Unnamed: 0
int64 0
821k
| transcript_id
stringlengths 36
36
| speech_id
stringlengths 37
45
| content
stringlengths 1
32.8k
| speaker
stringlengths 1
165
⌀ | speech_type
stringclasses 17
values | person_id
stringlengths 7
30
⌀ | oralheading
stringlengths 3
162
⌀ | majorheading
stringlengths 2
147
⌀ | minorheading
stringlengths 3
985
⌀ | speech
stringlengths 1
32.8k
| score
float64 0.08
0.63
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
500 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.149.3 | Given that the Deputy Prime Minister and his Lib Dem Ministers are rowing back from coalition policies at Olympic speeds, why are they still carrying red ministerial boxes and taking ministerial salaries in a Government whom they are so antagonistic towards? | Anne McGuire | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER | Topical Questions | Given that the Deputy Prime Minister and his Lib Dem Ministers are rowing back from coalition policies at Olympic speeds, why are they still carrying red ministerial boxes and taking ministerial salaries in a Government whom they are so antagonistic towards? | 0.235307 |
501 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.149.4 | First, I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her honour—I am sure I do so on behalf of the whole House. I hope she will understand a rather simple distinction between our pride in the things that we have done in this coalition Government—taking people out of tax, expanding apprenticeships on a scale never done before, giving healthy meals at lunchtime to children, providing two, three and four-year-olds with more child care and pre-school support than ever before, and revolutionising our pension system so that the state pension is provided at a decent rate—and the disagreements about the future that of course political parties have, whether in coalition or not. I disagree with the Labour party’s mañana, mañana approach to never really dealing with the deficit, and with the Conservative party’s approach of carrying on with cuts even after the deficit has been dealt with. That is a perfectly reasonable disagreement about the future that we will all argue about over the next four or five months. | Nicholas Clegg | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER | Topical Questions | First, I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her honour—I am sure I do so on behalf of the whole House. I hope she will understand a rather simple distinction between our pride in the things that we have done in this coalition Government—taking people out of tax, expanding apprenticeships on a scale never done before, giving healthy meals at lunchtime to children, providing two, three and four-year-olds with more child care and pre-school support than ever before, and revolutionising our pension system so that the state pension is provided at a decent rate—and the disagreements about the future that of course political parties have, whether in coalition or not. I disagree with the Labour party’s mañana, mañana approach to never really dealing with the deficit, and with the Conservative party’s approach of carrying on with cuts even after the deficit has been dealt with. That is a perfectly reasonable disagreement about the future that we will all argue about over the next four or five months. | 0.29986 |
502 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.149.6 | The Attorney-General was asked— | null | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Topical Questions | The Attorney-General was asked— | 0.211229 |
503 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.149.8 | What recent steps the Crown Prosecution Service has taken to ensure that prosecutors are able more effectively to prosecute cases of domestic violence. | Tim Loughton | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Domestic Violence | What recent steps the Crown Prosecution Service has taken to ensure that prosecutors are able more effectively to prosecute cases of domestic violence. | 0.252762 |
504 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.150.0 | New guidance on handling cases of domestic abuse was announced by the Director of Public Prosecutions on 29 December last year, and that will help the CPS to deal effectively with a projected 20,000 more cases this year than two years ago. The updated guidance sets out the handling of all aspects of domestic abuse offending, including the many ways that abusers can control, coerce and psychologically abuse their victims. The new proposed offence of coercive and controlling behaviour announced by the Home Secretary will be introduced in the Serious Crime Bill. | Robert Buckland | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Domestic Violence | New guidance on handling cases of domestic abuse was announced by the Director of Public Prosecutions on 29 December last year, and that will help the CPS to deal effectively with a projected 20,000 more cases this year than two years ago. The updated guidance sets out the handling of all aspects of domestic abuse offending, including the many ways that abusers can control, coerce and psychologically abuse their victims. The new proposed offence of coercive and controlling behaviour announced by the Home Secretary will be introduced in the Serious Crime Bill. | 0.298729 |
505 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.150.1 | I congratulate the Solicitor-General on the progress made so far, but a recent study showed that families experiencing domestic violence are 23 times more likely to abuse their children under the age of five. Does he acknowledge that children, who are more often than not the victims, often inherit those domestic violence traits themselves, and what is he doing to protect children from domestic violence abusers as early as possible? | Tim Loughton | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Domestic Violence | I congratulate the Solicitor-General on the progress made so far, but a recent study showed that families experiencing domestic violence are 23 times more likely to abuse their children under the age of five. Does he acknowledge that children, who are more often than not the victims, often inherit those domestic violence traits themselves, and what is he doing to protect children from domestic violence abusers as early as possible? | 0.272884 |
506 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.150.2 | I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s continuing work in this field, both when he was a Minister and as a Member of Parliament. The CPS guidelines are clear that the presence of children must be treated as an aggravating factor when deciding whether or not to prosecute. Often, criminal justice procedures are difficult for children and young people, who feel that they have to take sides, and special measures are available if they have to give evidence. I will do everything I can to ensure that children are protected within the criminal justice system. | Robert Buckland | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Domestic Violence | I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s continuing work in this field, both when he was a Minister and as a Member of Parliament. The CPS guidelines are clear that the presence of children must be treated as an aggravating factor when deciding whether or not to prosecute. Often, criminal justice procedures are difficult for children and young people, who feel that they have to take sides, and special measures are available if they have to give evidence. I will do everything I can to ensure that children are protected within the criminal justice system. | 0.28103 |
507 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.150.3 | Last spring in my constituency two women were brutally murdered by their partners within a three-week period, one alongside her toddler daughter. In both cases, families, friends and others in the community were aware that abuse was taking place. Is the Solicitor-General content that evidence gathered by the police from others outside the direct situation is being used effectively and passed to the CPS to aid in prosecutions? | Meg Hillier | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Domestic Violence | Last spring in my constituency two women were brutally murdered by their partners within a three-week period, one alongside her toddler daughter. In both cases, families, friends and others in the community were aware that abuse was taking place. Is the Solicitor-General content that evidence gathered by the police from others outside the direct situation is being used effectively and passed to the CPS to aid in prosecutions? | 0.272613 |
508 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.150.4 | I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I cannot comment on those specific cases, but she makes an important point about collaboration among agencies, whether social services or other arms of local government. The CPS and the police are clear that there needs to be even better collaborative working to ensure that tell-tale signs are not missed before it is too late. | Robert Buckland | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Domestic Violence | I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I cannot comment on those specific cases, but she makes an important point about collaboration among agencies, whether social services or other arms of local government. The CPS and the police are clear that there needs to be even better collaborative working to ensure that tell-tale signs are not missed before it is too late. | 0.287639 |
509 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.150.5 | I welcome the announcement of a new measure on domestic abuse by coercive and controlling behaviour. Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm whether this important proposed legislation, which could have had a real impact on the life of Hollie Gazzard, who was brutally murdered in Gloucester not long ago, will be complete before this Parliament comes to an end? | Richard Graham | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Domestic Violence | I welcome the announcement of a new measure on domestic abuse by coercive and controlling behaviour. Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm whether this important proposed legislation, which could have had a real impact on the life of Hollie Gazzard, who was brutally murdered in Gloucester not long ago, will be complete before this Parliament comes to an end? | 0.306817 |
510 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.150.6 | My hon. Friend raises a tragic case. The Government have such cases very much in mind when making sure that the full course of domestic violence conduct is reflected by the criminal law. The Serious Crime Bill will be in Committee next week, and is the platform on which these important reforms will be introduced. I very much hope that Royal Assent will be achieved before the Dissolution of Parliament. | Robert Buckland | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Domestic Violence | My hon. Friend raises a tragic case. The Government have such cases very much in mind when making sure that the full course of domestic violence conduct is reflected by the criminal law. The Serious Crime Bill will be in Committee next week, and is the platform on which these important reforms will be introduced. I very much hope that Royal Assent will be achieved before the Dissolution of Parliament. | 0.288548 |
511 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.151.0 | Recent press reports have suggested that cuts to legal aid have been putting victims of domestic violence at a disadvantage, and even deterring them from pursuing their cases at law. Will the Attorney-General be making representations to the Justice Secretary on this serious matter? | Kelvin Hopkins | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Domestic Violence | Recent press reports have suggested that cuts to legal aid have been putting victims of domestic violence at a disadvantage, and even deterring them from pursuing their cases at law. Will the Attorney-General be making representations to the Justice Secretary on this serious matter? | 0.260339 |
512 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.151.1 | My particular concern is the prosecution of cases involving domestic abuse. I am happy to say that numbers continue to rise, both in terms of the proportion of conviction rates and the absolute number of police referrals. In fact, we have now reached the highest number of police referrals ever recorded. | Robert Buckland | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Domestic Violence | My particular concern is the prosecution of cases involving domestic abuse. I am happy to say that numbers continue to rise, both in terms of the proportion of conviction rates and the absolute number of police referrals. In fact, we have now reached the highest number of police referrals ever recorded. | 0.281307 |
513 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.151.3 | What steps he is taking to develop a greater level of public understanding of the legal framework applicable to social media. | David Jones | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Social Media | What steps he is taking to develop a greater level of public understanding of the legal framework applicable to social media. | 0.278923 |
514 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.151.4 | Where appropriate, I publish online warnings about potential prejudicial reporting that had previously only been given to the mainstream media. We also send tweets warning social media users of the risks of being in contempt of court. I intend to look again at whether there is anything more that can be done to raise awareness in this area. In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service publishes online its guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media. These set out the approach that prosecutors should take when deciding whether to prosecute. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Social Media | Where appropriate, I publish online warnings about potential prejudicial reporting that had previously only been given to the mainstream media. We also send tweets warning social media users of the risks of being in contempt of court. I intend to look again at whether there is anything more that can be done to raise awareness in this area. In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service publishes online its guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media. These set out the approach that prosecutors should take when deciding whether to prosecute. | 0.276356 |
515 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.151.5 | The inappropriate use of social media can cause immense harm to innocent people; there was a case just before Christmas of a young man who was driven to suicide by the actions of online bullies. What actions can my right hon. and learned Friend take to ensure that people understand that their unlawful conduct online is subject to precisely the same sanctions as such conduct offline? | David Jones | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Social Media | The inappropriate use of social media can cause immense harm to innocent people; there was a case just before Christmas of a young man who was driven to suicide by the actions of online bullies. What actions can my right hon. and learned Friend take to ensure that people understand that their unlawful conduct online is subject to precisely the same sanctions as such conduct offline? | 0.276768 |
516 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.151.6 | I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend’s point. It is important for everyone to understand that if they engage in behaviour online and on social media that would be punished under criminal law in other circumstances, it will be punished under criminal law. As I said, the CPS is making an effort to publish its guidelines on a number of matters. This is one of them and there was a public consultation prior to it. We all need to play our part to ensure that people understand the law in this area. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Social Media | I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend’s point. It is important for everyone to understand that if they engage in behaviour online and on social media that would be punished under criminal law in other circumstances, it will be punished under criminal law. As I said, the CPS is making an effort to publish its guidelines on a number of matters. This is one of them and there was a public consultation prior to it. We all need to play our part to ensure that people understand the law in this area. | 0.309844 |
517 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.151.7 | Does the Attorney-General share my concern about the increase in Islamophobia and racism on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and the inability of site owners to take the postings down? Will he have a meeting with the companies concerned to urge them to take down these postings, rather than face prosecution? | Keith Vaz | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Social Media | Does the Attorney-General share my concern about the increase in Islamophobia and racism on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, and the inability of site owners to take the postings down? Will he have a meeting with the companies concerned to urge them to take down these postings, rather than face prosecution? | 0.283705 |
518 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.152.0 | I do share that concern, and I am very happy to meet social media providers and others to discuss what more we can do. As the right hon. Gentleman says—I am sure the House generally agrees—it is important that everyone understands that social media is not a space where one can act with impunity. Social media providers, and all those who use social media, need to understand clearly that criminal law applies. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Social Media | I do share that concern, and I am very happy to meet social media providers and others to discuss what more we can do. As the right hon. Gentleman says—I am sure the House generally agrees—it is important that everyone understands that social media is not a space where one can act with impunity. Social media providers, and all those who use social media, need to understand clearly that criminal law applies. | 0.330645 |
519 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.152.1 | What steps can be taken to ensure that the judiciary, as well as members of the public, understand that at the commencement of trials it is absolutely imperative that no proceedings are communicated via social media, particularly in relation to very high profile legal proceedings? | Gregory Campbell | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Social Media | What steps can be taken to ensure that the judiciary, as well as members of the public, understand that at the commencement of trials it is absolutely imperative that no proceedings are communicated via social media, particularly in relation to very high profile legal proceedings? | 0.266576 |
520 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.152.2 | The hon. Gentleman is right. In all cases, the judiciary need to give clear directions that social media is to be used cautiously and, for jurors, not to be used at all. It is important for jurors to understand that, which is why we have put in statute offences that jurors may commit if they use social media to communicate what they are doing, or in other ways behave inappropriately and not in accordance with their oath. We will always look at ways to explain that more clearly to all who are involved in court proceedings. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Social Media | The hon. Gentleman is right. In all cases, the judiciary need to give clear directions that social media is to be used cautiously and, for jurors, not to be used at all. It is important for jurors to understand that, which is why we have put in statute offences that jurors may commit if they use social media to communicate what they are doing, or in other ways behave inappropriately and not in accordance with their oath. We will always look at ways to explain that more clearly to all who are involved in court proceedings. | 0.273484 |
