life because we now spend our lives both online and offline. Our freedoms are involved in that, too, and, as I have said, stalking and harassment is about curtailing people’s freedoms and inciting distress in them, and therefore making it impossible for them to lead their lives as before. I direct the Minister to the work of Claire Hardaker, at Lancaster university, who is trying to understand online harassment and stalking. She was recently commissioned to do such research, and it would send an incredibly powerful message if the Home Office looked at it.

In my own case, the difficulties the current legislation has in dealing with the world online became powerfully obvious. The legislation refers to a “course of conduct” or a consistent type of behaviour, and the question is whether the same metrics for that course of conduct can be applied to the online and offline environments. When the Opposition were scrutinising the legislation, we tried to get the Government to think about a list of types of behaviour that we, the CPS and the police might be looking out for, because we recognised that as life evolves and people have a life online and a life offline it is important to ensure that we are not missing particular types of behaviour.

Although the legislation refers to sending e-mails, it does not even begin to deal with the very different types of behaviour that occur in the social media that are now so much part of the modern world, such as the ways in which and ease with which people can be contacted, and the ways a victim can express concern and displeasure about the messages they are receiving and behaviour they are experiencing. My concern is that the attempt is being made to apply the “course of conduct” test to the online and offline worlds in a similar way. There is the sense that if someone is experiencing serious alarm or distress online, it is somehow less serious. Instead, we need to understand that, if that person is experiencing such pressure, and if it is coming from someone whom they have told—whether online or offline—they do not want to have contact with, we should not see it as being any different.

The course of conduct deadlines need to be updated for both the CPS and the police, so that the different ways in which the online world works are recognised. One example is the different time periods relating to a course of conduct. Offline, we might be talking about a contact period of days or even weeks; online, an hour is a long time. Both Caroline and I experienced people setting up accounts in order to send us rape and death threats, causing us harassment and severe distress. We publicly said that this was causing us severe distress, and they had their accounts suspended, although they started new ones. However, the question whether each incident is seen as a separate course of conduct, or something that took place over the course of an hour, cannot be dealt with under the current legislation. That example makes a powerful case, which my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has also made, for cyber-awareness within the police force—for understanding that these are the ways in which online behaviour works.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I amplify the point? It is not just about the individuals concerned and the continuous nature of such behaviour over a limited period, but the prompting of others to participate in what almost becomes a conspiracy of attack.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend has literally taken the words out of my mouth; he is absolutely right. As I was about to say, we think of a course of conduct in terms of person-to-person contact. It is vital to understand that with social media, the ability to have an audience, to have spectators, is crucial to the level of stress that can be caused. Even if a perpetrator is not directly contacting somebody, by using that public forum they are using the way in which the internet and social media work to get a message to somebody. We need the police and the CPS to understand that, to understand just how dangerous these new forms of behaviour can be, so that they can act to protect people.

I encourage the Minister to revisit the debates we had a year ago on the importance of having a more extensive list, in order to give a flavour of the range of behaviours. Nobody is suggesting that there can be an exhaustive list of behaviours for stalking, but we need to recognise that there are sections of our society, and of our lives, that the training has not begun to touch, and that people are being abused as a result.

I am hopeful that the police and the CPS will take note of what has happened not just to me and Caroline Criado-Perez, but to a number of women in the public eye, and use it to develop guidelines. Many people have been affected by these issues. I have been contacted by people from across the country since the summer, and each of those stories shares some of the characteristics concerning how we deal with online behaviour. The fear is very real.

I am sad to see that there is no one here from the Ministry of Justice today, but I urge the Minister for Immigration, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), to work with the CPS not only to get the training in place but to get a commitment about test cases. It must be made clear that, as the world evolves, we will not falter in our determination to change the way in which the legislation is being used. We must ensure that the police, the CPS and the judiciary as a whole are what I would call cyber-sensitive. Just as we would not say to a woman, “Don’t walk down those streets at night”, we must ensure that we do not say, “Just come off Twitter and Facebook. Don’t put yourself in a position of risk. You must curtail your freedoms and rights so that we don’t need to deal with the risk that you are facing.” We need to send a strong message that these behaviours must be addressed and changed offline and online, throughout all the areas that I have described.

I am sure that we have all heard Laura Richards say that we need to change the culture so that we recognise stalkers as predators. These cases are not about a spurned loved one. I imagine that all of us who are in the public eye are fairly robust. We have all dealt with words, messages and debates that have been close to the bone, but this legislation was designed to deal with something very different—predatory behaviour. It was designed to deal with the person who will send 50 rape threats in an hour, not just on one night but over the course of two weeks. I have received another threat this week, which is terribly bad timing for this debate, as it is now months since it all happened.

Those people will not stop unless we change the culture and recognise that we are talking about predators in our society who will use a range of means to control and distress people. This is a matter for the law, and it is about how the law is applied. It is also about how we make good on the promise we made in this House a year ago that we would change this offence, that we would finally deal with this and that we would bring justice to the victims and find a form of prevention.

I hope that the Minister will listen to the genuine pleas from a range of sources about the difference that that would make. I would be happy to talk to him further about my personal experience, and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and I would also be happy to introduce him to other people who are dealing with these worries. We have to get this right. We cannot have another year of not getting the levels of prosecutions that we should be getting, given the number of cases that are coming forward. Our frustration is growing, not diminishing. This is not justice; it is not fair and this is not the kind of Britain that we want it to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

In all the justice debates over the past 10 years, I have felt the hidden hand of Harry Fletcher on us all, especially as we are probably reciting from the briefing papers that he has provided. I again thank him and Laura for the work that they have done. I keep saying to him that he should stand for election to this place, but if he cannot do that, perhaps some political party could nominate him to the other place, because he would be a valuable asset. Instead of writing the briefing papers, he might be able to make speeches about them.

Mention has been made of the justice unions group of which I am the secretary and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) is the chair. I am also secretary of the fan club for the right hon. Gentleman, who has announced his retirement—it is not retirement but desertion—and I am trying to encourage him to stay on and stick with us.

As the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said, the debate on the stalking law started at the justice unions group a number of years ago. We received papers from Harry Fletcher, Laura and others explaining the problem, and the right hon. Gentleman came up with the idea of setting up a separate all-party group to carry out the investigation. I apologise for attending only a couple of those sessions, but they were enlightening to say the least.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) took the decision to speak and to explain some element of her experience. We hear from other people who have had equally horrendous experiences. To have got the legislation in place within such a time scale from a Back-Bench initiative was a near miracle, and certainly set a precedent, but, as has been said, we are now a year on. What we have done so far is all well and good, but we must also ensure that the law is implemented properly. What we have heard across the House is that there are real issues with implementation.

