Refugee Crisis in Europe

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans]

rose—

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

rose—

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I am conscious that I have taken many interventions. Many people want to get in and I really want to complete my speech, so I will take just two further interventions and then complete my remarks.

[Robert Neill]

The right hon. Lady makes a very fair point about the need in the long term for what she terms a new Marshall plan. I have sympathy with that, but the Marshall plan only worked once the totalitarian barbarians in Europe had been removed. How far is she prepared to go to support those of us who think we should use every means to remove the barbarians who are currently destroying these countries?

[Yvette Cooper]

That is another debate. As I have said clearly, there is no quick military or foreign policy fix that will solve the humanitarian challenge we face. Nobody believes that there is a quick answer that will solve these problems.

Reports into Investigatory Powers

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Perhaps the hon. and learned Lady will let me read the very next sentence in my speech, which says that, on these recommendations, the Government have not yet reached a decision. These are important matters and we must consider them carefully. Today’s debate will inform our view.

The ISC’s review into privacy and security also supports the agencies’ need for investigatory powers, but recommends that the legal framework needs updating and calls for increased transparency, strengthened safeguards and improved oversight. The review involved a detailed investigation into the capabilities of the intelligence agencies and contained an unprecedented amount of information about how they are used and the legal framework that regulates their use.

The Committee found that all the surveillance activities of the intelligence agencies are lawful and proportionate. It concluded that the agencies do not seek to circumvent UK law—including the Human Rights Act 1998—and do not have the resources, capability, or the desire to conduct mass surveillance. It commended the agencies for the care and attention they give to complying with the law.

None the less, it concluded that the current legal framework is “unnecessarily complex” and should be replaced with a single Act of Parliament, governing everything the agencies do to increase transparency. Going further than David Anderson, the ISC’s recommendations include replacing the legislation that underpins the agencies as well as the legislation relating to interception and communications data. Its recommendations include allowing Secretaries of State to disclose the existence of warrants where that can be done without damage to national security; increased checks, scrutiny and use of the warrant process; and more resources—and more checking of the agencies’ activities—by the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner. As with David Anderson’s report, debate on these issues will inform the Government’s view.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an important point. On informing the Government’s view, I welcome her concession that the Government will think carefully about the Anderson review on judicial oversight. She also mentioned earlier the importance of cross-party working on parliamentary oversight, where appropriate. Will she undertake to include the relevant Select Committees of this House in that cross-party approach?

[Mrs May]

First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election to a chairmanship of one of those Select Committees? I suspect that he is thinking of the Justice Committee. Of course it is not for the Government to indicate to Select Committees what business they should be undertaking, but I have every expectation that relevant Select Committees will wish to look at this matter. The Government will take all representations and consider them in the round in their response to the reports.

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister has today published the annual reports of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner. I commend both of those reports to the House. Both demonstrate the value of rigorous independent oversight and provide reassurance on the work of the agencies and the powers that they oversee. I thank the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Commissioner and their staff for their excellent work, their dedication and public service.

I appreciate that Members of the House will not yet have had time to study the reports in detail, but I would like to draw their attention to the findings of the Intelligence Services Commissioner, who is clear about the seriousness with which these powers and the granting of warrants are approached by the agencies and Government. He says:

“The agencies take great care to seek other less intrusive means before undertaking this level of intrusion and often consult their lawyers to ensure the legality of their submission.”

He goes on to say that great care is carried out by the warranty units at the Foreign Office, Home Office and Northern Ireland Office, which

“will question the agencies concerning the use and applicability of the suggested activity.”

The final check in the process is the oversight provided by a Secretary of State, who can refuse a warrant and who he says

“are aware that they are ultimately accountable for the operation.”

As I have already said, the Government have not yet taken firm decisions on particular recommendations in David Anderson’s report, or indeed on any of the other reports we will discuss today. There are many voices both inside and outside the House who have important views that need to be heard. We must consult those, including the police, the security and intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, and the telecommunications companies, as they are most directly affected. We also need to hear what Members of this House have to say.