521 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.152.4 | What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to ensure that assaults against prison officers are more effectively prosecuted. | Chris Heaton-Harris | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Assault against Prison Officers | What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to ensure that assaults against prison officers are more effectively prosecuted. | 0.235627 |
522 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.152.5 | I believe very strongly that assaults on prison officers should be taken seriously and dealt with robustly by prosecutors. The CPS is currently working with the police and the National Offender Management Service to develop a national joint protocol on crimes in prisons, focusing on offences against prison officers. This is something I helped to instigate as prisons Minister and I am very pleased to see it happening. The CPS legal guidance on prison offences also outlines that if the victim is a prison officer performing his or her duty, the public interest is heavily in favour of prosecution. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Assault against Prison Officers | I believe very strongly that assaults on prison officers should be taken seriously and dealt with robustly by prosecutors. The CPS is currently working with the police and the National Offender Management Service to develop a national joint protocol on crimes in prisons, focusing on offences against prison officers. This is something I helped to instigate as prisons Minister and I am very pleased to see it happening. The CPS legal guidance on prison offences also outlines that if the victim is a prison officer performing his or her duty, the public interest is heavily in favour of prosecution. | 0.280121 |
523 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.152.6 | I thank the Attorney-General for his answer. As he knows, my constituency contains two prisons and a secure training centre, so I would like to be sure that a prison officer who is the victim of assault would be entitled to exactly the same service as other victims outside prisons. | Chris Heaton-Harris | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Assault against Prison Officers | I thank the Attorney-General for his answer. As he knows, my constituency contains two prisons and a secure training centre, so I would like to be sure that a prison officer who is the victim of assault would be entitled to exactly the same service as other victims outside prisons. | 0.250349 |
524 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.152.7 | Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The custodial institutions he refers to are on the boundary between his constituency and mine—I know them well—and like me he represents people who work in the prison system. They are entitled to protection; in particular, they can make a victim impact statement, as can other victims of crime. In addition, it is possible—and I would encourage the use of these—for a prison community impact statement to be made. Prisons are unique communities and can be affected substantially by criminal offences, so it is important that sentencers take that into account when sentencing. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Assault against Prison Officers | Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The custodial institutions he refers to are on the boundary between his constituency and mine—I know them well—and like me he represents people who work in the prison system. They are entitled to protection; in particular, they can make a victim impact statement, as can other victims of crime. In addition, it is possible—and I would encourage the use of these—for a prison community impact statement to be made. Prisons are unique communities and can be affected substantially by criminal offences, so it is important that sentencers take that into account when sentencing. | 0.306495 |
525 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.153.0 | We know that with the shortage of prison officers the number of assaults on individual officers has increased. Has the number of prosecutions for those assaults also increased? | Fiona Mactaggart | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Assault against Prison Officers | We know that with the shortage of prison officers the number of assaults on individual officers has increased. Has the number of prosecutions for those assaults also increased? | 0.221725 |
526 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.153.1 | The hon. Lady will understand that I cannot comment on particular prosecution decisions, but she will know that in my last job and this one I have made my views plain: I think it is important that where there is evidence Crown prosecutors prosecute in cases where prison officers are assaulted. Such assaults should never happen, of course, but we have tightened the protocols to make it clear that where they do so and evidence is present Crown prosecutors should proceed against those who assault prison officers, because those who work in our prison system are entitled to the full support of the law in what they do. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Assault against Prison Officers | The hon. Lady will understand that I cannot comment on particular prosecution decisions, but she will know that in my last job and this one I have made my views plain: I think it is important that where there is evidence Crown prosecutors prosecute in cases where prison officers are assaulted. Such assaults should never happen, of course, but we have tightened the protocols to make it clear that where they do so and evidence is present Crown prosecutors should proceed against those who assault prison officers, because those who work in our prison system are entitled to the full support of the law in what they do. | 0.252337 |
527 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.153.2 | Given the increasing incidence of violence in prisons, I welcome the personal interest that the Attorney-General has taken in the issue and his determination that prosecution will follow assaults on prison officers. Does he agree that it is essential that the state protects prison officers with the full force of the law, given the important work they do on our behalf? | Alan Beith | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Assault against Prison Officers | Given the increasing incidence of violence in prisons, I welcome the personal interest that the Attorney-General has taken in the issue and his determination that prosecution will follow assaults on prison officers. Does he agree that it is essential that the state protects prison officers with the full force of the law, given the important work they do on our behalf? | 0.255224 |
528 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.153.3 | I agree with my right hon. Friend. I restate the point that, as he and the House understand, it is not for politicians to make decisions on individual prosecutions, but it is important that we send the clearest guidance we can to Crown prosecutors about when prosecution should follow. It is important, too, that sentencers make full use of the sentencing guidelines in this respect. The sentencing guidelines are clear that where an offence is committed by a serving prisoner, the sentence that follows, if a conviction occurs, should be consecutive and not concurrent. It is important that prosecutors do their bit to make that clear too. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Assault against Prison Officers | I agree with my right hon. Friend. I restate the point that, as he and the House understand, it is not for politicians to make decisions on individual prosecutions, but it is important that we send the clearest guidance we can to Crown prosecutors about when prosecution should follow. It is important, too, that sentencers make full use of the sentencing guidelines in this respect. The sentencing guidelines are clear that where an offence is committed by a serving prisoner, the sentence that follows, if a conviction occurs, should be consecutive and not concurrent. It is important that prosecutors do their bit to make that clear too. | 0.27038 |
529 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.153.4 | The officers at HMP Risley in my constituency are concerned about the increasing violence in prisons, but other public sector workers, such as hospital and ambulance workers, are also on the front line. Will the Attorney-General ensure that the CPS takes a stand on those cases and prosecutes them rigorously, and will he discuss with his colleagues in government the need to introduce a particular offence, carrying an exemplary sentence, of assaulting a public sector worker in the course of their duties? | Helen Jones | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Assault against Prison Officers | The officers at HMP Risley in my constituency are concerned about the increasing violence in prisons, but other public sector workers, such as hospital and ambulance workers, are also on the front line. Will the Attorney-General ensure that the CPS takes a stand on those cases and prosecutes them rigorously, and will he discuss with his colleagues in government the need to introduce a particular offence, carrying an exemplary sentence, of assaulting a public sector worker in the course of their duties? | 0.281991 |
530 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.153.5 | I certainly agree that it is important that where public servants are assaulted their public service is taken fully into account not just by prosecutors but by sentencers. The hon. Lady will be aware that assaulting someone while they are serving the public is an aggravating feature for sentencers to take into account. That is as it should be. However, we will continue to consider whether the law needs to be strengthened. She will know that many people, in this Government and the previous Government, have considered whether a specific offence should be created for assaults on those serving the public. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Assault against Prison Officers | I certainly agree that it is important that where public servants are assaulted their public service is taken fully into account not just by prosecutors but by sentencers. The hon. Lady will be aware that assaulting someone while they are serving the public is an aggravating feature for sentencers to take into account. That is as it should be. However, we will continue to consider whether the law needs to be strengthened. She will know that many people, in this Government and the previous Government, have considered whether a specific offence should be created for assaults on those serving the public. | 0.255602 |
531 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.154.1 | If he will take steps to encourage the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute people for treason in cases where that offence is suspected to have been committed. | Philip Hollobone | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Treason | If he will take steps to encourage the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute people for treason in cases where that offence is suspected to have been committed. | 0.231689 |
532 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.154.2 | In all cases referred for a charging decision, the CPS should use whichever offence, including treason, is appropriate to the facts of the case. However, modern criminal offences, including terrorism offences, usually offer a better chance of a successful conviction than would a prosecution for treason. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Treason | In all cases referred for a charging decision, the CPS should use whichever offence, including treason, is appropriate to the facts of the case. However, modern criminal offences, including terrorism offences, usually offer a better chance of a successful conviction than would a prosecution for treason. | 0.257573 |
533 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.154.3 | British jihadists who go abroad to support ISIS are aiding and abetting the Queen’s enemies, and now that we have the horrific spectacle of British citizens beheading other British citizens and citizens of allies on international television, should it not be made clear to these people that it is worse than murder and terrorism—it is treason—and that should they ever be apprehended they should be prosecuted for such? | Philip Hollobone | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Treason | British jihadists who go abroad to support ISIS are aiding and abetting the Queen’s enemies, and now that we have the horrific spectacle of British citizens beheading other British citizens and citizens of allies on international television, should it not be made clear to these people that it is worse than murder and terrorism—it is treason—and that should they ever be apprehended they should be prosecuted for such? | 0.22597 |
534 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.154.4 | I have a good deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. The point I would make is a purely practical one. I think it important that treason remains available to prosecutors in appropriate cases and I wish to see that continue, but I also think it important to recognise that there are specific practical difficulties in the prosecution of treason—whether it be the establishing of the direct or constructive levying of a war under one limb of the offence or indeed defining the sovereign’s enemies under the other. It is important that we prosecute effectively. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Treason | I have a good deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. The point I would make is a purely practical one. I think it important that treason remains available to prosecutors in appropriate cases and I wish to see that continue, but I also think it important to recognise that there are specific practical difficulties in the prosecution of treason—whether it be the establishing of the direct or constructive levying of a war under one limb of the offence or indeed defining the sovereign’s enemies under the other. It is important that we prosecute effectively. | 0.247799 |
535 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.154.6 | What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to ensure that prosecutors are able more effectively to prosecute stalking and harassment cases. | Andrew Stephenson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Stalking and Harassment | What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to ensure that prosecutors are able more effectively to prosecute stalking and harassment cases. | 0.253716 |
536 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.154.7 | Most recently, a joint police and CPS protocol on stalking was launched in September last year. The CPS legal guidance has also been revised to reflect this development, and training has been provided to prosecutors on the new stalking offences. Prosecutions for these offences have increased by more 20% in the last year. | Robert Buckland | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Stalking and Harassment | Most recently, a joint police and CPS protocol on stalking was launched in September last year. The CPS legal guidance has also been revised to reflect this development, and training has been provided to prosecutors on the new stalking offences. Prosecutions for these offences have increased by more 20% in the last year. | 0.2813 |
537 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.154.8 | My constituent, Jane Clough, a nurse at Blackpool Victoria hospital, was murdered in 2010 by her stalker, Jonathan Vass, who stabbed her 71 times and then slit her throat in the hospital car park. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that stalking is a serious offence that often leads to even more serious crimes? | Andrew Stephenson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Stalking and Harassment | My constituent, Jane Clough, a nurse at Blackpool Victoria hospital, was murdered in 2010 by her stalker, Jonathan Vass, who stabbed her 71 times and then slit her throat in the hospital car park. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that stalking is a serious offence that often leads to even more serious crimes? | 0.209259 |
538 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.154.9 | I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to him for his work with Mr and Mrs John and Penny Clough, Jane’s parents. In fact, their work on the Justice for Jane campaign and the dignity with which they have conducted themselves in order to achieve important changes in the law is a real exemplar of how to achieve something positive from something so appalling. | Robert Buckland | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Stalking and Harassment | I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to him for his work with Mr and Mrs John and Penny Clough, Jane’s parents. In fact, their work on the Justice for Jane campaign and the dignity with which they have conducted themselves in order to achieve important changes in the law is a real exemplar of how to achieve something positive from something so appalling. | 0.256372 |
539 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.155.0 | Between November 2012 and June 2014, 1,447 CPS lawyers completed the cyber-crime cyber-stalking course, which was developed by the CPS for all prosecutors. However, in a written answer from the Solicitor-General in October 2014, I was advised that a lower figure now applied. Will he please give us an update on the progress of how many CPS lawyers are undertaking this very important training? | Elfyn Llwyd | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Stalking and Harassment | Between November 2012 and June 2014, 1,447 CPS lawyers completed the cyber-crime cyber-stalking course, which was developed by the CPS for all prosecutors. However, in a written answer from the Solicitor-General in October 2014, I was advised that a lower figure now applied. Will he please give us an update on the progress of how many CPS lawyers are undertaking this very important training? | 0.257115 |
540 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.155.1 | May I in a very gentle way say that lawyers’ questions and answers tend to be learned and lucid, but also rather long? Perhaps the Solicitor-General can disprove the trend. | Mr Speaker | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Stalking and Harassment | May I in a very gentle way say that lawyers’ questions and answers tend to be learned and lucid, but also rather long? Perhaps the Solicitor-General can disprove the trend. | 0.285196 |
541 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.155.2 | The right hon. Gentleman and I share a continuing interest in, and passion for, reforming the law on stalking and harassment and ensuring that implementation is carried out. I am able to update him. As of 31 December last year, 1,402 CPS employees had undergone the training. | Robert Buckland | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Stalking and Harassment | The right hon. Gentleman and I share a continuing interest in, and passion for, reforming the law on stalking and harassment and ensuring that implementation is carried out. I am able to update him. As of 31 December last year, 1,402 CPS employees had undergone the training. | 0.27597 |