A number of hon. Members quoted the arrest statistics, the comparison with Scotland, and training. May I make a number of suggestions? On training, it would be helpful if the Government brought in the police and crime commissioners, the Magistrates Association and the Crown Prosecution Service to have a joint discussion about where we go from here. There is an inconsistent approach across the country in the e-training of the police. Some police authorities and police and crime commissioners have taken the matter to heart and engaged in the process, but others have not. The job of Government is not to interfere in the local aspects of what is happening on the ground but to encourage a consistent approach. As has been said, that applies to the police in terms of training, the CPS in terms of training and possibly how it prioritises such matters, and the Magistrates Association in terms of what is happening in the courts. Producing that defined line is the role of Government. It is not about interfering, but about bringing people together to discuss how we go forward more effectively. In doing that, it would be useful if the Minister involved the justice unions group and Paladin in the discussions, so that we can develop a national strategy.

Let me turn to a couple of contentious issues. The proposed new legislation on probation will mean that there is the potential for a large number of people who have been convicted of stalking to be categorised in due course as low or medium-risk offenders and to be managed not by the probation service, as they are now, but by the private company that will take over some of that work. Apart from my opposition to the privatisation overall, that makes me anxious because we have still to learn the details of the professional qualifications and level of training and experience in the supervision of offenders that the private company’s staff will have. We await the details from the Government and a number of us will seek to insert something into the legislation to ensure that there is the required standard of service. I would welcome an assurance that part of that will involve training people on stalking and the legislation. I am worried that in the rush to get the legislation to privatise the probation service through—that is, the provisions in the Offender Rehabilitation Bill on the supervision of nought to 12-month sentences—we will lose expertise and no longer concentrate on training people on the legislation on stalking.

As well as the justice unions group, we have established a family courts unions group, which met this week. The legal aid cuts mean that there are more litigants in person, so a large number of cases now involve two individuals turning up without any legal representation whatsoever to pursue their cases in the courts themselves. We are also concerned that ex-partners who have become stalkers then use the family courts as part of the stalking process to intimidate their former partners though a dispute that is often unrelated to the future of their children. The existence of litigants in person will mean that behaviour in courts will become increasingly difficult to control. In the past such people will have received legal aid and legal representation and there would have been some control over the presentation of their cases. When they become litigants in person, it is extremely difficult to ensure that they behave in a manner that is not threatening or abusive. As part of the monitoring of the stalking legislation, we must monitor whether our family courts, in particular, are being used for abusive behaviour by past stalkers.

Court reports have also been mentioned. The cuts to the probation service and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service have increased the workload of the officers and mean that although people are meeting their targets as best they can, it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide court reports or even to enable time to be spent on ensuring that sufficient information is provided to the court. It has now been reported that cuts in the court service have led to some of those staff being involved in the drafting of court directions as there are insufficient clerks within the courts. The situation in some of our family courts is almost chaotic.

The other issue brought up by the family courts unions group this week concerns contact centres. Again, many of the cases of stalking we have heard of have involved past partners who, for a variety of reasons, have continued abusive behaviour after separation. Often, they will be granted access to their children but it will be supervised access, often through contact centres. There is a report in the Law Society Gazette this week, I think, and we received a report from the National Association of Probation Officers and the Public and Commercial Services Union that states that there will be cuts to the contact centres and some are now closing. They are usually run by voluntary organisations, charities and others but because of cuts, often to local funding, contact centres are closing or curtailing their facilities. There is a concern that cuts overall might mean that contact centres cannot be properly supervised. If a contact centre is not available, we return to unsupervised contact, leaving victims of stalking and abuse vulnerable. I would like the Minister to look at that. The family courts unions group would welcome a meeting with him to discuss it and the courts issues. As I have said, the important thing now is to ensure that the system is geared up for implementation of the legislation, and central Government have a role to play in that by overseeing different aspects of the processes involved.

The briefing papers that Paladin provided show that there is an unusual inconsistency across the country. In some instances that might be down to the personal priorities of the police and crime commissioner, or the background and experience of the individual chef police officers. I think that it is the role of Government, when introducing legislation, to ensure its consistent implementation across the country, because otherwise it will become a postcode lottery whether stalkers are prosecuted, whether the police are adequately trained and whether other services are adequately resourced to tackle what at least is now accepted as a significant issue in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s point on that issue. The inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which is chaired by the Home Secretary, draws together the Government’s efforts on this matter and on the support for victims. I will draw the hon. Lady’s point to the attention of the Home Secretary.

There are some offences for online communications that do not require a course of conduct, some of which can result in custodial sentences. I think that the DPP’s guidelines are clear and robust. The hon. Lady is right that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Like us, she will want to see that the guidelines are taken seriously by Crown prosecutors.

As I said, police and crime commissioners should remember the “and crime” part of their job title. This matter is absolutely within their remit in their local areas. As well as looking at the police’s response to these offences, they should look at the response of the Crown Prosecution Service and the way in which it works with the police. One advantage of police and crime commissioners over the police authorities that we had previously is that they can pull those organisations together locally and get them to work more effectively together. Commissioners can draw to the attention of those organisations the guidelines that the DPP has issued and ensure that they are followed locally.

I will draw the specific concerns of the hon. Lady to the attention of the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary. I am sure that she will monitor the matter closely and come back to us if she does not see action on the ground.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) cited some good work that has been done by the university of Worcester and the Worcestershire forum against domestic violence. They have done some very practical work to raise awareness of the new law and to hear from victims. From his description, it was clear that that was part of a preventive strategy, which is something that has been raised by the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and others.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham asked specifically about data, which we have spoken a little about. Convictions and sentencing data are collected by the Ministry of Justice and published on an annual basis. The data for 2012 were therefore published just a short period after the offences under sections 2A and 4A were inserted into the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Headline data on court proceedings have been published, but those are at a high level. Detailed data will be published for this calendar year in May next year—that is when properly robust and assured data will be published.

On policing information, we are working on a new method of data collection specifically to call out the offences from this legislation, but again that will not be available at national level until next year. More detailed information is available at police force level, and I know that Labour Members and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd have attempted to get those data from police forces under freedom of information legislation. The Home Office is working to publish those data on a consistent basis at national level, and will be able to do so next year.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and others, including the hon. Member for Warrington North, mentioned sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Council plans to start work on a new public order guideline in 2014, and it will consider guidance on stalking offences as part of that. Several Members, including the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, mentioned out-of-court disposals by police forces. The Justice Secretary has announced a review of those, and we will ensure that for both stalking and domestic violence, we look specifically at whether out-of-court disposals—cautioning, for example—are being used properly and appropriately for these serious issues.

I am conscious that I want to leave time for the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd to wind up this debate, which I have found very constructive. Members have raised a lot of serious issues, and I hope I have been able to demonstrate that the Government take the issue seriously and want to drive responses across a number of organisations.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister take back to his Department the request from the family courts unions parliamentary group for a meeting about the closure of family contact centres?

[Mr Harper]

I will take that request back to my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice and ensure they hear it and respond to the hon. Gentleman. On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, we want to hear from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd.