I am clear that, whatever legal and privacy framework we propose, it will need to be agile and capable of responding to urgent cases. It will need to be clear and accountable, to be capable of commanding public confidence, and to ensure that sensitive powers are available in a way that will stand the test of time.

The reports that we are discussing today provide a firm basis for consultation, and today’s debate—the second time this House has discussed this matter in two weeks— will be an important contribution to that process. As I have said previously, the operation and regulation of the investigatory powers used by the police and the security and intelligence agencies is a matter of great importance to the security of this country and an issue of great interest to many Members.

The Government are committed to introducing a Bill on investigatory powers early next year, so that it can receive Royal Assent before the sunset clause in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act comes into effect at the end of 2016. In order to meet that timetable and allow the full parliamentary scrutiny, we intend to bring forward a draft Bill for consideration in the autumn, which will be subject to full pre-legislative scrutiny, including by a Joint Committee of both Houses.

As we move forward in our discussions, it is important that we remind ourselves about the very serious nature of what we are debating, because these powers are about protecting and saving people’s lives. In any debate about the right balance between security and privacy, it is important that we remember the full context of the threats we face. They include the threat from terrorism—both from overseas and home-grown in the UK. Since the attacks on 7 July 2005, the Security Service believes that around 40 terrorist plots have been disrupted. Around 700 people have gone from the UK to Syria and Iraq to fight or support terrorist organisations—a number of them to join ISIL or Daesh—and around half have returned. ISIL has made it clear that it wants to strike us here in Europe, and we know that it uses sophisticated propaganda and modern technology to spread hatred and in some cases advocate or facilitate acts of terrorism.

We also face other threats from organised criminals and the proliferation of cybercrimes such as child sexual exploitation, and threats from hostile foreign states and from military and industrial espionage.

Without the use of investigatory powers, it would be difficult to investigate, prosecute and prevent not only terrorist-related activity but crimes such as murder, rape, human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, cybercrime and kidnap. We know that communications data are used in 95% of serious and organised crime investigations handled by the Crown Prosecution Service. Similarly, intercept has played a significant role in investigating crime and preventing terrorism. In 2014, 2,795 interception warrants were issued. Of those, the majority—68%—were issued for serious crime, 31% for national security and 1% for a combination of serious crime and national security.

In the face of such threats, the Government would be negligent if we did not ensure that those whose job it is to keep us safe have the powers, support and capabilities they need. I am committed to ensuring that. However, security and privacy are not, as I said before, a zero-sum game. We can only enjoy our privacy if we have our security, just as we can only be free to live our lives as we wish, enjoy the many benefits that this country has to offer and go about our lives unimpeded and free from threats because security underpins our way of life.

Too often in the debate about investigatory powers, we are drawn into arguments in which privacy is prioritised at the expense of security or security at the expense of privacy, but it is possible to have a proper balance between the two. We must consider these issues in the round. Through parliamentary scrutiny, we must ensure that we have a framework set by Parliament that delivers as it is intended to and that can command public confidence. That framework must be underpinned by thoughtful and constructive debate, and I look forward to hearing what right hon. and hon. Members have to say in what I believe will be a well-informed and interesting debate.

Anderson Report

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), we have a timetable that was set by Parliament, because it believed that it was important that the powers in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 should not be allowed to continue for a significant period of time, so it was decided that the right end point should be the end of 2016. Of course, some of the issues that the report deals with have been looked at by the Home Office previously, notably in relation to communications data.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I am grateful that the importance of thorough pre-legislative scrutiny has been recognised, but may I ask the Home Secretary to consider the recommendations relating to broader parliamentary scrutiny? In relation to recommendation 120, will she be wary of anything that might dilute the focus currently provided by the Intelligence and Security Committee? In relation to recommendation 122, will she ensure not only that public bodies, where appropriate and subject to the proper safeguards, provide the information to Parliament, but that Parliament has a proper means of testing and scrutinising that information?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his points about the recommendations. Of course, as I indicated in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), we have already increased Parliament’s power to look at those issues through the enhanced capabilities we have given to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I think that it is important that the Committee retains a clear focus so that we can be confident that it is able to bring the correct oversight to these matters, which is important and has been enhanced.