542 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.155.4 | What recent discussions he has had with the Service Prosecution Authority on its effectiveness in prosecuting rape and other sexual offences in the armed forces which took place (a) in the UK and (b) overseas. | Phil Wilson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Service Prosecution Authority (Sex Offences) | What recent discussions he has had with the Service Prosecution Authority on its effectiveness in prosecuting rape and other sexual offences in the armed forces which took place (a) in the UK and (b) overseas. | 0.255331 |
543 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.155.5 | The Attorney-General and I meet the director of service prosecutions regularly and discuss casework issues at those meetings, including the prosecution of rape and other sexual offences, whether they are alleged to have been committed here or overseas. The Service Prosecution Authority has adopted CPS best practice guidelines to make sure that sexual offences are prosecuted to the highest standard. | Robert Buckland | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Service Prosecution Authority (Sex Offences) | The Attorney-General and I meet the director of service prosecutions regularly and discuss casework issues at those meetings, including the prosecution of rape and other sexual offences, whether they are alleged to have been committed here or overseas. The Service Prosecution Authority has adopted CPS best practice guidelines to make sure that sexual offences are prosecuted to the highest standard. | 0.274957 |
544 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.155.6 | Does the Minister agree that decisions to prosecute allegations of rape and sexual assault in the military should be subject to an independent review, given that only five cases of alleged rape were prosecuted in 2013? | Phil Wilson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Service Prosecution Authority (Sex Offences) | Does the Minister agree that decisions to prosecute allegations of rape and sexual assault in the military should be subject to an independent review, given that only five cases of alleged rape were prosecuted in 2013? | 0.265152 |
545 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.155.7 | It is difficult to compare the CPS with the SPA because the sheer number of cases before the SPA will be much lower. When it comes to decision making on prosecution, CPS best practice is replicated in the SPA, and joint training and a lot of joint working takes place. The problems identified by the Liberty report, among others, are more to do with the investigation of offences as opposed to their prosecution. | Robert Buckland | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Service Prosecution Authority (Sex Offences) | It is difficult to compare the CPS with the SPA because the sheer number of cases before the SPA will be much lower. When it comes to decision making on prosecution, CPS best practice is replicated in the SPA, and joint training and a lot of joint working takes place. The problems identified by the Liberty report, among others, are more to do with the investigation of offences as opposed to their prosecution. | 0.259109 |
546 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.155.8 | I call Mr Karl Turner. | Mr Speaker | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Service Prosecution Authority (Sex Offences) | I call Mr Karl Turner. | 0.152352 |
547 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.155.9 | Hear, hear! | Hon. Members | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Service Prosecution Authority (Sex Offences) | Hear, hear! | 0.230423 |
548 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.155.10 | Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very nice to be popular. Does the Attorney-General agree that the very low level of rape and sexual assault prosecutions in the military is a direct result of both a lack of independent scrutiny by civilian authorities and the discretion given to commanding officers to hear cases summarily themselves? Does he think it would be helpful if regular inspections of the Service Prosecution Authority were to be put on a statutory footing? | Karl Turner | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Service Prosecution Authority (Sex Offences) | Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very nice to be popular. Does the Attorney-General agree that the very low level of rape and sexual assault prosecutions in the military is a direct result of both a lack of independent scrutiny by civilian authorities and the discretion given to commanding officers to hear cases summarily themselves? Does he think it would be helpful if regular inspections of the Service Prosecution Authority were to be put on a statutory footing? | 0.258936 |
549 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.156.0 | May I first welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position and offer warm congratulations to him? The point he makes is perhaps more relevant to other types of sexual offences that are not included in the schedule to the Armed Forces Act 2006. When it comes to rape and serious sexual offences, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the rigorous standards used by the CPS are those adopted by the SPA as well. The joint training and joint working I mentioned allow the Attorney-General and I the reassurance we need to make sure that these serious matters are prosecuted effectively. | Robert Buckland | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Service Prosecution Authority (Sex Offences) | May I first welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position and offer warm congratulations to him? The point he makes is perhaps more relevant to other types of sexual offences that are not included in the schedule to the Armed Forces Act 2006. When it comes to rape and serious sexual offences, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the rigorous standards used by the CPS are those adopted by the SPA as well. The joint training and joint working I mentioned allow the Attorney-General and I the reassurance we need to make sure that these serious matters are prosecuted effectively. | 0.280341 |
550 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.156.2 | What recent assessment he has made of the cost to the public purse of errors in law made by the Crown Prosecution Service when bringing forward prosecutions. | Kevin Brennan | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Errors in Law (Costs) | What recent assessment he has made of the cost to the public purse of errors in law made by the Crown Prosecution Service when bringing forward prosecutions. | 0.213136 |
551 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.156.3 | There are a number of safeguards, both in the CPS and in the criminal justice system, to minimise the impact of errors in law. They include the CPS casework quality standards, judicial oversight, and the appeal process itself. There is no central record of the overall cost to the public purse when such errors of law occur, but whenever errors are identified, the CPS works to address them. | Robert Buckland | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Errors in Law (Costs) | There are a number of safeguards, both in the CPS and in the criminal justice system, to minimise the impact of errors in law. They include the CPS casework quality standards, judicial oversight, and the appeal process itself. There is no central record of the overall cost to the public purse when such errors of law occur, but whenever errors are identified, the CPS works to address them. | 0.262661 |
552 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.156.4 | May I encourage the Solicitor-General to try to calculate the cost? Obviously, we should like to know what impact staff cuts in the CPS might have on the costs of cases, and, in particular, how they might affect the ability of the CPS to prepare and present cases. In that spirit, will the Solicitor-General undertake to try to identify the cost and let the House know what it is? | Kevin Brennan | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Errors in Law (Costs) | May I encourage the Solicitor-General to try to calculate the cost? Obviously, we should like to know what impact staff cuts in the CPS might have on the costs of cases, and, in particular, how they might affect the ability of the CPS to prepare and present cases. In that spirit, will the Solicitor-General undertake to try to identify the cost and let the House know what it is? | 0.264782 |
553 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.156.5 | I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he asked his question. I can tell him that the total value of cost awards against the CPS was only 0.2% of its budget, and that, within that percentage, identifying specific errors of law was going to be very difficult. However, I can assure him that only 142 appeals against conviction were allowed last year, and that very few of those will have involved an error of law on the part of a CPS lawyer. An error might well have been made by the trial judge, or might have been made at some other point in the system, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the number of errors of law committed purely by CPS lawyers is very small indeed. | Robert Buckland | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Errors in Law (Costs) | I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which he asked his question. I can tell him that the total value of cost awards against the CPS was only 0.2% of its budget, and that, within that percentage, identifying specific errors of law was going to be very difficult. However, I can assure him that only 142 appeals against conviction were allowed last year, and that very few of those will have involved an error of law on the part of a CPS lawyer. An error might well have been made by the trial judge, or might have been made at some other point in the system, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the number of errors of law committed purely by CPS lawyers is very small indeed. | 0.206525 |
554 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.156.7 | When he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss the length of pre-charge bail. | Christopher Chope | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Pre-charge Bail | When he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss the length of pre-charge bail. | 0.209414 |
555 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.156.8 | I regularly meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss matters affecting the CPS, as my hon. Friend might expect. We discussed the Home Office’s consultation paper on limiting police pre-charge bail before it was published, and I expect the CPS to contribute to that consultation. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Pre-charge Bail | I regularly meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss matters affecting the CPS, as my hon. Friend might expect. We discussed the Home Office’s consultation paper on limiting police pre-charge bail before it was published, and I expect the CPS to contribute to that consultation. | 0.292707 |
556 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.157.0 | How would my right hon. and learned Friend feel if, like one of my constituents, he was subjected to the ignominy of a highly publicised arrest, suspended from his job, and put on pre-charge bail for 11 months before being released without charge? How is such oppressive treatment of innocent people consistent with the spirit of Magna Carta? | Christopher Chope | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Pre-charge Bail | How would my right hon. and learned Friend feel if, like one of my constituents, he was subjected to the ignominy of a highly publicised arrest, suspended from his job, and put on pre-charge bail for 11 months before being released without charge? How is such oppressive treatment of innocent people consistent with the spirit of Magna Carta? | 0.22673 |
557 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.157.1 | I do not think that oppressive treatment is consistent with the spirit of Magna Carta. In this of all years, we should consider very carefully what my hon. Friend has said, and I think that that is why the Home Secretary initiated the consultation. We need to consider all aspects of this matter. It is right to balance against the important points that my hon. Friend has made the need to ensure that, in complex cases, investigation is given its proper time, and that victims and witnesses are protected, as they can be, by conditions attached to pre-charge bail. However, he is right in what he says, which is why we are considering the issue. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Pre-charge Bail | I do not think that oppressive treatment is consistent with the spirit of Magna Carta. In this of all years, we should consider very carefully what my hon. Friend has said, and I think that that is why the Home Secretary initiated the consultation. We need to consider all aspects of this matter. It is right to balance against the important points that my hon. Friend has made the need to ensure that, in complex cases, investigation is given its proper time, and that victims and witnesses are protected, as they can be, by conditions attached to pre-charge bail. However, he is right in what he says, which is why we are considering the issue. | 0.271175 |
558 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.158.0 | rose— | Several hon. Members | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Pre-charge Bail | rose— | 0.17461 |
559 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.158.1 | May we have a very brief question from Mr Barry Sheerman, and a very brief answer? | Mr Speaker | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Pre-charge Bail | May we have a very brief question from Mr Barry Sheerman, and a very brief answer? | 0.320981 |
560 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.158.2 | I have encountered a case in which someone was bailed for even longer without being charged. That has ruined the lives of two people, and it has gone on and on. What is the longest period of bail without charge of which the Attorney-General is aware? | Barry Sheerman | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Pre-charge Bail | I have encountered a case in which someone was bailed for even longer without being charged. That has ruined the lives of two people, and it has gone on and on. What is the longest period of bail without charge of which the Attorney-General is aware? | 0.181569 |
561 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.158.3 | I cannot answer that question off the top of my head, but I will of course write to the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with him. We need to consider this issue carefully, and to ensure that in the generality of cases there is a clear expectation of a maximum length of time that people should spend on pre-charge bail before minds are made up about what to do in such cases. That is what the consultation is about, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will contribute to it. | Jeremy Wright | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | ATTORNEY-GENERAL | Pre-charge Bail | I cannot answer that question off the top of my head, but I will of course write to the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with him. We need to consider this issue carefully, and to ensure that in the generality of cases there is a clear expectation of a maximum length of time that people should spend on pre-charge bail before minds are made up about what to do in such cases. That is what the consultation is about, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and others will contribute to it. | 0.265168 |
562 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.159.1 | On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) was today released from police bail. No further action was taken, and, indeed, he was never charged with anything. Given that, unfortunately, he had to be named on the Order Paper in connection with his arrest, do you think, Mr Speaker, that today’s news should also be noted on the Order Paper? | Andrew Bridgen | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Points of Order | Pre-charge Bail | On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) was today released from police bail. No further action was taken, and, indeed, he was never charged with anything. Given that, unfortunately, he had to be named on the Order Paper in connection with his arrest, do you think, Mr Speaker, that today’s news should also be noted on the Order Paper? | 0.279177 |
563 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.159.2 | I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of which I did not have notice, but which is highly topical. What I can say to him, which I hope will be of interest to him and to the House, is that I am today writing—the letter has been drafted, and awaits signature—to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), requesting that the Committee look into the ancient practice whereby, in such situations, a Member’s arrest is reported to the House, to establish whether, in modern circumstances, such a practice is no longer required, or at any rate, at the very least, requires amendment. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to others. | Mr Speaker | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Points of Order | Pre-charge Bail | I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of which I did not have notice, but which is highly topical. What I can say to him, which I hope will be of interest to him and to the House, is that I am today writing—the letter has been drafted, and awaits signature—to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), requesting that the Committee look into the ancient practice whereby, in such situations, a Member’s arrest is reported to the House, to establish whether, in modern circumstances, such a practice is no longer required, or at any rate, at the very least, requires amendment. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to others. | 0.260857 |
564 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.159.3 | On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you are aware of the concerns that I have raised with Ministers in the House about the current situation at G4S-run Altcourse prison in my constituency, which I have pursued in written parliamentary questions. Last night I was advised, in a written response from the prisons Minister, that G4S had been instructed to complete a “strategic plan” for Altcourse in the light of a recent murder in the prison. The plan has now been completed, and has been submitted to the National Offender Management Service. However, the Ministry of Justice is refusing to share the document with me. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, how I can possibly monitor what is going on in the jail in regard to the improvements that need to be made—and respond to my constituents’ very real concerns—while I am being denied access to information that should be shared with me, as the local Member of Parliament, before I meet officials at the jail? | Steve Rotheram | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Points of Order | Pre-charge Bail | On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you are aware of the concerns that I have raised with Ministers in the House about the current situation at G4S-run Altcourse prison in my constituency, which I have pursued in written parliamentary questions. Last night I was advised, in a written response from the prisons Minister, that G4S had been instructed to complete a “strategic plan” for Altcourse in the light of a recent murder in the prison. The plan has now been completed, and has been submitted to the National Offender Management Service. However, the Ministry of Justice is refusing to share the document with me. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, how I can possibly monitor what is going on in the jail in regard to the improvements that need to be made—and respond to my constituents’ very real concerns—while I am being denied access to information that should be shared with me, as the local Member of Parliament, before I meet officials at the jail? | 0.304669 |