Intelligence and Security Services

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I welcome what The Guardian has done. It is heroic. The publication of this information has opened up a wide debate. There is talk of treason—Michael White is here, but I want to drag him off to the Tower for being a running dog of the bourgeoisie, not for treason. This is ludicrous. Allegations of treason are being bandied about, but what has actually happened is simply an exposé of what is taking place and what we should have been informed about in terms of parliamentary procedures.

In America, there has been cross-party agreement that the status quo is unacceptable. Obama has set up a full review of surveillance activities and has established a privacy and civil liberties oversight board. The author of the Patriot Act has said that the revealed activity is

“well beyond what the Patriot Act allows.”

The chairperson of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has called for a total review of all intelligence programmes. That is exactly what we are calling for here. Others with experience have also commented. Lord King, the former Secretary of State for Defence and former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, straightforwardly said:

“Legislation has to keep up to date with all these things and the way people use them. I think it is most important that all the legislation in this area is under regular review.”

Interestingly, he also said that a member of the Opposition should chair the ISC to give it more credibility. Lord Carlile said that

“the current legislation, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, should be re- examined and rewritten to fit the current situation.”

The principles of what we are seeking were set out clearly by a former director of GCHQ, Sir David Omand, in a recent Demos report:

“Democratic legitimacy demands that where new methods of intelligence gathering and use are to be introduced they should be on a firm legal basis and rest on parliamentary and public understanding of what is involved, even if the operational details of the sources and methods used must sometimes remain secret.”

All we are asking for is a review and for structures to be put in place based on those principles. The general public also want this debate. A recent ComRes poll for Big Brother Watch found that 71% of people believe a debate about surveillance law is in the public interest. We need to respond to that public opinion, because recent revelations have undermined credibility.

I want to run through several practical suggestions proposed by some independent bodies. I have been moving amendments to the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill, so I came late to this debate; I am sorry if others have already mentioned them.

The legal opinions used to underpin the ongoing surveillance framework should be published, as the US Government have done. The budget and investigatory capacity of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the interception of communications commissioner and surveillance commissioners should also be published. Is it true that the ISC’s current resource is a retired Metropolitan police officer on a part-time basis?

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal should be reformed so that it is presumed that its hearings should be held in public, that it should state the reasons for reaching its decisions and that its judgments can be appealed in court. We should end the need for Secretaries of State to approve appearances of the heads of agencies before parliamentary Committees and allow agency and service heads to give evidence in public where appropriate. The legal restrictions on British companies publishing transparency reports about surveillance requests should be lifted.

[Rory Stewart]

I support much of what the hon. Gentleman proposes. Does he agree that, as a minimum, we should aim to meet the US standards relating to this kind of activity?

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly my point. Much of our intelligence services are integrated in many respects anyway, so we must ensure a common standard approach. The Americans have said that they are looking at a root-and-branch reform and we need at least to start along that pathway in order to mirror what is happening in the US.

I will be brief as others need to speak, but the other proposal is that we publish details of the use of surveillance powers broken down by agency, rather than the single UK figure currently published, including the scale of international intelligence sharing.

All those proposals are simply practical. In addition, we should enhance whistleblower protection for those who want to come forward from within the services, because that protection clearly seems inadequate at the moment.

Who will lead the reform programme? Does it have to be Parliament? To be frank, and with respect to existing members of the Intelligence and Security Committee and its Chair, having on the ISC and as its Chair former Ministers who were previously responsible for the security services leads to concerns about conflicts of interest. It could be that members are providing oversight on decisions that they made when Ministers.

There needs to be a demonstration of openness and transparency. There needs to be a fundamental review. The ISC needs to be led by those who are above all potential charges of conflicts of interest, which means, I am afraid to say, not the current members of the ISC.

One proposal suggests a discussion in Parliament about what sort of agency should be taking the issue forward and I think it should be parliamentary. The initial discussion could come through a Speaker’s Conference, in which all parties are brought together to examine the options available. The chosen option needs to have independence, resources and expertise and must be as open and as transparent as possible, while also avoiding conflicts of interest.

[Mr George Howarth]

I speak as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Can my hon. Friend provide an example of such a conflict of interest?

[John McDonnell]

That is the problem. Who knows? I do not know what the Intelligence and Security Committee does half the time, because half the time it is not exposed to the public. We cannot determine whether a conflict of interest has occurred or whether—

[Mr George Howarth]

We publish reports.

[John McDonnell]

I am afraid that, as has been demonstrated previously, the ISC did not know half the things that were going on until it read The Guardian. Confidence in the way forward needs restoring and that should come through a frank discussion led by Parliament. That is why I suggest a Speaker’s Conference to bring the relevant parties together with the expertise to develop a way forward that can establish the structures, procedures and legal basis on which to rebuild the confidence in our oversight over intelligence and security in this country and some parliamentary and democratic control over it.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing the debate, which has been helpful in several ways. First, it allows us to reflect on the changing nature of communication in our society; these days, the best way of achieving secure communication is probably to send an open postcard rather than putting it on Facebook.

Secondly, the debate enables us to correct the slightly partial accounts of the current state of things such as article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) correctly quoted the section relating to the right to private correspondence, but he left out the second half, which refers to exemptions for national security and the fighting of crime.

Thirdly, the debate allows us to correct a few of the really inaccurate assertions in the wider debate, such as the one about the presentation on “Mastering the internet” that was portrayed as some Orwellian plot to dominate cyberspace when it was actually about enabling people to use search engines better. Much nonsense has been talked in the wider debate, but the issues are serious.

I must declare an obvious constituency and family interest in this debate. My parents both worked at GCHQ and, before that, at Bletchley Park. My father, Don Horwood, was involved, under Tommy Flowers, in building Colossus, the world’s first programmable electronic computer. He was one of the people who kept it secret for decades, enabling the Americans, God help us, to take credit in the meantime for building the first electronic programmable computer.

My mother went back to Bletchley Park with me only recently, after 60 years’ absence. Only then did she reveal to me that she had not just been a linguist, as I had always thought, but had interpreted intelligence as well. The habit of keeping secret things that need to remain secret is one of the enormous debts we owe that generation of code breakers.

That continued in GCHQ during the cold war. We cannot know about all the secret victories our intelligence services won then, and are winning now, because they must, quite properly, remain secret. If we cast too much sunlight on some of these things, they stop working; it is not so much that we would always endanger agents’ lives, as that talking too much in public about precise techniques and sources makes those sources disappear and those techniques more difficult to apply. That endangers people in different ways.

I would love to think that we had entered a safe post-war world, where that level of secrecy was unnecessary, but that is simply not the case. We still face hostile states and hostile state intelligence services. Frankly, if the cyber-attacks and counter-attacks going on now took place in some physical realm, they would, in some instances, almost constitute an act of war. Some states are certainly engaged in hostile activity towards this country, but there are also the new threats of terrorist networks and organised crime.

It is not only the threats but the technology that is changing. We cannot make it childishly simple for those who would do us harm to evade surveillance. We must move with the times, and we must give our intelligence services the capability, under proper oversight, to access the communications they need to access.