Devolution and Growth across Britain

Robert Neill Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I welcome my right hon. Friend back to the House. She is absolutely right that having the right infrastructure is hugely important to maintaining growth and the fall in unemployment. In her constituency, I think she has seen a record fall of 67% in unemployment over the last five years. We intend to continue that, and I am sure that infrastructure will have a big role to play.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to his post. Those of us who know his business background will be delighted by the appointment. Will he consider whether more can be done to encourage the use of tax increment financing for significant infrastructure projects? We have one in London, promoted by the Mayor, but there is scope for more, with a genuinely free market approach to infrastructure provision.

[Sajid Javid]

I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House, and he again makes a very good point. I will help him to promote that. It is part of some of the city deals, but I think we can benefit from it a lot more.

I was talking about our commitment to 2 million jobs and 3 million more apprenticeships during the lifetime of this Parliament. These are not mere targets; the dignity of a job and the security of a pay packet are the foundations of our individual freedoms—freedoms powered by economic growth, through British business. Equally, British voters have shown their unwillingness to forgive the party responsible for plunging us into a generation-defining crisis—a party that has defined itself by seeking to punish, demonise and destroy business—but this anti-business approach from the Opposition was not a shock. Ultimately, Labour does not understand business; it does not understand enterprise. It never has and it never will.

The task ahead now is to cement Britain’s position as the best place in Europe to start and grow a business. The enterprise Bill is resolutely, unashamedly pro-business. It builds on the clear achievements of the past five years, when we cut red tape and slashed the cost of doing business by £10 billion. We made audits simpler for small businesses, removed pointless hurdles for house builders and exempted thousands of businesses from needless health and safety inspections. As a result, we now have the lowest burden of regulation among G7 nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It falls to me to lower the tone, after the pleasure of listening to two excellent maiden speeches, from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). They both paid admirable tribute to their predecessors. Sir Richard Shepherd was an old friend of many of us and was well regarded and much loved across this House. Dame Tessa Jowell was somebody I knew and worked with in London politics for a long time. I wish Sir Richard well in his retirement; I wish Dame Tessa well in most of her retirement, which I hope will be a suitably restful one. They both deserve it, and I am delighted to welcome their successors to the House. They both bring great experience, from the voluntary sector and business in my hon. Friend’s case and from local government in the hon. Lady’s case. I know that they will be of great value. I ought to say to the hon. Lady that Chislehurst now brands itself as the new Dulwich. With the development of local plans, if she could simply source me a picture gallery, we will be well away.

At all events, I very much welcome the content of the Queen’s Speech, particularly the measures for devolution, which give me an opportunity to say the final thing I wanted to say by way of welcome, which is to the new Communities and Local Government ministerial team, most of whom, at any rate, are on the Front Bench, and to the Secretary of State in absentia. I know every one of them to be committed localists and people who understand local government. Many of them have a direct track record in local government and are taking on what I promise them from experience is a very worthwhile job indeed. I wish them well. The Secretary of State was a great colleague when I was in government and he will be a great friend to local government, because he is a genuine and committed localiser.

I would not want this opportunity to pass without making a reference to the Secretary of State’s predecessor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles) was a transformational Secretary of State, who started on the work of localism and devolution, under difficult financial circumstances, and put in place the initial, critical building blocks that we can now take forward, with proposals such as the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill and the housing Bill. I very much welcome the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. It is logical that if we are looking to have devolution within the constituent parts of the United Kingdom it must be balanced with proper devolution to the English local authorities, which are potentially great drivers of growth, wealth and social enterprise in our country.

I welcome what is in the Bill. I would gently say that I hope that that, too, is a starting point, because not only must we have the sort of legislative devolution to the major cities and the combined authorities that we have seen; we must also have real fiscal devolution. I am sorry that the Opposition have been so churlish about metro mayors and combined authorities. I was a sceptic about having a Mayor of London, but at the end of the day, it has delivered in a very diverse and varied city, and if it is good enough for Toulouse, Berlin, Frankfurt, New York and Chicago, there is no reason why it should not be good enough for the great cities of this country. What we need to do though—I think this is recognised by other hon. Members who have spoken—is to ensure that we can find a light means of devolving real fiscal power down to our shire counties as well, because there has to be a proper balance.