565 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.160.0 | I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My simple advice to him is to use the opportunities open to him to air the matter. For example, although I can make no offer today and give no guarantee of immediate success, it is open to him, if he wants to joust on the matter with a Minister, to seek an Adjournment debate. It would be a highly pertinent topic for such a debate. He might want to reflect on that. | Mr Speaker | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Points of Order | Pre-charge Bail | I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My simple advice to him is to use the opportunities open to him to air the matter. For example, although I can make no offer today and give no guarantee of immediate success, it is open to him, if he wants to joust on the matter with a Minister, to seek an Adjournment debate. It would be a highly pertinent topic for such a debate. He might want to reflect on that. | 0.326242 |
566 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.160.1 | On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope this is a point of order. We discussed the Magna Carta this morning. Surely the House should take the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta seriously. How much opportunity will we have to discuss the Magna Carta and the need for a new Magna Carta, and to celebrate something that has been the basis of so many democracies throughout the world? | Barry Sheerman | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Points of Order | Pre-charge Bail | On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope this is a point of order. We discussed the Magna Carta this morning. Surely the House should take the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta seriously. How much opportunity will we have to discuss the Magna Carta and the need for a new Magna Carta, and to celebrate something that has been the basis of so many democracies throughout the world? | 0.307091 |
567 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.160.2 | I can advise the hon. Gentleman that much is planned, but if I were to respond in detail to his point of order I would unfairly and unduly delay the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who has been waiting patiently to move his ten-minute rule motion. What I can say is that a great deal will happen, there will be opportunities on the Floor of the House and, knowing the legendary indefatigability of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), I feel sure that he will take his chance to be part of the process. | Mr Speaker | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Points of Order | Pre-charge Bail | I can advise the hon. Gentleman that much is planned, but if I were to respond in detail to his point of order I would unfairly and unduly delay the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), who has been waiting patiently to move his ten-minute rule motion. What I can say is that a great deal will happen, there will be opportunities on the Floor of the House and, knowing the legendary indefatigability of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), I feel sure that he will take his chance to be part of the process. | 0.290487 |
568 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.161.1 | Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) | null | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Pre-charge Bail | Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) | 0.273739 |
569 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.161.2 | I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the regulation and practices of email communications. The Bill would ban open text e-mail disclaimers from the electronic communications of all UK Government Departments, agencies and councils and all UK limited companies. We have all been there. A short e-mail comes in from a friend, colleague or company and we hit print. Then we look in horror as page after page spews out. The e-mail itself is not the end. It is often not even the beginning of the end—merely the end of the beginning. What follows is a disclaimer, of varying lengths and comprehensibility, informing us that the e-mail we have just received is intended for a specific recipient, that it may contain confidential information, and that it must not be used, disclosed, stored or copied. Should we find that we are not the intended recipient, we are instructed to destroy the e-mail—to erase it both from existence and from our memory—and to make immediate contact with the sender to alert them to the mistake. That same disclaimer appears on every subsequent e-mail. Frankly, disclaimers are not worth the paper they are unnecessarily printed on. They attempt unilaterally to create a contract between the sender and the recipient, without asking for the consent of the recipient. They aim to scare the unintended and unaware recipient of a misplaced e-mail into doing what is asked of them, despite there being no obligation to do so. Even if there is a legal obligation not to divulge something confidential, why bother to say so at length when it is already covered by our law and does not need repeating? Little thought is ever given to whether the disclaimers are necessary or even if they mean anything, yet companies, councils and Government Departments take the view that, if others have them, it must mean that they ought to as well. That is simply not the case. Legal opinion is agreed that they hold little if any weight and the chances of one being enforced are minimal. In essence, they add nothing. If anyone really feels the need to issue a legal warning, then stick on a little link as a footer, or a header attachment that is not in open format. The Economist, displaying typical good sense, noted in 2011 that the European Commission has already declared that any attempt to impose a contractual obligation on a consumer who has not had the opportunity freely to negotiate it must be struck out by the courts. An e-mail disclaimer is a perfect example of such an attempt, particularly as the vast majority come after, not before, the body of the message. Legally, disclaimers attempt to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted, and at the same time they fly in the face of common sense, for everyone knows that if we get a letter that is meant for someone else, we either find them so we can give it to them, or we return it to the sender. The written envelope does not need a legal warning on the outside, and neither does an e-mail. What causes the greatest frustration, however, is their interminable length, and on a BlackBerry, for instance, the inability to delete them. Judging from the cross-section of e-mails in my inbox, I estimate that most fall within 100 and 200 words in length. I am pleased to report, Mr Speaker, that Parliament’s own disclaimer is among the pithier ones floating around cyber-space, coming in at a slim 60 words. I regret, however, that it lags some way behind the disclaimer that follows e-mails from the Department for International Development, where, in what I consider to be one of my proudest ministerial achievements, I managed, against the forces of unnecessary bossiness, to whittle it down to a mere 17 words. Indeed, it was more of a little footer than a real disclaimer. None of those 17 words, I should add, attempted to impose an obligation on the recipient. Instead, they simply encouraged them to learn more of DFID’s work, and it provided a link to the DFID website and Twitter account. As in so many things, DFID ought to be an example for the rest of Whitehall to follow—and you and I surely agree, Mr Speaker, that short is beautiful. Even the Labour party, in a marked departure from the norm, has embraced the concept of austerity—if only when it comes to disclaimers. As you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, I am not a regular recipient of the little red missives sent out by Labour, but am reliably informed that their disclaimer is fewer than 50 words. It is with a heavy heart, however, that I confess that my own party, which has demonstrated such admirable restraint with the public finances over the past five years, cannot replicate this self-control in its own 183-word disclaimer. As the Prime Minister has said in this House, there is still much more to be done, and, I would add, much less to be printed. In some cases, the practice has gone beyond parody, however. In 2012, The Wall Street Journal reported that the disclaimer appended to an e-mail from the investment bank Nomura Group ran to a staggering 2,578 words. If I were to have devoted the entire length of my speech in support of this Bill to simply reading out that disclaimer, I would not even have come close to reaching the bottom. Rather than attempting to do so, I will set out—echoing a further little Leninist moment—“What Is To Be Done.” This Bill would require all Government Departments, agencies and councils, and all UK limited companies, to do away entirely with open format disclaimers. Even today, I call on all of them simply to amend them voluntarily without delay—why not set an example, and just do it? Only by exposing disclaimers for the toothless waffle that they are can we hope to stem their proliferation, and by doing so we can end the practice that leaves page after page of repeated disclaimers clagging up the bottom of e-mail chains for no good reason. Enough is enough, Mr Speaker. Never again do we want e-mail chains that say in one line “Fancy lunch, mate?” and then immediately the one line is followed by 20 undeletable lines of legal officiousness. It is a matter of national pride that it was a British computer scientist who invented the worldwide web. This moment of innovative genius should not be allowed to be tarnished by the very worst of sluggish, bureaucratic verbiage that is represented by the e-mail disclaimer. They are way out of date—a hangover from the early days of the internet which have long since been overtaken. They are as arcane as waving a red flag to warn pedestrians of an approaching vehicle. It is high time, therefore, that we put a stop to these meaningless missives that clog up our inboxes, deplete our printer cartridges of precious ink and cut down forests’ worth of paper. The footer and the header can survive, but let us now condemn the needless disclaimer to the dustbin of internet history. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Sir Alan Duncan, Damian Green, Christopher Pincher and Steve Baker present the Bill. Sir Alan Duncan accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March, and to be printed (Bill 146). | Alan Duncan | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Pre-charge Bail | I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the regulation and practices of email communications. The Bill would ban open text e-mail disclaimers from the electronic communications of all UK Government Departments, agencies and councils and all UK limited companies. We have all been there. A short e-mail comes in from a friend, colleague or company and we hit print. Then we look in horror as page after page spews out. The e-mail itself is not the end. It is often not even the beginning of the end—merely the end of the beginning. What follows is a disclaimer, of varying lengths and comprehensibility, informing us that the e-mail we have just received is intended for a specific recipient, that it may contain confidential information, and that it must not be used, disclosed, stored or copied. Should we find that we are not the intended recipient, we are instructed to destroy the e-mail—to erase it both from existence and from our memory—and to make immediate contact with the sender to alert them to the mistake. That same disclaimer appears on every subsequent e-mail. Frankly, disclaimers are not worth the paper they are unnecessarily printed on. They attempt unilaterally to create a contract between the sender and the recipient, without asking for the consent of the recipient. They aim to scare the unintended and unaware recipient of a misplaced e-mail into doing what is asked of them, despite there being no obligation to do so. Even if there is a legal obligation not to divulge something confidential, why bother to say so at length when it is already covered by our law and does not need repeating? Little thought is ever given to whether the disclaimers are necessary or even if they mean anything, yet companies, councils and Government Departments take the view that, if others have them, it must mean that they ought to as well. That is simply not the case. Legal opinion is agreed that they hold little if any weight and the chances of one being enforced are minimal. In essence, they add nothing. If anyone really feels the need to issue a legal warning, then stick on a little link as a footer, or a header attachment that is not in open format. The Economist, displaying typical good sense, noted in 2011 that the European Commission has already declared that any attempt to impose a contractual obligation on a consumer who has not had the opportunity freely to negotiate it must be struck out by the courts. An e-mail disclaimer is a perfect example of such an attempt, particularly as the vast majority come after, not before, the body of the message. Legally, disclaimers attempt to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted, and at the same time they fly in the face of common sense, for everyone knows that if we get a letter that is meant for someone else, we either find them so we can give it to them, or we return it to the sender. The written envelope does not need a legal warning on the outside, and neither does an e-mail. What causes the greatest frustration, however, is their interminable length, and on a BlackBerry, for instance, the inability to delete them. Judging from the cross-section of e-mails in my inbox, I estimate that most fall within 100 and 200 words in length. I am pleased to report, Mr Speaker, that Parliament’s own disclaimer is among the pithier ones floating around cyber-space, coming in at a slim 60 words. I regret, however, that it lags some way behind the disclaimer that follows e-mails from the Department for International Development, where, in what I consider to be one of my proudest ministerial achievements, I managed, against the forces of unnecessary bossiness, to whittle it down to a mere 17 words. Indeed, it was more of a little footer than a real disclaimer. None of those 17 words, I should add, attempted to impose an obligation on the recipient. Instead, they simply encouraged them to learn more of DFID’s work, and it provided a link to the DFID website and Twitter account. As in so many things, DFID ought to be an example for the rest of Whitehall to follow—and you and I surely agree, Mr Speaker, that short is beautiful. Even the Labour party, in a marked departure from the norm, has embraced the concept of austerity—if only when it comes to disclaimers. As you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, I am not a regular recipient of the little red missives sent out by Labour, but am reliably informed that their disclaimer is fewer than 50 words. It is with a heavy heart, however, that I confess that my own party, which has demonstrated such admirable restraint with the public finances over the past five years, cannot replicate this self-control in its own 183-word disclaimer. As the Prime Minister has said in this House, there is still much more to be done, and, I would add, much less to be printed. In some cases, the practice has gone beyond parody, however. In 2012, The Wall Street Journal reported that the disclaimer appended to an e-mail from the investment bank Nomura Group ran to a staggering 2,578 words. If I were to have devoted the entire length of my speech in support of this Bill to simply reading out that disclaimer, I would not even have come close to reaching the bottom. Rather than attempting to do so, I will set out—echoing a further little Leninist moment—“What Is To Be Done.” This Bill would require all Government Departments, agencies and councils, and all UK limited companies, to do away entirely with open format disclaimers. Even today, I call on all of them simply to amend them voluntarily without delay—why not set an example, and just do it? Only by exposing disclaimers for the toothless waffle that they are can we hope to stem their proliferation, and by doing so we can end the practice that leaves page after page of repeated disclaimers clagging up the bottom of e-mail chains for no good reason. Enough is enough, Mr Speaker. Never again do we want e-mail chains that say in one line “Fancy lunch, mate?” and then immediately the one line is followed by 20 undeletable lines of legal officiousness. It is a matter of national pride that it was a British computer scientist who invented the worldwide web. This moment of innovative genius should not be allowed to be tarnished by the very worst of sluggish, bureaucratic verbiage that is represented by the e-mail disclaimer. They are way out of date—a hangover from the early days of the internet which have long since been overtaken. They are as arcane as waving a red flag to warn pedestrians of an approaching vehicle. It is high time, therefore, that we put a stop to these meaningless missives that clog up our inboxes, deplete our printer cartridges of precious ink and cut down forests’ worth of paper. The footer and the header can survive, but let us now condemn the needless disclaimer to the dustbin of internet history. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Sir Alan Duncan, Damian Green, Christopher Pincher and Steve Baker present the Bill. Sir Alan Duncan accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March, and to be printed (Bill 146). | 0.326765 |