Of course, much of the discussion is about when access crosses the line into surveillance. A lot is said, and a lot of allegations are made, about mass surveillance, but if it was really taking place, it would—apart from being wildly impractical—be straightforwardly illegal. In his statement to the House, the Foreign Secretary made it clear that he still regarded the situation in this way:

“To intercept the content of any individual’s communications in the UK requires a warrant signed personally by me, the Home Secretary, or by another Secretary of State…Warrants are legally required to be necessary, proportionate and carefully targeted, and we judge them on that basis.”

He added that all those authorisations were

“subject to independent review by an Intelligence Services Commissioner and an Interception of Communications Commissioner, both of whom must have held high judicial office and report directly to the Prime Minister.”—[Official Report, 10 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 32.]

As Members have pointed out, we have a sophisticated system of democratic oversight. The Labour Government passed the Intelligence Services Act in 1994, establishing the Intelligence and Security Committee. RIPA has been referred to. The coalition’s Justice and Security Act 2013 became law only in April, further refining and defining that Committee’s responsibilities.

There is a degree of anger at GCHQ and among my constituents. People at GCHQ understand that there will inevitably be some misunderstanding of what they do, because it is not very public, and that there may be some naivety and inaccuracy. However, they find it difficult to forgive the accusations of bad faith and illegality. Their perception is that they operate under one of the most exacting sets of laws and systems of ministerial and independent oversight applied to any intelligence agency anywhere in the world.

Of course, there are things that will remain secret, and there are things that are done that would surprise us if they became public. Hon. Members have referred to the interception of Angela Merkel’s mobile phone communications by the NSA. I find that very surprising, although anyone who knows West German intelligence history will know that the Federal Chancellor’s office has not always been the most secure place. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) could find similar stories of insecurity in unexpected places.

Of course, Angela Merkel’s intelligence agency—the Bundesnachrichtendienst—employs 6,000 people and has a sophisticated electronic capability, so I would be amazed if she, even with her East German background and the obvious sensitivities that go with that, was as surprised at what has been going on as she has made out in public.

[John McDonnell]

Would the hon. Gentleman be surprised at this morning’s reports that the Pope was bugged as well? Is that a venial or a mortal sin?

Immigration Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that members of the public will say it is right that we are fair to people living in the UK and to those who have come here legally, and that we ensure that those who are here illegally do not find it easy to stay and that we are able to remove them.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

A lot of the individual sanctions will be dealt with by statutory instruments. So far it is clear that if a landlord fails to comply and lets a property, they will face a potential fine of £3,000 for each disqualified adult allowed to occupy the property. What sanctions, fines or prison sentence will be given to a doctor or nurse who treats, or a vicar who marries, a disqualified adult?

[Mrs May]

We are not talking about people not being able to receive treatment in the national health service. We are talking about two things in the NHS. First, when people come here and use the NHS, we will ensure that the NHS recovers the money from their country that it should be recovering. It has not been doing that as well as it should be. Secondly, when people come to stay here for a limited period—for more than six months, but not permanently—we will ask them to pay a surcharge to reflect the fact that they might use public services when they are here.

The Bill will increase the marriage and civil partnership notice period to 28 days—

[John McDonnell]

Will the Home Secretary answer the question?

[Mrs May]

I have tried to explain the point about sanctions in the NHS by pointing out that the hon. Gentleman’s assumption about the system that we are putting in place appears to be incorrect. He also mentioned members of the clergy who conduct sham marriages. If he looks back at the press from the past couple of years, he will see that members of the clergy have been arrested and prosecuted for conducting sham marriages on purpose.

The Bill will increase the marriage and civil partnership notice period to 28 days in England and Wales, and allow for it to be extended to 70 days when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a marriage or civil partnership is a sham. The Home Office will investigate the genuineness of the couple’s relationship and consider taking immigration enforcement action when we believe it to be a sham. If the couple do not comply with the investigation, we will prevent a marriage from taking place. Should a sham marriage or civil partnership go ahead, couples will not gain an immigration advantage, but will be removed or prosecuted.

Fixing the immigration system cannot be done overnight. There were too many problems with the system that we inherited for that to be possible. However, the Bill will help us further along the road. It is frankly ridiculous that the Government have to operate such a complex system to deal with foreigners who fail to abide by our laws. It is ridiculous that the odds are stacked in favour of illegal migrants. It is unacceptable that hard-working taxpayers have to compete with people who have no right to be here. The Bill will begin to address those absurdities and restore balance. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I oppose the Bill and will vote against it because I think that it will be defined, in practice, as a racist Bill and that that will have implications for society. I believe that the Bill is the result of electoral positioning; it is not about good governance or the long-term interests of the country. I fear for our long-term interests if we are to be governed by prejudice in this way. I abhor the society that the Bill seeks to create.

Like many Members, I represent a diverse, multicultural constituency. My west London constituency contains Heathrow and two detention centres, Harmondsworth and Colnbrook. I am often the last representative voice that detainees have recourse to before they are removed from the country. I have been visiting Harmondsworth for nearly 40 years. I remember when it was just a couple of Nissen huts with a dozen people in them. There are now two prison-like institutions that detain 1,000 people, most of whom have committed no crime whatever.

For many, the migrant’s story is one of desperation. People come from war zones or, like my Irish grandfather, areas of poverty simply to work and lift themselves out of poverty. I am fearful of what the Bill will do to the society that greets those people. In effect, it begins to echo some of the pass laws of apartheid South Africa. It is a society—

[Mr Harper]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

No, I want to get this on the record. It is a society that echoes those pass laws, a society in which people can be confronted—stopped in the street—and asked for their documentation.

[Mr Harper]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

No, I want to get this on the record. It is society in which people can be asked for their documentation to prove their identity and status.

Under the Bill, immigration officers will be able to use physical force for all their powers. I have been involved in cases that concern the exercise of physical force. In one case a person was killed, and in others people have been seriously injured as a result of the physical force used in removals. Time and again, concerns have been expressed to the Government about the lack of training for those staff and about the brutality that has taken place as a result, and yet in this Bill we are extending the use of physical force to all immigration officers in exercising their powers.

Many fear, and I do too, that with the removal of the directions notices, so there is no clear process of informing people when they are to leave the country and what their destination is, we are going back to the process of dawn raids where vans turn up and drag people and families out of their homes. One of the first cases I dealt with after being elected as a Member of Parliament involved an elderly lady who came to my constituency surgery because the family next to her had been dragged out of their house at 6 o’clock in the morning, children and all. She went into the house, obtained the children’s teddy bears and followed the van to Harmondsworth so the children at least had their toys. Is that the society we are returning to as a result of this proposed legislation?

I believe that the Bill will result in the escalation of detention. It will make it more difficult to challenge detention, to obtain bail and to secure appeals. As was said earlier, a third of appeals usually win, with nearly 50% winning entry clearance appeals. The Bill will mean that more people will be detained.