I very much hope, therefore, that when we reform the business rates, which has also been part of our party’s manifesto, we can look at moving to a complete devolution of business rates to local authorities. The Mayor of London set up the London Finance Commission, which gave very cogent arguments about why property taxation was the obvious first step for straightforward devolution to local government. Business rates, stamp duty land tax and so on are areas that I hope we will look at. That is important, because it is not healthy in the long term if local government is overly dependent on the centre for grant. Those areas can reflect the varying housing and other property markets of particular localities. They can create a direct link with the role of local government as, increasingly, a driver of enterprise and growth, so there could be a direct and sensible reward from that devolution.

The other important point, which I touched on in my intervention on the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, is that such growth of revenue streams to local government could enable a greater degree of prudential borrowing and the further development of tax-increment financing to deliver major infrastructure projects without local authorities always having to go cap in hand to the Treasury. It would also boost what we are already seeing—although it is perhaps not sufficiently reported—which is a valuable extension of the municipal bond market. All those are important areas that we can take forward in this Parliament.

Finally, let me say a few words about the planning system, because delivering housing is partly about resource, but it is also about making sure that the system works well. We made significant improvements, and the Secretary of State was at the forefront of them, but there is more that can be done, so if I may I shall make a final plea. The one area that we have not yet reformed in the area of planning and land law is the compensation and compulsory purchase regime. That is now archaic; it is well out of date. It is a major piece of work, but it would greatly speed up the delivery of both homes and much needed infrastructure. I hope that, in the course of this Parliament, we can make that a priority, too.

It has been a pleasure to welcome all those Members who have made their maiden speeches today. I look forward to working with honourable colleagues in the coming days of the Parliament.

Counter-terrorism and Security Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As my hon. Friend knows, the draft guidance has been subject to consultation. We received a significant number of responses to the draft guidance, and we are going through those responses in order to make changes as appropriate. The point of building this directly into the Bill is that it makes it very clear to those exercising this duty that we are introducing for universities under Prevent that they must have “particular regard”, as it says, to the issues of freedom of speech and academic freedom. This makes it absolutely clear that the Prevent duty is not overriding, to put it that way, the academic freedom that we all accept our universities should have.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Can the Home Secretary assure me that when she considers the responses to the consultation, the final document will be so cast that it does not, albeit inadvertently, impede the work of genuine, benign and well-intentioned student bodies such as Christian unions and other groups that are active within our universities?

[Mrs May]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is no intention to make any impact on the sort of benign organisation to which he refers.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Robert Neill Excerpts

Friday 9th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

As I said a moment ago, the scrap metal dealer is responsible for displaying the licence. It is as straightforward and uncomplicated as that.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I hope the House will be reassured to learn that what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) suggested could not, in fact, occur. Local authorities are effectively the prosecuting authorities, and like any prosecuting authority they have discretion over whether they actually prosecute, although the offence concerned may be one of absolute liability. If the scrap metal dealer can produce a genuine explanation, a local authority is hardly likely to embark on a prosecution, given the time and expense involved. It is a matter of common sense.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing on all the expertise that he gained in public life. As I have said, we would expect law enforcement agencies to seek compliance in the first instance rather than proceeding immediately to prosecution. Not only does that discretion exist, but we would encourage it. However, we do not want to create a large amount of uncertainty about the obligations on scrap metal dealers, which is why I responded to the earlier interventions in the way that I did.

I do not believe that new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, is necessary, on the grounds that clause 1 already makes carrying on a business as a scrap metal dealer without a licence a criminal offence. The Government are also committed to preventing the unnecessary proliferation of criminal offences, which is the principle that underpins the Ministry of Justice gateway process.

Amendments 1 and 2 require the issuing local authority to be named on both site and collector licences, so that any queries relating to a licence can be directed to the correct authority. Amendment 3 outlines for local authorities the form in which a licence should be issued, namely the information that must be displayed on it, and requires the licence to be in a form that enables the licensee to comply with the new duty to display it. A delegated power remains so that the Secretary of State can make regulations prescribing further requirements enabling the form and content of the licence to change over time, for example to keep pace with developments in technology and the industry.