570 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.164.1 | Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. (83A(9)), That the following provisions shall apply to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, in place of paragraphs (5) to (7) of the Order of 2 December 2014: (1) Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order. (2) Proceedings on Consideration– (a) shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown; (b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the second column. Table Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings First day New Clauses and new Schedules relating to powers to seize travel documents or temporary exclusion from the United Kingdom; amendments to Part 1; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to terrorism prevention and investigation measures; amendments to Part 2; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to data retention; amendments to Part 3; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to aviation, shipping and rail; amendments to Part 4. 7.00pm Second day New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the risk of being drawn into terrorism; amendments to Part 5; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the Terrorism Act 2000; amendments to Part 6; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on consideration. 6.00pm (3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00pm on the second day.—(James Brokenshire.) Question agreed to. | null | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (Programme) (No. 2) | Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. (83A(9)), That the following provisions shall apply to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, in place of paragraphs (5) to (7) of the Order of 2 December 2014: (1) Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order. (2) Proceedings on Consideration– (a) shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown; (b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the second column. Table Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings First day New Clauses and new Schedules relating to powers to seize travel documents or temporary exclusion from the United Kingdom; amendments to Part 1; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to terrorism prevention and investigation measures; amendments to Part 2; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to data retention; amendments to Part 3; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to aviation, shipping and rail; amendments to Part 4. 7.00pm Second day New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the risk of being drawn into terrorism; amendments to Part 5; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the Terrorism Act 2000; amendments to Part 6; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on consideration. 6.00pm (3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00pm on the second day.—(James Brokenshire.) Question agreed to. | 0.313639 |
571 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.165.1 | Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee New Clause 1 “Imposition of temporary exclusion orders ‘(1) The Secretary of State may by notice (a “TEO”) impose a “temporary exclusion order” which requires an individual not to return to the United Kingdom on an individual if conditions A to E in section [Conditions A to E] are met. (2) In this Act “temporary exclusion order” means requirements, restrictions and other provision which may be made in relation to an individual by virtue of section [Conditions A to E] “prior permission of the court” and Schedule [“Proceedings relating to temporary exclusion orders”]. (3) An individual subject to a TEO may not return to the UK unless— (a) the return is in accordance with a permit to return issued by the Secretary of State before the individual began the return, or (b) the return is the result of the individual’s deportation to the United Kingdom.”—(Mr Hanson.) Brought up, and read the First time. | null | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee New Clause 1 “Imposition of temporary exclusion orders ‘(1) The Secretary of State may by notice (a “TEO”) impose a “temporary exclusion order” which requires an individual not to return to the United Kingdom on an individual if conditions A to E in section [Conditions A to E] are met. (2) In this Act “temporary exclusion order” means requirements, restrictions and other provision which may be made in relation to an individual by virtue of section [Conditions A to E] “prior permission of the court” and Schedule [“Proceedings relating to temporary exclusion orders”]. (3) An individual subject to a TEO may not return to the UK unless— (a) the return is in accordance with a permit to return issued by the Secretary of State before the individual began the return, or (b) the return is the result of the individual’s deportation to the United Kingdom.”—(Mr Hanson.) Brought up, and read the First time. | 0.290837 |
572 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.165.2 | I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. | David Hanson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. | 0.241831 |
573 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.165.3 | With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Conditions A to E— ‘(1) Condition A is that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom. (2) Condition B is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom from a risk of terrorism, for a temporary exclusion order to be imposed on the individual. (3) Condition C is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the individual is outside the United Kingdom. (4) Condition D is that the individual has the right of abode in the United Kingdom. (5) Condition E is that— (a) the court gives the Secretary of State permission under section 3, or (b) the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the urgency of the case requires a temporary exclusion order to be imposed without obtaining such permission. (6) During the period that a temporary exclusion order is in force, the Secretary of State must keep under review whether condition B is met.” New clause 3—Prior permission of the court— ‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State— (a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual, and (b) makes an application to the court for permission to impose measures on the individual. (2) The application must set out a draft of the proposed TEO notice. (3) The function of the court on the application is— (a) to determine whether the relevant decisions of the Secretary of State are obviously flawed, and (b) to determine whether to give permission to impose measures on the individual and (where applicable) whether to exercise the power of direction under subsection (9). (4) The court may consider the application— (a) in the absence of the individual; (b) without the individual having been notified of the application; and (c) without the individual having been given an opportunity (if the individual was aware of the application) of making any representations to the court. (5) But that does not limit the matters about which rules of court may be made. (6) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review. (7) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State that condition A, condition B, or condition C is met is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section. (8) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section. (9) If the court determines that the Secretary of State‘s decision that condition D is met is obviously flawed, the court may (in addition to giving permission under subsection (8) give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual. (10) 1n this section “relevant decisions” means the decisions that the following conditions are met— (a) condition A; (b) condition B; (c) condition C; and (d) condition D.” New schedule 1—Proceedings relating to Temporary Exclusion Orders— Introductory 1 In this Schedule— “appeal proceedings” means proceedings in the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session on an appeal relating to temporary exclusion order proceedings; “the relevant court” means— (a) in relation to TEO proceedings, the court;(b) in relation to appeal proceedings, the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session; “rules of court” means rules for regulating the practice and procedure to be followed in the court, the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session. Rules of court: general provision 2 (1) A person making rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must have regard to the need to secure the following— (a) that the decisions that are the subject of the proceedings are properly reviewed, and (b) that disclosures of information are not made where they would be contrary to the public interest. (2) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings may make provision— (a) about the mode of proof and about evidence in the proceedings; (b) enabling or requiring the proceedings to be determined without a hearing; (c) about legal representation in the proceedings; (d) enabling the proceedings to take place without full particulars of the reasons for the decisions to which the proceedings relate being given to a party to the proceedings (or to any legal representative of that party); (e) enabling the relevant court to conduct proceedings in the absence of any person, including a party to the proceedings (or any legal representative of that party); (f) about the functions of a person appointed as a special advocate (see paragraph 10); (g) enabling the court to give a party to the proceedings a summary of evidence taken in the party‘s absence. (3) In this paragraph— (a) references to a party to the proceedings do not include the Secretary of State; (b) references to a party‘s legal representative do not include a person appointed as a special advocate. (4) Nothing in this paragraph is to be read as restricting the power to make rules of court or the matters to be taken into account when doing so. Rules of court: disclosure 3 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure that the Secretary of State is required to disclose— (a) material on which the Secretary of State relies, (b) material which adversely affects the Secretary of State‘s case, and (c) material which supports the case of another party to the proceedings. (2) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 4. 4 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure— (a) that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to make an application to the relevant court for permission not to disclose material otherwise than to the relevant court and any person appointed as a special advocate; (b) that such an application is always considered in the absence of every party to the proceedings (and every party’s legal representative); (c) that the relevant court is required to give permission for material not to be disclosed if it considers that the disclosure of the material would be contrary to the public interest; (d) that, if permission is given by the relevant court not to disclose material, it must consider requiring the Secretary of State to provide a summary of the material to every party to the proceedings (and every party’s legal representative); (e) that the relevant court is required to ensure that such a summary does not contain material the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest. (2) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure that provision to the effect mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) applies in cases where the Secretary of State— (a) does not receive the permission of the relevant court to withhold material, but elects not to disclose it, or (b) is required to provide a party to the proceedings with a summary of material that is withheld, but elects not to provide the summary. (3) The relevant court must be authorised— (a) if it considers that the material or anything that is required to be summarised might adversely affect the Secretary of State’s case or support the case of a party to the proceedings, to direct that the Secretary of State— (i) is not to rely on such points in the Secretary of State’s case, or (ii) is to make such concessions or take such other steps as the court may specify, or (b) in any other case, to ensure that the Secretary of State does not rely on the material or (as the case may be) on that which is required to be summarised. (4) In this paragraph— (a) references to a party to the proceedings do not include the Secretary of State; (b) references to a party’s legal representative do not include a person appointed as a special advocate. Article 6 rights 5 (1) Nothing in paragraphs 2 to 4, or in rules of court made under any of those paragraphs, is to be read as requiring the relevant court to act in a manner inconsistent with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention. (2) The “Human Rights Convention” means the Convention within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (see section 21(1) of that Act). 6 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings may make provision for— (a) the making by the Secretary of State or the relevant individual of an application to the court for an order requiring anonymity for that individual, and (b) the making by the court, on such an application, of an order requiring such anonymity; and the provision made by the rules may allow the application and the order to be made irrespective of whether any other TEO proceedings have been begun in the court. (2) Rules of court may provide for the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session to make an order in connection with any appeal proceedings requiring anonymity for the relevant individual. (3) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) the references, in relation to a court, to an order requiring anonymity for the relevant individual are references to an order by that court which imposes such prohibition or restriction as it thinks fit on the disclosure— (a) by such persons as the court specifies or describes, or (b) by persons generally, of the identity of the relevant individual or of any information that would tend to identify the relevant individual. (4) In this paragraph “relevant individual” means an individual on whom the Secretary of State is proposing to impose, or has imposed, measures. Initial exercise of rule-making powers by Lord Chancellor 7 (1) The first time after the passing of this Act that rules of court are made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Schedule in relation to proceedings in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland, the rules may be made by the Lord Chancellor instead of by the person who would otherwise make them. (2) Before making rules of court under sub-paragraph (1), the Lord Chancellor must consult— (a) in relation to rules applicable to proceedings in England and Wales, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales; (b) in relation to rules applicable to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. (3) But the Lord Chancellor is not required to undertake any other consultation before making the rules. (4) A requirement to consult under sub-paragraph (2) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the passing of this Act. (5) Rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor under sub-paragraph (1)— (a) must be laid before Parliament, and (b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which they were made, cease to have effect at the end of that period. (6) In determining that period of 40 days no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days. (7) 1f rules cease to have effect in accordance with sub-paragraph (5)— (a) that does not affect anything done in previous reliance on the rules, and (b) sub-paragraph (1) applies again as if the rules had not been made. (8) The following provisions do not apply to rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor under this paragraph— (a) section 3(6) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 (Parliamentary procedure for civil procedure rules); (b) section 56(1), (2) and (4) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (statutory rules procedure). (9) Until the coming into force of section 85 of the Courts Act 2003, the reference in sub-paragraph (8)(a) to section 3(6) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 is to be read as a reference to section 3(2) of that Act. Use of advisers 8 (1) In any TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings the relevant court may if it thinks fit— (a) call in aid one or more advisers appointed for the purposes of this paragraph by the Lord Chancellor, and (b) hear and dispose of the proceedings with the assistance of the adviser or advisers. (2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint advisers for the purposes of this paragraph only with the approval of— (a) the Lord President of the Court of Session, in relation to an adviser who may be called in aid wholly or mainly in Scotland; (b) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, in relation to an adviser who may be called in aid wholly or mainly in Northern Ireland; (c) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, in any other case. (3) Rules of court may regulate the use of advisers in proceedings who are called in aid under sub-paragraph (1). (4) The Lord Chancellor may pay such remuneration, expenses and allowances to advisers appointed for the purposes of this paragraph as the Lord Chancellor may determine. 9 (1) The Lord President of the Court of Session may nominate a judge of the Court of Session who is a member of the First or Second Division of the Inner House of that Court to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(a). (2) The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland may nominate any of the following to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(b)— (a) the holder of one of the offices listed in Schedule 1 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002; (b) a Lord Justice of Appeal (as defined in section 88 of that Act). (3) The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales may nominate a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(c). Appointment of special advocate 10 (1) The appropriate law officer may appoint a person to represent the interests of a party in any TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings from which the party (and any legal representative of the party) is excluded. (2) A person appointed under sub-paragraph (1) is referred to in this Schedule as appointed as “special advocate”. (3) The “appropriate law officer” is— (a) in relation to proceedings in England and Wales, the Attorney General; (b) in relation to proceedings in Scotland, the Advocate General for Scotland; (c) in relation to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the Advocate General for Northern Ireland. (4) A person appointed as a special advocate is not responsible to the party to the proceedings whose interests the person is appointed to represent. (5) A person may be appointed as a special advocate only if— (a) in the case of an appointment by the Attorney General, the person has a general qualification for the purposes of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990; (b) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Scotland, the person is an advocate or a solicitor who has rights of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary by virtue of section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980; (c) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, the person is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland.” Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ‘(2) The court may impose a temporary exclusion order on an individual following an application from the Secretary of State if the court is satisfied that conditions A to D are met.” Amendment 21, page 2, line 6, after “D”, insert “or condition E” Amendment 22, page 2, line 17, at end insert— ‘(6A) Condition E is that the Secretary of State has provided evidence, whether or not conditions A to D are met, to substantiate that the individual has, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the United Kingdom, conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom and that he has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration of allegiance to another state or territory seized, governed or administered de facto by an organisation demanding allegiance to that organisation, having given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the United Kingdom.” Amendment 19, page 2, line 18, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “court” Amendment 23, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, after “years”, insert “or, where section 2(6A) applies, for a period of not less than two years specified by the Secretary of State.” Amendment 20, in clause 11, page 7, line 21, at end insert— ““the court” (a) in relation to proceedings relating to a temporary exclusion order in the case of which the excluded individual is a person whose principal place of residence immediately prior to leaving the United Kingdom was in Scotland, means the Outer House of the Court of Session;(b) in relation to proceedings relating to a temporary exclusion order in the case of which the excluded individual is a person whose principal place of residence immediately prior to leaving the United Kingdom was in Northern Ireland, means the High Court in Northern Ireland; and(c) in any other case, means the High Court in England and Wales;” | Mr Speaker | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Conditions A to E— ‘(1) Condition A is that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom. (2) Condition B is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom from a risk of terrorism, for a temporary exclusion order to be imposed on the individual. (3) Condition C is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the individual is outside the United Kingdom. (4) Condition D is that the individual has the right of abode in the United Kingdom. (5) Condition E is that— (a) the court gives the Secretary of State permission under section 3, or (b) the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the urgency of the case requires a temporary exclusion order to be imposed without obtaining such permission. (6) During the period that a temporary exclusion order is in force, the Secretary of State must keep under review whether condition B is met.” New clause 3—Prior permission of the court— ‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State— (a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual, and (b) makes an application to the court for permission to impose measures on the individual. (2) The application must set out a draft of the proposed TEO notice. (3) The function of the court on the application is— (a) to determine whether the relevant decisions of the Secretary of State are obviously flawed, and (b) to determine whether to give permission to impose measures on the individual and (where applicable) whether to exercise the power of direction under subsection (9). (4) The court may consider the application— (a) in the absence of the individual; (b) without the individual having been notified of the application; and (c) without the individual having been given an opportunity (if the individual was aware of the application) of making any representations to the court. (5) But that does not limit the matters about which rules of court may be made. (6) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review. (7) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State that condition A, condition B, or condition C is met is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section. (8) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section. (9) If the court determines that the Secretary of State‘s decision that condition D is met is obviously flawed, the court may (in addition to giving permission under subsection (8) give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual. (10) 1n this section “relevant decisions” means the decisions that the following conditions are met— (a) condition A; (b) condition B; (c) condition C; and (d) condition D.” New schedule 1—Proceedings relating to Temporary Exclusion Orders— Introductory 1 In this Schedule— “appeal proceedings” means proceedings in the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session on an appeal relating to temporary exclusion order proceedings; “the relevant court” means— (a) in relation to TEO proceedings, the court;(b) in relation to appeal proceedings, the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session; “rules of court” means rules for regulating the practice and procedure to be followed in the court, the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session. Rules of court: general provision 2 (1) A person making rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must have regard to the need to secure the following— (a) that the decisions that are the subject of the proceedings are properly reviewed, and (b) that disclosures of information are not made where they would be contrary to the public interest. (2) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings may make provision— (a) about the mode of proof and about evidence in the proceedings; (b) enabling or requiring the proceedings to be determined without a hearing; (c) about legal representation in the proceedings; (d) enabling the proceedings to take place without full particulars of the reasons for the decisions to which the proceedings relate being given to a party to the proceedings (or to any legal representative of that party); (e) enabling the relevant court to conduct proceedings in the absence of any person, including a party to the proceedings (or any legal representative of that party); (f) about the functions of a person appointed as a special advocate (see paragraph 10); (g) enabling the court to give a party to the proceedings a summary of evidence taken in the party‘s absence. (3) In this paragraph— (a) references to a party to the proceedings do not include the Secretary of State; (b) references to a party‘s legal representative do not include a person appointed as a special advocate. (4) Nothing in this paragraph is to be read as restricting the power to make rules of court or the matters to be taken into account when doing so. Rules of court: disclosure 3 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure that the Secretary of State is required to disclose— (a) material on which the Secretary of State relies, (b) material which adversely affects the Secretary of State‘s case, and (c) material which supports the case of another party to the proceedings. (2) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 4. 4 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure— (a) that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to make an application to the relevant court for permission not to disclose material otherwise than to the relevant court and any person appointed as a special advocate; (b) that such an application is always considered in the absence of every party to the proceedings (and every party’s legal representative); (c) that the relevant court is required to give permission for material not to be disclosed if it considers that the disclosure of the material would be contrary to the public interest; (d) that, if permission is given by the relevant court not to disclose material, it must consider requiring the Secretary of State to provide a summary of the material to every party to the proceedings (and every party’s legal representative); (e) that the relevant court is required to ensure that such a summary does not contain material the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest. (2) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings must secure that provision to the effect mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) applies in cases where the Secretary of State— (a) does not receive the permission of the relevant court to withhold material, but elects not to disclose it, or (b) is required to provide a party to the proceedings with a summary of material that is withheld, but elects not to provide the summary. (3) The relevant court must be authorised— (a) if it considers that the material or anything that is required to be summarised might adversely affect the Secretary of State’s case or support the case of a party to the proceedings, to direct that the Secretary of State— (i) is not to rely on such points in the Secretary of State’s case, or (ii) is to make such concessions or take such other steps as the court may specify, or (b) in any other case, to ensure that the Secretary of State does not rely on the material or (as the case may be) on that which is required to be summarised. (4) In this paragraph— (a) references to a party to the proceedings do not include the Secretary of State; (b) references to a party’s legal representative do not include a person appointed as a special advocate. Article 6 rights 5 (1) Nothing in paragraphs 2 to 4, or in rules of court made under any of those paragraphs, is to be read as requiring the relevant court to act in a manner inconsistent with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention. (2) The “Human Rights Convention” means the Convention within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (see section 21(1) of that Act). 6 (1) Rules of court relating to TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings may make provision for— (a) the making by the Secretary of State or the relevant individual of an application to the court for an order requiring anonymity for that individual, and (b) the making by the court, on such an application, of an order requiring such anonymity; and the provision made by the rules may allow the application and the order to be made irrespective of whether any other TEO proceedings have been begun in the court. (2) Rules of court may provide for the Court of Appeal or the Inner House of the Court of Session to make an order in connection with any appeal proceedings requiring anonymity for the relevant individual. (3) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) the references, in relation to a court, to an order requiring anonymity for the relevant individual are references to an order by that court which imposes such prohibition or restriction as it thinks fit on the disclosure— (a) by such persons as the court specifies or describes, or (b) by persons generally, of the identity of the relevant individual or of any information that would tend to identify the relevant individual. (4) In this paragraph “relevant individual” means an individual on whom the Secretary of State is proposing to impose, or has imposed, measures. Initial exercise of rule-making powers by Lord Chancellor 7 (1) The first time after the passing of this Act that rules of court are made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Schedule in relation to proceedings in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland, the rules may be made by the Lord Chancellor instead of by the person who would otherwise make them. (2) Before making rules of court under sub-paragraph (1), the Lord Chancellor must consult— (a) in relation to rules applicable to proceedings in England and Wales, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales; (b) in relation to rules applicable to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. (3) But the Lord Chancellor is not required to undertake any other consultation before making the rules. (4) A requirement to consult under sub-paragraph (2) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the passing of this Act. (5) Rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor under sub-paragraph (1)— (a) must be laid before Parliament, and (b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which they were made, cease to have effect at the end of that period. (6) In determining that period of 40 days no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days. (7) 1f rules cease to have effect in accordance with sub-paragraph (5)— (a) that does not affect anything done in previous reliance on the rules, and (b) sub-paragraph (1) applies again as if the rules had not been made. (8) The following provisions do not apply to rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor under this paragraph— (a) section 3(6) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 (Parliamentary procedure for civil procedure rules); (b) section 56(1), (2) and (4) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (statutory rules procedure). (9) Until the coming into force of section 85 of the Courts Act 2003, the reference in sub-paragraph (8)(a) to section 3(6) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 is to be read as a reference to section 3(2) of that Act. Use of advisers 8 (1) In any TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings the relevant court may if it thinks fit— (a) call in aid one or more advisers appointed for the purposes of this paragraph by the Lord Chancellor, and (b) hear and dispose of the proceedings with the assistance of the adviser or advisers. (2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint advisers for the purposes of this paragraph only with the approval of— (a) the Lord President of the Court of Session, in relation to an adviser who may be called in aid wholly or mainly in Scotland; (b) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, in relation to an adviser who may be called in aid wholly or mainly in Northern Ireland; (c) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, in any other case. (3) Rules of court may regulate the use of advisers in proceedings who are called in aid under sub-paragraph (1). (4) The Lord Chancellor may pay such remuneration, expenses and allowances to advisers appointed for the purposes of this paragraph as the Lord Chancellor may determine. 9 (1) The Lord President of the Court of Session may nominate a judge of the Court of Session who is a member of the First or Second Division of the Inner House of that Court to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(a). (2) The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland may nominate any of the following to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(b)— (a) the holder of one of the offices listed in Schedule 1 to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002; (b) a Lord Justice of Appeal (as defined in section 88 of that Act). (3) The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales may nominate a judicial office holder (as defined in section 109(4) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005) to exercise the function under paragraph 8(2)(c). Appointment of special advocate 10 (1) The appropriate law officer may appoint a person to represent the interests of a party in any TEO proceedings or appeal proceedings from which the party (and any legal representative of the party) is excluded. (2) A person appointed under sub-paragraph (1) is referred to in this Schedule as appointed as “special advocate”. (3) The “appropriate law officer” is— (a) in relation to proceedings in England and Wales, the Attorney General; (b) in relation to proceedings in Scotland, the Advocate General for Scotland; (c) in relation to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the Advocate General for Northern Ireland. (4) A person appointed as a special advocate is not responsible to the party to the proceedings whose interests the person is appointed to represent. (5) A person may be appointed as a special advocate only if— (a) in the case of an appointment by the Attorney General, the person has a general qualification for the purposes of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990; (b) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Scotland, the person is an advocate or a solicitor who has rights of audience in the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary by virtue of section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980; (c) in the case of an appointment by the Advocate General for Northern Ireland, the person is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland.” Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert— ‘(2) The court may impose a temporary exclusion order on an individual following an application from the Secretary of State if the court is satisfied that conditions A to D are met.” Amendment 21, page 2, line 6, after “D”, insert “or condition E” Amendment 22, page 2, line 17, at end insert— ‘(6A) Condition E is that the Secretary of State has provided evidence, whether or not conditions A to D are met, to substantiate that the individual has, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the United Kingdom, conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom and that he has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration of allegiance to another state or territory seized, governed or administered de facto by an organisation demanding allegiance to that organisation, having given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the United Kingdom.” Amendment 19, page 2, line 18, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “court” Amendment 23, in clause 3, page 2, line 29, after “years”, insert “or, where section 2(6A) applies, for a period of not less than two years specified by the Secretary of State.” Amendment 20, in clause 11, page 7, line 21, at end insert— ““the court” (a) in relation to proceedings relating to a temporary exclusion order in the case of which the excluded individual is a person whose principal place of residence immediately prior to leaving the United Kingdom was in Scotland, means the Outer House of the Court of Session;(b) in relation to proceedings relating to a temporary exclusion order in the case of which the excluded individual is a person whose principal place of residence immediately prior to leaving the United Kingdom was in Northern Ireland, means the High Court in Northern Ireland; and(c) in any other case, means the High Court in England and Wales;” | 0.305031 |