What is detention like? I refer people to the report of the independent monitoring board of Harmondsworth. These are volunteers appointed by the Minister, reporting to the Minister. Its latest report, from April 2013, is worth reading. It says that many people handle detention stoically, but that many others suffer intense distress. Many are mentally ill. They self-harm. We have had suicide attempts time and again in Harmondsworth and in Colnbrook. At the last count, last year 125 people were assessed under rule 35 by doctors who found that their health was suffering so badly that they should not be detained. Many Members know what rule 35 is: it means that the person should automatically be released. Of the 125 people so designated by doctors in Harmondsworth last year, only 12 were released. One was released because of ill-health, went to Hillingdon hospital and died soon after. That is what detention means. That is the type of suffering the Bill will increase, yet 20% of people in the detention centre get released back into the community. Some have been detained for a long time. I refer back to the report published in April. Two of those people had been detained since 2008, and 38 had been detained for more than a year. For many people, detention is not just a short-term measure before removal.

I am concerned about what the Bill will mean for the wider community. Nearly 50% of my constituents are black or people of colour. The Bill will mean that any person who is black, is of colour or who just looks foreign will be challenged. They will be challenged by bank managers and landlords, and by the vicar if they want to get married. They will also be challenged if they apply for legal aid. I find that offensive. I voted against identity cards in this House when my own Government brought them forward. The Bill will yet again bring the process of ID cards forward. There will be no ID cards for white people; it will be ID cards for black people, people of colour, or people who look slightly foreign or who have a foreign accent. That is what the Bill will do.

I find it offensive that the Bill will push more people to the margins. In my constituency, I have enough problems with Rachmanite landlords as it is, with people living in appalling overcrowded conditions and being charged too much. The Bill will create a shadow market, where people who are unable to secure accommodation through some landlords will have to go to others with higher rents. There will be a system of blackmail for those rents by those landlords.

What if people cannot get a roof over their heads? Where do they go? They go to the streets. This is an immigration policy of destitution, isn’t it? Let us be frank about that. If people cannot get a roof over their heads, they go on to the street or are forced out of the country. I deal with many people who would like to leave the country, but cannot even get their papers out of the black hole of the Home Office.

The banks, the landlords, the driving licence agency and so on will be only the first step in this process of introduction of these pass laws. We know from leaks from the Department for Education, which were exposed in The Guardian earlier this year, that the Government wanted to introduce this sort of system by having teachers check the nationality of their pupils.

[Mr Harper]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

No. I am not giving way.

What happens now for people who are sick? They go to their GPs, and, yes, they will be treated, but what about the next stage as a result of this Bill? This is the first step. Charges are being introduced and people will be checked to see whether they have a visa and have paid the charge, but the next step will inevitably involve GPs. What happens if nurses and doctors want to fulfil their Hippocratic oath? Will they be fined or imprisoned as landlords will be?

I am concerned about the society we are creating, and about the premise on which the Bill is being introduced. When it comes to the reality, as MP after MP will demonstrate—particularly London MPs—a documentation check will take place, but many of our constituents have no documentation, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, many have not applied for passports. Others live chaotic lives, and many, as a result of going through the system, have mental health problems and do not have control of their documentation. As I have said time and again, that is a result of not even being able to get their papers back from the Home Office.

The Bill will create a society that is lacking in compassion, brutal, and lacking in humanity and respect for civil liberties, a two-tier apartheid society that flies in the face of, and is incompatible with, everything that British people associate with their country: compassion, rights, mutual respect, and, yes, support for the underdog. The Bill is derived from the gutter politics of Lynton Crosby; it is an attack on immigrants because supposedly that plays well in British politics. I think that is a fundamental misjudgment of the British people, their values and their decency. I will vote against the Bill because I believe that bringing it forward in this House degrades this House.

UK Border Agency

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We have spent considerable time looking at what the right structure is for the agency. We have had the experience of working with the Border Force. If we look at its operation today, we see that it is in a different place from where it was previously. That experience has shown that if we can create a smaller entity that has a clearer management and focus on its activities, we can make progress, and that is exactly what we are doing by splitting the agency in this way.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Is it not true that part of the problem is that ministerial attention has been diverted to policy stunts prepared for prime ministerial statements and speeches? Can the Home Secretary confirm that ministerial attention has recently been focused on discussions in the inter-ministerial group on barring migrant children from compulsory education? The Department for Education then intervened and the children’s rights adviser said:

“If we were to withdraw the right of education from any children in the UK, regardless of their status, we would be hugely criticised for it by the UN. With the periodic review report due to be submitted in January 2014, this would be very controversial.”

Can the Home Secretary confirm that statement?

[Mrs May]

We have been looking at public services across the board in relation to what we describe as the pull factors. We have focused on housing, health and the benefits system. We do not propose not having the provision of education for individual children, but the hon. Gentleman’s opening remark, which was that policy changes were about publicity stunts, is far from the truth. We have been sorting out a chaotic immigration system and immigration policy introduced by the previous Government that led to net migration in this country reaching hundreds of thousands a year. We aim to bring it down to tens of thousands. We have already seen net migration cut by a third. That is not a publicity stunt; it is a real benefit and a policy that the people of this country want to see.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Let me return to the question of deleting clauses 12 and 13. When read in conjunction, they look worse than when read by themselves. What they say is: “You will not have rights that other trade unions have. We will appoint a form of board to determine your pay. End of story.” If ever there was an invitation to truss up a turkey and put it in the oven, this is it. Read together, clauses 12 and 13 will stitch up these people in the worst possible sense. This kind of legislation might have been in vogue 10 or 20 years ago, but it has no place in any modern democracy. By proceeding with it, the Government are undermining trust in these people and making them look like people who should not be in the jobs they are in or who will not act responsibly, which clearly they are not. Amendments 95 and 102 are well worthy of support, and I fully support my friend the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Let me say to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench that I am extremely shocked by what has been said—that they are not willing to support my amendments. This is the first time in the history of the labour movement—the first time ever in the history of the Labour party—that this party has supported in Parliament the removal of trade union rights from trade unionists. That is a significant step and marks a historic change in attitude. I urge those on the Front Bench to use these moments in this debate to think about what they are doing.

This is the party that campaigned to redress the disgraceful treatment of GCHQ workers—if people remember—all through the ’80s and ’90s, when a Conservative Government removed their trade union rights. This is the party that gave commitments to the Prison Officers Association that we would address its complaint that a Conservative Government had removed the right to take strike action from prison officers. I urge Labour MPs and others—anyone who is in the Chamber and anyone watching this debate outside—to understand what is happening here today, because this is significant. This is not a minor matter; this is about taking away a basic human right from a group of workers. It has never been done before in the history of our party.

I am grateful to my friend the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) for curtailing his speech—we were slightly out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I chair the PCS parliamentary group. It is a large group—I think we have 70-odd members on a cross-party basis—that represents the workers we are talking about. The PCS represents members in the Home Office and its agencies. It currently has about 2,700 members in the Serious Organised Crime Agency and will have between 3,350 and 3,500 members in the NCA when it is established. The whole discussion up to now has proceeded on the basis that these are civil servants, who respect the right of Government to govern and will therefore do all they can when there is a restructuring of Departments or Government agencies to ensure that they support the Government in that restructuring and implement the policies effectively. However, what the PCS seeks to do as a trade union is to protect its members’ basic rights, wages and working conditions.