The Bill currently applies a number of requirements to the Environment Agency, but from 1 April 2013 the agency’s environmental functions in respect of Wales will be assumed by the Natural Resources Body for Wales. Amendments 4 and 8 to 17 ensure that the new body is referred to throughout the Bill. We do not propose any difference between the functions of the two bodies, but it was brought to our attention that there would be insufficient clarity in Wales if the Bill were not amended in this way.

Amendments 5, 6 and 7 relate to the conditions that a local authority can use to vary a licence. Clause 3(8)(a) allows an authority to restrict a scrap metal dealer’s trading hours, while clause 3(8)(b) requires all scrap metal received to be kept in the same form for up to 72 hours. We believe that those provisions could prove too onerous, so amendment 5 specifies the hours during which the condition can apply. We believe that allowing trading between 9 am and 5 pm will give dealers reasonable hours in which to operate, while also aligning their operating hours with those of local authorities so that they can monitor dealers more closely. I know that some Government Members, at least, will welcome our liberalising approach to what some may regard as the excessively burdensome obligations placed on scrap metal dealers.

Clause 4 allows a local authority to revoke a licence if it is no longer satisfied that the licensee is a suitable person to conduct a business as a scrap metal dealer. In September, members of the Public Bill Committee expressed the fear that allowing a licensee to operate without restriction pending an appeal against the revocation of his licence could lead to further criminal or undesirable behaviour during the transition period. Since then my Department has reviewed the issue, and has concluded that it would be sensible to amend the Bill in the light of what was said in Committee. Amendment 7 does not remove a licensee’s right to appeal against a local authority’s decision to revoke his licence, but does provide that the authority can impose conditions on the licence pending an appeal or a decision to vary the licence by adding conditions. That means that when a licensee appeals, the authority may impose one or both of the conditions contained in clause 3(8).

The powers under the clause will apply when a licence has been revoked or has been varied by the authority with conditions added. In both circumstances, that will mostly be a result of the licensee’s conviction on a relevant offence, or of the emergence of another reason to question his suitability to hold a licence. As with the conditions more generally, the powers are designed not to prevent an individual from engaging in work as a scrap metal dealer, but to impose some restrictions so that, although dealers can still operate, local authorities and law enforcement organisations can monitor their behaviour closely should they wish to reduce the opportunities for further offending. Once an appeal has been heard, if it is decided that the dealer is suitable to operate, the conditions will be lifted and he should be able to trade unhindered.

Amendment 6 introduces a drafting improvement. It seeks to clarify the wording of clause 4(6) as a result of the change made by amendment 7, but does not alter the principles of the clause in any way.

I do not propose to deal with all the amendments in the group, including the Opposition amendments, because there are a great many of them, but I hope that I have explained to the House’s satisfaction the motivation behind the Government new clause and amendments, and have conveyed our general desire to take a broad and collegiate approach in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South. We hope that the Bill will enjoy a speedy passage this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As he will know, last year metal theft from railways caused 117 hours of delay on train services. The coming Remembrance weekend reminds us of another major problem: the desecration of war memorials has particularly offended Members and the communities we represent.

[Robert Neill]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the Government amendments and new clauses. That demonstrates the bipartisan approach taken to these issues. Importantly from my point of view, it also reflects the bipartisan approach adopted by the LGA. The support of local authorities is critical. They are the key enforcers, and they and their council tax payers are also often major victims of metal theft. Some nine out of 10 local authorities have been victims of metal theft, never mind the disgraceful types of theft to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred. As a result of these amendments, we will have an enforcement regime that has the support of the enforcers, and it is therefore to be welcomed.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is a former local government Minister and understands the cross-party nature of the attempt to tackle the scourge of metal theft. There are now about 1,000 incidents of metal theft each week. That puts considerable pressure on the resources of local authorities, churches, the police, the voluntary sector, the railway services and all of us who are victims of such crime.