574 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.171.0 | It is a pleasure to be here in this new year to deal with this important Bill. I mention the new year because, although we are now in 2015, this is effectively still 2014 for the Minister and me, because we are dealing with the matters that we dealt with just before Christmas in almost the same format, having had the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House and discussing it on Report here now. We have tabled a number of new clauses and amendments that have a reassuring similarity to the matters that we discussed before Christmas—[Interruption.] Indeed, they are almost identical, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) suggests. I am confident, given the concerns that have been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and the points that were fully debated before Christmas, that the Minister and his very able Whip, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), will have had an opportunity to reflect on these matters over the Christmas period and to understand that there is real concern not only among Labour and Conservative Members but among Liberal Democrat Members about some of these matters. Let me start by repeating some of the givens for those of us on the Opposition Benches. It is a given for us that the terrorism threat remains high. It is also a given for us that the exclusion provisions are a valid and useful addition to the armoury of terrorism prevention, and that they have our support. I must place on record, however, the fact that there are those among the population at large who feel that the provisions go too far. For example, we have had representations from Liberty, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and others expressing concern about the measures. I believe that the measures are proportionate, but today’s new clauses and amendments are aimed at strengthening that proportionality, providing judicial oversight and ensuring that we adopt a constructive approach to the difficult and challenging issues that the Government have to deal with. We share the Government’s policy objective of supporting the prevention of terrorism, as the terrorism threat is high. The Government’s own assessment shows that some 500 individuals have travelled to Syria and the surrounding areas in recent months, and that 50% of them have sought to return to the United Kingdom. We do not know what status they want to return under. Some might have forsaken terrorist activity; others might be returning to engage in further recruitment exercises. We do not know their status, and there is a real need for the assessment that the Government propose. The Home Secretary’s report to Parliament on the joint terrorism analysis centre’s assessment of the threat level, produced independently of Ministers, acknowledges that the level is still severe and that a terrorist attack is highly likely, although there is no evidence to suggest that one is imminent. All Members need to be cognisant of the increased threat following the assessment by JTAC in August. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, has indicated that the assessment of the Metropolitan police, on behalf of the UK police, is that five terrorists a week are now travelling, and that up to 250 are returning. The Government need to address that issue. New clauses 1, 2 and 3 and new schedule 1 aim to introduce balance to the Government’s proposals, to ensure judicial oversight of these key issues. New clause 1 has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and me, and it seeks to ensure that the temporary exclusion orders can be introduced in the form that the Government want. New clause 2 proposes conditions A to E. Condition A states that the Secretary of State must reasonably suspect that “the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom”. Condition B states that the Secretary of State should reasonably consider that the issue of the order “is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public”. Condition C is “that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the individual is outside the United Kingdom.” Condition D is “that the individual has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.” Condition E relates to the Secretary of State believing that action should be taken. New clauses 1 and 2 mirror what the Government have already said. We have tabled new clause 3 because we believe that a court needs to agree to the Secretary of State’s application for a temporary exclusion order. It would allow the Secretary of State to make an application to the court to ensure that the conditions in new clauses 1 and 2 had been met. Under new clause 3, the court would have to consider the Secretary of State’s application. It may do so “in the absence of the individual” about whom the application is being made. It may also do so “without the individual having been notified of the application” and “without the individual having been given an opportunity…of making any representations to the court”. This would provide judicial oversight of the Secretary of State’s application to put in place a temporary exclusion order. | David Hanson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | It is a pleasure to be here in this new year to deal with this important Bill. I mention the new year because, although we are now in 2015, this is effectively still 2014 for the Minister and me, because we are dealing with the matters that we dealt with just before Christmas in almost the same format, having had the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House and discussing it on Report here now. We have tabled a number of new clauses and amendments that have a reassuring similarity to the matters that we discussed before Christmas—[Interruption.] Indeed, they are almost identical, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) suggests. I am confident, given the concerns that have been expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and the points that were fully debated before Christmas, that the Minister and his very able Whip, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), will have had an opportunity to reflect on these matters over the Christmas period and to understand that there is real concern not only among Labour and Conservative Members but among Liberal Democrat Members about some of these matters. Let me start by repeating some of the givens for those of us on the Opposition Benches. It is a given for us that the terrorism threat remains high. It is also a given for us that the exclusion provisions are a valid and useful addition to the armoury of terrorism prevention, and that they have our support. I must place on record, however, the fact that there are those among the population at large who feel that the provisions go too far. For example, we have had representations from Liberty, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and others expressing concern about the measures. I believe that the measures are proportionate, but today’s new clauses and amendments are aimed at strengthening that proportionality, providing judicial oversight and ensuring that we adopt a constructive approach to the difficult and challenging issues that the Government have to deal with. We share the Government’s policy objective of supporting the prevention of terrorism, as the terrorism threat is high. The Government’s own assessment shows that some 500 individuals have travelled to Syria and the surrounding areas in recent months, and that 50% of them have sought to return to the United Kingdom. We do not know what status they want to return under. Some might have forsaken terrorist activity; others might be returning to engage in further recruitment exercises. We do not know their status, and there is a real need for the assessment that the Government propose. The Home Secretary’s report to Parliament on the joint terrorism analysis centre’s assessment of the threat level, produced independently of Ministers, acknowledges that the level is still severe and that a terrorist attack is highly likely, although there is no evidence to suggest that one is imminent. All Members need to be cognisant of the increased threat following the assessment by JTAC in August. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, has indicated that the assessment of the Metropolitan police, on behalf of the UK police, is that five terrorists a week are now travelling, and that up to 250 are returning. The Government need to address that issue. New clauses 1, 2 and 3 and new schedule 1 aim to introduce balance to the Government’s proposals, to ensure judicial oversight of these key issues. New clause 1 has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and me, and it seeks to ensure that the temporary exclusion orders can be introduced in the form that the Government want. New clause 2 proposes conditions A to E. Condition A states that the Secretary of State must reasonably suspect that “the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom”. Condition B states that the Secretary of State should reasonably consider that the issue of the order “is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public”. Condition C is “that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that the individual is outside the United Kingdom.” Condition D is “that the individual has the right of abode in the United Kingdom.” Condition E relates to the Secretary of State believing that action should be taken. New clauses 1 and 2 mirror what the Government have already said. We have tabled new clause 3 because we believe that a court needs to agree to the Secretary of State’s application for a temporary exclusion order. It would allow the Secretary of State to make an application to the court to ensure that the conditions in new clauses 1 and 2 had been met. Under new clause 3, the court would have to consider the Secretary of State’s application. It may do so “in the absence of the individual” about whom the application is being made. It may also do so “without the individual having been notified of the application” and “without the individual having been given an opportunity…of making any representations to the court”. This would provide judicial oversight of the Secretary of State’s application to put in place a temporary exclusion order. | 0.326265 |
575 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.172.0 | The right hon. Gentleman accepts that there is a substantial threat, although he says that we do not know exactly what it is or what the status is of the people who might wish to return. In respect of the right of abode, does he think it is appropriate that a person should be allowed to come back here if they have formally renounced their allegiance to the United Kingdom and purported to give allegiance to another state or territory and if they are known to have the intention of committing jihadist acts of violence? | William Cash | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | The right hon. Gentleman accepts that there is a substantial threat, although he says that we do not know exactly what it is or what the status is of the people who might wish to return. In respect of the right of abode, does he think it is appropriate that a person should be allowed to come back here if they have formally renounced their allegiance to the United Kingdom and purported to give allegiance to another state or territory and if they are known to have the intention of committing jihadist acts of violence? | 0.279707 |
576 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.172.1 | I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s speech in support of his own amendments in due course. These are difficult questions, and we might be straying into the area of deprivation of citizenship, which we discussed when considering other legislation last year. The Bill and our proposals would provide judicial oversight of decisions to exclude made by the Secretary of State. The issues of right of abode and citizenship are difficult, because if an individual retains British citizenship but is undertaking the type of activity the hon. Gentleman is alluding to, mechanisms are in place in the Bill and other legislation to take effective action to ensure that that is addressed in a legal framework. It is difficult to say that an individual cannot have a right of abode, because that makes them, in effect, stateless, and therefore the problem remains one for the UK passport holder, but it is not a problem within the UK. We need to reflect on that extremely carefully. | David Hanson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s speech in support of his own amendments in due course. These are difficult questions, and we might be straying into the area of deprivation of citizenship, which we discussed when considering other legislation last year. The Bill and our proposals would provide judicial oversight of decisions to exclude made by the Secretary of State. The issues of right of abode and citizenship are difficult, because if an individual retains British citizenship but is undertaking the type of activity the hon. Gentleman is alluding to, mechanisms are in place in the Bill and other legislation to take effective action to ensure that that is addressed in a legal framework. It is difficult to say that an individual cannot have a right of abode, because that makes them, in effect, stateless, and therefore the problem remains one for the UK passport holder, but it is not a problem within the UK. We need to reflect on that extremely carefully. | 0.322309 |
577 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.173.0 | Is not the nub of the matter, as raised by the hon. Gentleman, simply this: it is for the court to consider all the factors involved, hence the need for judicial intervention and decision making? This should not be left to the Home Secretary. | David Winnick | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | Is not the nub of the matter, as raised by the hon. Gentleman, simply this: it is for the court to consider all the factors involved, hence the need for judicial intervention and decision making? This should not be left to the Home Secretary. | 0.301501 |
578 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.173.1 | I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling his amendments, which have a similar hue to ours, in that we are trying to put in place judicial oversight. Given the concerns that have been raised since we discussed the Bill in Committee, I hope the Minister will again consider our new clauses. They would create a court process through which the Secretary of State would have to go to place an individual on a temporary exclusion order, as there is currently no judicial process before one can be awarded. The new clauses have not come out of the blue; they have arisen because of real concerns following the Prime Minister’s initial announcement in August that he would introduce this legislation. Those concerns have come from a number of authoritative sources. We discussed these matters prior to Christmas, but it is worth repeating the concerns. David Anderson QC is tasked by the Government with being the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and both at the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement and in evidence given on 26 November to the Joint Committee on Human Rights he has raised big sceptical objections to the proposed TEOs against suspected jihadist fighters. He told the Joint Committee: “The concern I have about this power—the central concern about it—is where the courts are in all of this…if the Home Secretary wants to impose a TPIM”— the other legislative tool the Government currently have— “she has to go to the court first, and if the court thinks she has got it wrong, it will say so...one will want to look very carefully to see whether this is a power that requires the intervention of the court at any stage, or whether it is simply envisaged as something that the Home Secretary imposes…if you are abroad when this order is served on you, it is a little difficult to see in practical terms how a right to judicial review could be exercised.” Those are key issues, because what the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said is that under the TPIM legislation designed by this Government, the Home Secretary has to go to court to get a TPIM before one can be imposed on an individual. A TPIM restricts severely an individual’s movement in the UK and imposes a range of conditions on that individual. The TEO will have the same legislative impact, in that it will severely restrict an individual’s movement. As I said, that restriction might well be perfectly valid—it may well be in the interests of terrorism prevention and be a positive measure to protect British citizens—but it needs to have judicial oversight to ensure that an individual is able to challenge it without the right of judicial review. I agree with David Anderson QC and I want the Government to respond today to his concerns, as well as those of right hon. and hon. Members. | David Hanson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling his amendments, which have a similar hue to ours, in that we are trying to put in place judicial oversight. Given the concerns that have been raised since we discussed the Bill in Committee, I hope the Minister will again consider our new clauses. They would create a court process through which the Secretary of State would have to go to place an individual on a temporary exclusion order, as there is currently no judicial process before one can be awarded. The new clauses have not come out of the blue; they have arisen because of real concerns following the Prime Minister’s initial announcement in August that he would introduce this legislation. Those concerns have come from a number of authoritative sources. We discussed these matters prior to Christmas, but it is worth repeating the concerns. David Anderson QC is tasked by the Government with being the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and both at the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement and in evidence given on 26 November to the Joint Committee on Human Rights he has raised big sceptical objections to the proposed TEOs against suspected jihadist fighters. He told the Joint Committee: “The concern I have about this power—the central concern about it—is where the courts are in all of this…if the Home Secretary wants to impose a TPIM”— the other legislative tool the Government currently have— “she has to go to the court first, and if the court thinks she has got it wrong, it will say so...one will want to look very carefully to see whether this is a power that requires the intervention of the court at any stage, or whether it is simply envisaged as something that the Home Secretary imposes…if you are abroad when this order is served on you, it is a little difficult to see in practical terms how a right to judicial review could be exercised.” Those are key issues, because what the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said is that under the TPIM legislation designed by this Government, the Home Secretary has to go to court to get a TPIM before one can be imposed on an individual. A TPIM restricts severely an individual’s movement in the UK and imposes a range of conditions on that individual. The TEO will have the same legislative impact, in that it will severely restrict an individual’s movement. As I said, that restriction might well be perfectly valid—it may well be in the interests of terrorism prevention and be a positive measure to protect British citizens—but it needs to have judicial oversight to ensure that an individual is able to challenge it without the right of judicial review. I agree with David Anderson QC and I want the Government to respond today to his concerns, as well as those of right hon. and hon. Members. | 0.296387 |
579 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.174.0 | I have looked through the minutes of evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Wednesday 26 November and I can find no reference, either in the questions asked or the answers given by the reviewer, to the text of the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness and, in particular, article 8(3). That was not even raised, and I do not think it is possible to have a coherent discussion about the nature of either the right of abode or the implications of what we have just been discussing without making reference to the convention. No reference was made to it there whatsoever. | William Cash | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | I have looked through the minutes of evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Wednesday 26 November and I can find no reference, either in the questions asked or the answers given by the reviewer, to the text of the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness and, in particular, article 8(3). That was not even raised, and I do not think it is possible to have a coherent discussion about the nature of either the right of abode or the implications of what we have just been discussing without making reference to the convention. No reference was made to it there whatsoever. | 0.337037 |
580 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.174.1 | Let us look at those issues in due course. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a contribution and the Minister will respond. I am trying to focus on our new clauses, which are about putting in place a reasonable level of judicial oversight. I have cited what the independent reviewer said because when the Prime Minister launched this policy those concerns were stated outside this House much more severely and harshly than they were when the independent reviewer appeared before the Joint Committee. The point he makes is that the Government’s defence at the moment is that there is an opportunity for judicial review, which is an expensive, long and time-consuming process and which may not be able to be exercised from outside the jurisdiction of UK shores. Under the TPIM legislation, Ministers have to go to a court, whereas under the TEO proposals, as currently put forward, they will not. Our main proposal in the new clauses is to put in place a regime that mirrors that of the existing TPIM legislation. This is not a new, fanciful procedure; it is one the Government have drawn up, as it mirrors their proposal, and I hope they will consider it seriously. | David Hanson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | Let us look at those issues in due course. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a contribution and the Minister will respond. I am trying to focus on our new clauses, which are about putting in place a reasonable level of judicial oversight. I have cited what the independent reviewer said because when the Prime Minister launched this policy those concerns were stated outside this House much more severely and harshly than they were when the independent reviewer appeared before the Joint Committee. The point he makes is that the Government’s defence at the moment is that there is an opportunity for judicial review, which is an expensive, long and time-consuming process and which may not be able to be exercised from outside the jurisdiction of UK shores. Under the TPIM legislation, Ministers have to go to a court, whereas under the TEO proposals, as currently put forward, they will not. Our main proposal in the new clauses is to put in place a regime that mirrors that of the existing TPIM legislation. This is not a new, fanciful procedure; it is one the Government have drawn up, as it mirrors their proposal, and I hope they will consider it seriously. | 0.353886 |