The process of negotiation on the restructuring and the new agencies has been going on apace for a number of months. That is what trade unions do: they engage in negotiations. We thought that there would be discussions about negotiation structures and thus the opportunity to reach agreement, which is what has been achieved on a number of issues in these sorts of restructurings right across the civil service. However, we now have proposals, almost out of the blue, to introduce a no-strike provision and remove the right of this group of workers to take industrial action, as my friend the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd said, and, in addition, to install a pay review body appointed by the Government, again without a negotiated agreement.

That is not the way to set up a new agency, lift people’s morale or secure their involvement and engagement in the implementation of policy; it is a rebuttal of all the negotiations that have taken place. It will mean that a large number of people will basically lose the right to take industrial action when they have a grievance. What we are talking about is some people who have the powers of a constable—the powers of arrest. I understand some of the concerns about that, but we are also talking about Revenue and Customs officers and immigration officers, who have been treated no differently in the past from any other civil servants. They have had the same rights of representation and the same trade union rights.

It is interesting that back in November the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed its concerns about the plans for NCA officials with operational powers to be forbidden to take strike action. The Committee said:

“we question whether the Government has yet demonstrated by reference to actual evidence that there is a pressing need to restrict the right of NCA officers to take strike action, bearing in mind that SOCA has so far operated with no restrictions on its officers’ right to strike. In our view, NCA officers are closer to SOCA officers than police officers. Even if there were evidence of such a need, on the evidence currently available to us we do not consider it to be proportionate to apply the no-strike provision to NCA officers who hold some of the operational powers, including officers who only exercise the operational powers of a customs officer or immigration officer and not those of a constable.”

So this is a human rights issue: the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said so. It has expressed its concern while these discussions have been going on. To be frank, the industrial relations atmosphere has been good. There is no evidence of any demand from management for the new power. Quite the reverse: management have been proceeding in the normal way in the negotiations, to see what structures are required to ensure worker engagement.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

Given all the points the hon. Gentleman is making and that he started his speech by saying that this was a historic first for the Labour party, I am curious to know why he thinks those on the Labour Front Bench do not agree with his arguments.

[John McDonnell]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I am not playing party politics with this. I do not have a clue why not: this is the first time I knew of it. If this issue was dealt with in Committee and I missed it, I apologise, but I thought that the attitude was to listen and wait for this debate. I thought we would listen to the members themselves who are on the front line—some of them, just like police officers, risk their lives in the work they do—yet who have never caused a problem in industrial relations.

Management have not come forward with these proposals; they have been brought forward by the Government. This is a Government whim. Someone in Government decided it would be worth trying for a no-strike provision on this group of workers. It is the thin end of the wedge, because there are some Conservative Back Benchers who have been seeking to introduce a no-strike provision across whole sectors of industry. I think this is the start. This group of workers is the experiment, to see whether people will acquiesce, and I am amazed that those on the Labour Front Bench have rolled over. That sends a signal to this Government to come forward with proposals for the transport sector and many others, as some have been planning to do for many years. I am absolutely staggered. How can these measures be brought forward unopposed at this stage, when negotiations are continuing? There could have been a negotiated settlement on the new structures and we could have avoided this kind of imposition. I will not spend too long on this, because there is another debate in Westminster Hall on the privatisation of the probation service that I would like to get to. This just goes on and on, but at least my own side is putting up some opposition to those proposals.

Let us be clear what clauses 12 and 13 will do. They will take away from civil servants a fundamental right that they have at the moment: the right to take industrial action. This is the crossing of the Rubicon. The clauses will bring in a ban on industrial action that extends well beyond the police and prison officers, where it already exists, to civil servants, on whom such a ban has never been imposed before. This is an unnecessary and unwelcome political device that is being used by the Government to test the water around their future policies on trade union and employment rights in this country.

As I have said, I think this is the thin end of the wedge. If the clauses are accepted by the House—and certainly if they are accepted by my party—on this occasion, this will be used as an example in other areas. That is why I am urging people to vote against them, and I will seek to divide the House on the matter. If I have to walk through the Lobby on my own, I will do so, because this is a fundamental matter of principle.

The workers involved are dedicated civil servants, but they deserve the right to protection and to basic human and trade union rights if they feel that management or others are imposing something on them that is unacceptable. Most of them never go on strike or take industrial action, but they deserve to have the right to do so if necessary, because that is the only protection they have against oppressive management or employers.

I urge comrades on this side of the House—members of the parliamentary Labour party—to use whatever time we have left in the debate to think again. This is not a trivial matter. It is not a simple “tidying-up exercise” in employee-management relationships in the new body; it will undermine a fundamental human right. This Government have already been criticised for their refusal to give the right to industrial action back to prison officers. They were criticised by the International Labour Organisation for being in contravention of all the international conventions on employment rights, yet there are people here on the Labour Benches today who are rolling over without a whimper of opposition to extending that denial of human rights to this group of workers. That is unacceptable.

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope to call a Division on this matter when I have the opportunity to do so, and I urge Members to vote against the measures. This is a significant matter; it is absolutely critical. It is a matter of conscience, not a matter of administrative convenience for management and the Government. It is a basic human rights issue, and I urge Members to vote for our amendments.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is with regret that I see the references to Northern Ireland and the role of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland being removed from the Bill, and I want to put some questions to the Minister on this point. If any part of the United Kingdom needs the effective operation of a national crime agency, it is Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in this House has already identified the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds every year are lost to the Exchequer and go into the hands of criminal gangs, on many occasions to finance terrorist activities, as a result of fuel laundering alone. There are many other areas in which organised crime plays a big role in Northern Ireland. We need the National Crime Agency.

The role that the criminals play is not confined to Northern Ireland. Their tentacles spread well beyond Northern Ireland and dealing with them involves operational decisions that cannot be taken solely by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Indeed, the fact that they are now laundering their money across Europe and north America demonstrates the international dimension involved, and the PSNI cannot be expected to deal with them alone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

It is interesting; we now do have interest from the Opposition Front Bench.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Mr Browne]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I will speak to the amendments in the group.

[John McDonnell]

It is important that we hear a response to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), because the people who are covered in the legislation are not just police officers; they are immigration officers, they are customs officers. What has also happened is that, as of three weeks ago, the staff have been notified. Some of those officers from SOCA who will be moving across had no powers; their powers had lapsed. They have been told that by October, investiture day, their powers will be returned to them and they will be included in the cache of people to whom the no-strike provisions apply. That means that, already, 1,500 people—possibly—will be included, as well as potentially another 900 staff. The provision goes beyond police officers to immigration officers and customs officers.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Let me explain the Government’s position and see whether I can persuade him to take the same view as those on the Labour Front Bench. [Hon. Members: “Answer the question.”] I will; I am coming to it. Calm down. Those on the Labour Front Bench have supported us on this all along, and they have good reason for doing so. I want to try to persuade the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington that Labour is right to support the Government’s position, so let me explain our position.

Amendments 95 and 102 seek to remove the restriction on the right to strike for NCA officers with operational powers. This is an important measure to ensure that the NCA can protect the public from the threat of serious and organised crime and be operationally effective around the clock, every day of the year. Criminals do not stop when there is strike action. The threat to the British public from serious and organised crime is a constant threat and we do not want NCA operations disrupted or jeopardised by striking NCA officers. In the interests of public safety, it is therefore necessary that we restrict the right to strike of certain NCA officers. That will apply to NCA officers with operational powers. This is not about banning NCA officers from being members of a trade union, should they wish; it is about ensuring that the public remain protected at all times.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been clear that our strong preference is to put in place a voluntary no-strike agreement with those unions that will be recognised by the NCA. That would, in practice, impose strike restrictions on the vast majority of NCA officers and establish an alternative method for resolving disputes with the organisation. If that is achieved, the Bill gives the Home Secretary a power to suspend the operation of the provisions restricting the right to strike. In essence, therefore, the no-strike provision is designed as a reserve provision.

I return to the central point: I think the public will not be able to understand why, if they are at threat from serious and organised crime, the agencies of the state, which are paid for from our taxes to protect the public from that serious and organised crime, should not be available 24 hours a day to do so. The threat to the public exists 24 hours a day. I would ask the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to reflect on that central point, because as I understand it, unless those on the Labour Front Bench have changed their position, it has been accepted by the Labour party that we should be seeking to protect the public around the clock. I invite the hon. Gentleman to accept that point too.

[John McDonnell]

Of course that is the case; we all accept the need to protect the public. Until now, customs and revenue officers—the immigration officers—have been able to do that without having the right to strike withdrawn. That is what the Labour party thought was happening. The Labour Front-Bench team thought that the provision related to policing powers, but it has gone well beyond that. A briefing was circulated to all MPs on Friday to explain that. Some people are saying that they did not receive it. I have a list of the e-mail addresses that it went to, so I know who got it. That briefing showed, in the explanation from management to staff, that the provision has gone well beyond what Ministers originally proposed, which was just for police officers. It has been extended to immigration officers—customs officers—who have always had the right to strike and yet have always protected our country. This is a massive step beyond anything that was proposed initially in the Bill.

[Mr Browne]

If the Opposition spokespeople have changed their position—

[John McDonnell]

They have not changed their position.

[Mr Browne]

Well, if they have come to see the wisdom of the position adopted by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and accept the inadequacies of their previous position, they will support him when he presses the amendment to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

This is about exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said. This is what we call legislating; this is what we call debate. We discover during the passage of legislation the implications of that legislation. I did not serve on the Bill Committee, so this is my opportunity to discover and debate. We have all discovered that the intention of the Bill is to remove the right to strike, not from police officers but from immigration and customs officers, who are civil servants—they are not police officers. That was never the intention behind any of the debates until now, and on that basis, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote for the amendment. If the Government need to return with clarification at a later stage in another place, that is fair enough, but we must ensure that we do not introduce legislation in the House that is a fundamental attack on a fundamental human right.

[Mr Browne]

I will clarify the fact that the intention of this part of the Bill is very straightforward. There is a serious threat to the public of the United Kingdom 24 hours a day from serious and organised crime, and we want the new National Crime Agency to meet and counter that threat from the people who perpetrate it 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. So we want a consensus to be arrived at about the best way that these affairs can be structured, but we do not want people to be threatened by serious and organised crime and for operational officers at the National Crime Agency to be unavailable to counter that threat.

Labour Members appear to have changed their position and we will have a Division in the House of Commons on that. I hope that enough Members of the two parties in the coalition will share my view and the view of the Government that it is not appropriate for the public to be left exposed to the threat from serious and organised crime in the way that is envisaged by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, which appears, in this ever shifting situation, now to be endorsed by the right hon. Member for Delyn as well.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Oh, you are asking me to do maths as well. I will be extremely brief.

I have no quarrel with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) in respect of his sincerity, honesty or support for human rights or how he put his case today. I disagree with his final point, but I have no quarrel with the judgment he reached or why he reached it, because I have observed him and his general approach to human rights in the House for a long time. When I say that I do not agree with him, it is not out of anger; it is out of sorrow. I am sure that in the next five minutes he will change his mind and take a different approach, or perhaps he will not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) put it well when he said that the House has to make decisions on important issues of human rights, liberty, the rule of law and the role of Parliament. Successively over the past 30 years, and even before that, we have enshrined in law on many occasions various forms of secrecy, denials of justice and denials of evidence, and people have been wrongly prosecuted as a result. There is a litany of miscarriages of justice that many Members of this House have been involved in over many years, most of which have centred on withholding evidence, secrecy or, in some cases, confessional evidence.

Since 2001, there has been a significant game change. Draconian anti-terror laws have been introduced in this country and many others. As a result, the most grotesque miscarriages of justice have taken place, including Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition. All the legislation has been enshrined on the basis that we have to protect the security services and prevent what they do from seeing the light of day.

As I understand it, the Government’s position is that they cannot defend cases where there has been British involvement with other security services in the abuse of human rights when the individuals involved seek restitution in the British courts because it would mean identifying where their evidence came from. They have therefore paid out millions of pounds. Instead of admitting that we have been a party to human rights abuses, we are passing legislation to bring a new process into law.

I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), when he said that the Bill is not as bad as when it started its journey. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, has done a lot of good work to improve the Bill, as he has for many other pieces of legislation.

However, I feel that the Bill sends out the wrong message. We should have had a debate and a vote on the removal of part 2 on Monday. It is regrettable that we did not. I am opposed to the Bill because I do not like the secrecy or the protection of those who commit human rights abuses, whether they be in the pay of this state, another state or somebody else. The use of open courts and criminal law where appropriate is far more satisfactory. I therefore register my dissent against the Bill.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene late in my hon. Friend’s speech. Not only did we not vote on part 2; we did not even reach the provisions on Norwich Pharmacal. That means that a foreign power can now determine whether a British court can expose wrongdoings that take place under the auspices of that foreign power.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point and it is well put. The relationship with other security services appears to take precedence over rights, independence and justice in this country.

For the reasons I have given and for many others that would take up too much time, I have grave concerns about the Bill. We have a duty as parliamentarians to defend human rights and liberty, and not to cover up injustice and wrongdoing, which this Bill could end up doing.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to deal with a couple of clauses that have not been referred to so far, but before I do so let me express my support for the comments made by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) about clause 31 and the concerns expressed by others about clause 34 and visa appeals. The abolition of those appeals will have a direct impact on my constituents and I believe that there will be a considerable backlash in the community. Let me also express my support for clause 29, which abolishes the offence of scandalising the judiciary as a contempt of court. I understand which case that relates to, but I feel that scandalising the judiciary should be a right, if not a duty, every now and again.

Three clauses have so far not been mentioned in any detail. The first is clause 16, on the establishment of the family courts. It has been genuinely welcomed, as has the introduction of mediation in the processes of the family courts and the greater emphasis given to it. Concerns have been expressed, however, by Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service officers and family law practitioners about the need to ensure that there is adequate insurance in the delegated legislation and the guidance that the views of the children in these cases are properly represented and protected. I hope that there will be further dialogue with professionals in CAFCASS, in particular, who will be able to advise on the detailed implementation of the legislation, and of this clause in particular.

Let me turn now to clauses 23 and 24. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) mentioned the issue with clause 23, which effectively privatises the functions of the officers dealing with the collection of fees. They are judicial functions, which is a step forward in privatisation that we have not seen before. Clause 23 facilitates the contracting out of all the functions of fines officers and makes provision for the cost of collecting compensation, fines and other financial penalties to be recovered from offenders. That will effectively mean contracting out the functions of those officers to private bailiffs. Let me remind hon. Members of those functions: the decision to make a deduction from benefits order; the making of an attachment of earnings order; and the ordering or varying of the length of time to pay or the amount of the instalments that are payable. Those functions relate to the exercise of judicial power and the sentencing of criminals and they are to be privatised.

My concern about that is that as Members we have all experienced the role of bailiffs in our constituencies. In its evidence to Government in the consultation, “Transforming bailiff action”, Citizens Advice reported that it was dealing with nearly 25,000 cases involving problems with private bailiffs. Citizens Advice said that it

“has been seeing problems with the practices of private sector bailiffs for many years and these problems seem to be growing. Unfair practices we see include: misrepresenting powers; intimidating behaviour; charging fees in excess of what is allowable in law; failing to accept reasonable (in the circumstances of the debtor) offers of payment”,

and failing to recognise vulnerable debtors in particular. We are now passing over a key element of the judicial system to private bailiffs, who have this record of failure.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the court staff have had some significant successes in recent times, increasing the rate of recovery by 14%? Does he agree that that improved performance is to be welcomed and that they should be congratulated?

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. There are 2,000 people out there in the service, consistently meeting the targets set for them by Government and improving their record of service by 15% last year, not 14%, as he said. These loyal, dedicated staff, who are professionals in their own field, have delivered, yet are being threatened with privatisation. We are handing over this function to a group of people who we know are causing large numbers of our constituents severe problems as a result of their behaviour in the performance of their duties in other areas of fine collection and in the system as a whole.

All that is being asked for is the opportunity for existing staff to bid for their jobs. As the Bill stands, they will be excluded from being able to continue to perform the functions that they currently perform. Moreover, clause 24 would make available information held by HMRC to private bailiffs for use in the collection of fines. That is a step too far and it breaches people’s ability to maintain personal privacy with regard to their taxation affairs. That was never envisaged in previous consultations.

We have had experience of privatisation in the Ministry of Justice in recent times. Members in all parts of the House have raised the problems that we have had with the contracting out of the court interpreter services, which saw only 58% of bookings met. It resulted in chaos in the courts and criticism from the Public Accounts Committee.

I urge the Government to think twice about the proposed privatisation of an important service that is critical to many of our constituents, and to back the concept that what works is what matters. If the existing system is working effectively, it should not be put at risk as a result of what seems to be an ideological decision, rather than one based upon practice. It would be worth while for the Minister to sit down with some of the existing practitioners to gain their advice and, if the Government want further improvements in the service, to work with the existing staff—with the grain of the service—to achieve those improvements, rather than to go forward with this wholesale privatisation, which will prove to be not only counterproductive but, for many of our constituents, catastrophic.

Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill (Money)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Minister to his new post and hope that it is not out of the frying pan into the fire. I am sure it will not be.

There is general, all-round support for the measure, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on introducing it as a private Member’s Bill. There are real concerns for some of the staff about ensuring that adequate resources are devoted to providing proper training and sufficient staff. Members of the Prison Officers Association have welcomed the legislation, and have indeed been calling for such legislation for some time, but I would welcome any information that the Minister can give on cost estimates for implementing the Bill, the number of staff who will be involved, the cost of the training and where those resources will be found. So far, he has said that that will be contained within existing budgets, which is somewhat worrying as there is already a resource stretch in the Department, particularly on staffing issues and in the light of the escalation of the number of prisoners in our prisons.

With that information, we could reassure the prison officers that there will be sufficient investment to implement this welcome legislation effectively and with their co-operation.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I hope that, on second thoughts, the hon. Gentleman will realise that introducing such a facility will reduce the time spent on, for example, searches. There will be savings on one side, which will compensate for the costs on the other.

[John McDonnell]

I hope that that is the case and I see the rationale behind the hon. Gentleman’s case, but start-up costs will need to be met, particularly with regard to resourcing the training. If existing staff are to implement the legislation, they will have to be taken off other jobs, which will put stress on other Prison Service staff, unless some additional resource is made available. Assurances need to be given to the professionals who will implement the legislation that that will not be at a cost to their role elsewhere in the Prison Service.

London Metropolitan University

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

It was because the previous Government had neither the will nor the intention to enforce the immigration rules that this House passed. This Government do have the intention to have properly ordered immigration rules and to enforce them properly as well.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

May I return to the question of existing students, for whom the situation seems grotesquely unfair? Term starts in a month’s time, but they will not receive their letters until after 1 October. They will then have 60 days, but they will more than likely be unable to find another institution, unless that institution is given some financial incentive to take them. Could we not at least give an assurance to those students who are found to be legitimate that they will be able to continue their studies and complete their courses at London Met? Otherwise, they will all lose at least a year.

[Damian Green]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly misunderstood the process. The students will not get their letters of curtailment for a month, but they obviously know now that they need to find a new course. The taskforce is operating now, so his last point about their having to waste a year will, I hope, not be true in the vast majority of cases. We have set up the taskforce, and we took action as soon as the evidence was available precisely so that we would not have to do so in the middle of anyone’s course.

Olympics (Security)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I will not go down the route that the hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me down on a matter that is more appropriate to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, I would say that G4S is one of the largest security providers in the world, so it was natural to look to exactly such a company for venue security.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Security begins at Heathrow. For months, the Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents border control staff, has been warning the Government that there are too few staff. BAA wrote to the Government saying that the queues were caused by too few staff, and the former head of border control has said that the temporary staff who have been brought in are totally inadequately trained to meet security needs. I am worried not just about the embarrassment caused to this country by passengers who are coming for the Olympics spending more time in the queues than watching the Olympics, but about the security of the staff working at Heathrow, many of them my constituents. Does the Home Secretary not understand that her statement will be seen as utterly complacent about what is really needed at Heathrow airport?

[Mrs May]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the Government’s approach to border security. When we identified that security checks had been relaxed and put to one side on many occasions between 2007 and 2011, we decided that as the job of the border forces is about border security, we would tighten up that security.