581 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.174.2 | Does the shadow Minister accept that these temporary arrangements have a level of urgency that is often not quite there in the TPIM-type arrangements, which is why the Government perhaps feel that adopting judicial oversight as opposed to a judicial review process would be unwise? Perhaps he would go into some detail on the underlying urgency issues relating to the temporary seizure of passports, which we are going to be discussing in the next two days. | Mark Field | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | Does the shadow Minister accept that these temporary arrangements have a level of urgency that is often not quite there in the TPIM-type arrangements, which is why the Government perhaps feel that adopting judicial oversight as opposed to a judicial review process would be unwise? Perhaps he would go into some detail on the underlying urgency issues relating to the temporary seizure of passports, which we are going to be discussing in the next two days. | 0.278036 |
582 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.174.3 | I accept that there will always be an element of speed required on occasion to examine issues such as the temporary exclusion of an individual, but this will not always be an urgent matter. The Government will know of and will be tracking individuals seeking to return; they will have intelligence on that and will be able to prepare and take action on individuals. I know from my experience of being a Minister in a range of Departments that if speed on legal requirements is needed, it can be done. I have often as a Minister authorised legal action to be taken in the morning that is taken through the courts on the very same day. I have done that in the Ministry of Justice in regard to prison strikes and in the Home Office in relation to a range of other measures—it can be done. The question is: is the Home Secretary’s decision on these matters the font of all wisdom? It may well be—let us not put too fine a point on it. There will be occasions when the Home Secretary is making a perfectly rational and valid decision based on evidence that someone is a potential threat to the UK and therefore needs to be excluded. The question for the House is simply this: should there be an opportunity for someone other than the Home Secretary—the courts—to make a judgment as to whether the Home Secretary has acted proportionately and within the law, and has justifiable reasons for so acting? That could be done in camera or in public—that is for us to consider—but we are making our proposal because the same provision is in place for TPIM legislation. If TPIM legislation is dealing—and I know from personal experience that it is—with those at the very sharp end of the potential terrorist threat, where evidence is around but necessarily cannot always be shared in public, then that can also be done in the case of temporary exclusion. | David Hanson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | I accept that there will always be an element of speed required on occasion to examine issues such as the temporary exclusion of an individual, but this will not always be an urgent matter. The Government will know of and will be tracking individuals seeking to return; they will have intelligence on that and will be able to prepare and take action on individuals. I know from my experience of being a Minister in a range of Departments that if speed on legal requirements is needed, it can be done. I have often as a Minister authorised legal action to be taken in the morning that is taken through the courts on the very same day. I have done that in the Ministry of Justice in regard to prison strikes and in the Home Office in relation to a range of other measures—it can be done. The question is: is the Home Secretary’s decision on these matters the font of all wisdom? It may well be—let us not put too fine a point on it. There will be occasions when the Home Secretary is making a perfectly rational and valid decision based on evidence that someone is a potential threat to the UK and therefore needs to be excluded. The question for the House is simply this: should there be an opportunity for someone other than the Home Secretary—the courts—to make a judgment as to whether the Home Secretary has acted proportionately and within the law, and has justifiable reasons for so acting? That could be done in camera or in public—that is for us to consider—but we are making our proposal because the same provision is in place for TPIM legislation. If TPIM legislation is dealing—and I know from personal experience that it is—with those at the very sharp end of the potential terrorist threat, where evidence is around but necessarily cannot always be shared in public, then that can also be done in the case of temporary exclusion. | 0.267442 |
583 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.175.0 | I welcome Labour’s conversion to judicial oversight in the matter of temporary exclusion orders. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has moved so far to reach this place, will he and the Labour party now support such oversight for other counter-terrorism measures? | Pete Wishart | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | I welcome Labour’s conversion to judicial oversight in the matter of temporary exclusion orders. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has moved so far to reach this place, will he and the Labour party now support such oversight for other counter-terrorism measures? | 0.306786 |
584 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.175.1 | As someone who had the privilege of holding ministerial position in the previous Government, I can say that we often had judicial oversight of a number of measures or sunset clauses. We are not late coming to this matter. This is a rerun of a debate that we had in Committee in December. I am grateful that the Minister has had Christmas and new year to reflect on these issues and to hear some wider argument from his own Members. It is clear that the Government face difficult challenges not just from the Opposition but from Members on their own Benches. In Committee on 15 December, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said that he had some concerns about this provision not having judicial oversight. In a long intervention, he said: “I had not intended to speak today…What concerns me today is the issue of the Home Secretary herself exercising the power. I am concerned that it comes about without prior judicial approval or, indeed, without being a power of the court, which would be my preference.”––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Security Public Bill Committee, 15 December 2014; c. 1219.] Those are the words not of the Opposition but of Government Back Benchers. I notice that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) is in his place. [Interruption.] I hope to be able to attract his attention. I am not sure which source he spoke to, but his words are quoted in the Independent on Sunday so they must be true. He said that he was “sympathetic” to the amendments and “would find it hard” to vote against them. I hope that he reflects on those points today. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), who until very recently was Solicitor-General, said: “There is disquiet about a few aspects of this Bill in its detail.” Our new clauses back up the concerns of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which he expressed before the Bill went into Committee. There is real disquiet from a number of Members. Indeed, I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) in his place. According to the Independent on Sunday, he said that he would “listen to all the arguments with some care” before deciding which way to vote. Undoubtedly, he is listening to the arguments with some care before deciding how to vote. I know that he is a good colleague of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I wish to place it on the record that concern over these matters is growing. In fact, a late entrant to this festive party appears to be the Liberal Democrats. | David Hanson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | As someone who had the privilege of holding ministerial position in the previous Government, I can say that we often had judicial oversight of a number of measures or sunset clauses. We are not late coming to this matter. This is a rerun of a debate that we had in Committee in December. I am grateful that the Minister has had Christmas and new year to reflect on these issues and to hear some wider argument from his own Members. It is clear that the Government face difficult challenges not just from the Opposition but from Members on their own Benches. In Committee on 15 December, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said that he had some concerns about this provision not having judicial oversight. In a long intervention, he said: “I had not intended to speak today…What concerns me today is the issue of the Home Secretary herself exercising the power. I am concerned that it comes about without prior judicial approval or, indeed, without being a power of the court, which would be my preference.”––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Security Public Bill Committee, 15 December 2014; c. 1219.] Those are the words not of the Opposition but of Government Back Benchers. I notice that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) is in his place. [Interruption.] I hope to be able to attract his attention. I am not sure which source he spoke to, but his words are quoted in the Independent on Sunday so they must be true. He said that he was “sympathetic” to the amendments and “would find it hard” to vote against them. I hope that he reflects on those points today. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), who until very recently was Solicitor-General, said: “There is disquiet about a few aspects of this Bill in its detail.” Our new clauses back up the concerns of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which he expressed before the Bill went into Committee. There is real disquiet from a number of Members. Indeed, I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) in his place. According to the Independent on Sunday, he said that he would “listen to all the arguments with some care” before deciding which way to vote. Undoubtedly, he is listening to the arguments with some care before deciding how to vote. I know that he is a good colleague of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I wish to place it on the record that concern over these matters is growing. In fact, a late entrant to this festive party appears to be the Liberal Democrats. | 0.336781 |
585 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.176.0 | What about Second Reading? | Menzies Campbell | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | What about Second Reading? | 0.262049 |
586 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.176.1 | Perhaps they were there on Second Reading. I might be a bit old fashioned, but I thought that one of the purposes of Government committees—when I was a Minister I served on many such committees in the backrooms and bowels of Government—was for Ministers to thrash out what should be in a Bill before it is presented to the House. Today’s Guardian has an article on this matter—again, it must be true. It says: “A fresh coalition row has broken out after Nick Clegg told the home secretary, Theresa May, that she will face a parliamentary defeat on the government’s counter-terrorism bill unless judges are given oversight of plans to impose temporary exclusion orders on some terrorist suspects returning to Britain.” | David Hanson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | Perhaps they were there on Second Reading. I might be a bit old fashioned, but I thought that one of the purposes of Government committees—when I was a Minister I served on many such committees in the backrooms and bowels of Government—was for Ministers to thrash out what should be in a Bill before it is presented to the House. Today’s Guardian has an article on this matter—again, it must be true. It says: “A fresh coalition row has broken out after Nick Clegg told the home secretary, Theresa May, that she will face a parliamentary defeat on the government’s counter-terrorism bill unless judges are given oversight of plans to impose temporary exclusion orders on some terrorist suspects returning to Britain.” | 0.27211 |
587 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.176.2 | Is that the best the right hon. Gentleman can do—reading out bits of newspapers? | Guy Opperman | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | Is that the best the right hon. Gentleman can do—reading out bits of newspapers? | 0.282905 |
588 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.176.3 | Well, it strikes me that when TheGuardian newspaper reports that the Deputy Prime Minister is challenging the Home Secretary behind the scenes about judicial oversight, it is an important matter to bring before the House of Commons. If the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) can give me some confirmation that there is a genuine concern in his party—not just from the Back Benchers but from the Deputy Prime Minister—about these proposals, then it is important that that is shared. The Guardian article, which I will read out just for the benefit of the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), goes on to say: “The Liberal Democrats have always sought to follow David Anderson’s advice. He is quite clear on the need for judicial oversight in this area. That is why we are seeking government amendments to be brought forward in the House of Lords on the oversight of temporary exclusion orders.” The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not need to wait for the House of Lords. He and his right hon. and hon. Friends could, if they so wished, vote for these proposals today. The language used in our new clauses mirrors, word for word, the Government’s own legislation on TPIMs—the type of amendment they might bring forward if they win their back-stage battle on these issues. If he and his hon. Friends vote on this today it would save us having to go through those arguments again after this has been to the other place. s | David Hanson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | Well, it strikes me that when TheGuardian newspaper reports that the Deputy Prime Minister is challenging the Home Secretary behind the scenes about judicial oversight, it is an important matter to bring before the House of Commons. If the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) can give me some confirmation that there is a genuine concern in his party—not just from the Back Benchers but from the Deputy Prime Minister—about these proposals, then it is important that that is shared. The Guardian article, which I will read out just for the benefit of the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), goes on to say: “The Liberal Democrats have always sought to follow David Anderson’s advice. He is quite clear on the need for judicial oversight in this area. That is why we are seeking government amendments to be brought forward in the House of Lords on the oversight of temporary exclusion orders.” The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not need to wait for the House of Lords. He and his right hon. and hon. Friends could, if they so wished, vote for these proposals today. The language used in our new clauses mirrors, word for word, the Government’s own legislation on TPIMs—the type of amendment they might bring forward if they win their back-stage battle on these issues. If he and his hon. Friends vote on this today it would save us having to go through those arguments again after this has been to the other place. s | 0.300249 |
589 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.176.4 | I regret that I have no access to the bowels of Government however unsavoury they might be. I made my own position plain on Second Reading. Indeed, I agreed with the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) that this was an issue that had to be considered. Unhappily, I was indisposed during the Committee stage of the Bill, otherwise I would have been here. But I am here today to reflect my continuing unease, which I hope I eloquently put before the House on Second Reading. I shall continue to do that. Up until that part of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, I was about to say how much I agreed with him. He must be careful, because he might disturb my sense of acquiescence. | Menzies Campbell | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | I regret that I have no access to the bowels of Government however unsavoury they might be. I made my own position plain on Second Reading. Indeed, I agreed with the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) that this was an issue that had to be considered. Unhappily, I was indisposed during the Committee stage of the Bill, otherwise I would have been here. But I am here today to reflect my continuing unease, which I hope I eloquently put before the House on Second Reading. I shall continue to do that. Up until that part of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, I was about to say how much I agreed with him. He must be careful, because he might disturb my sense of acquiescence. | 0.329611 |
590 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.177.0 | Let me gently stroke the right hon. and learned Gentleman and try to keep him in the tent. I think that he will find the tent to be most comfortable. The question today is: do we have judicial oversight of the temporary exclusion orders? A number of Government Members have indicated that they feel that judicial oversight should be present. To be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we heard on Second Reading—and today this has appeared as being the position of the Deputy Prime Minister—that we should consider putting that in place. All I am saying is that there is a mechanism today for the Government to listen to that. They could even agree with our proposals without us forcing a Division, which would potentially put Members on the spot, forcing them to decide between loyalty to their party or to their principles. The Government could take this matter away and say that they agree with us. | David Hanson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | Let me gently stroke the right hon. and learned Gentleman and try to keep him in the tent. I think that he will find the tent to be most comfortable. The question today is: do we have judicial oversight of the temporary exclusion orders? A number of Government Members have indicated that they feel that judicial oversight should be present. To be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we heard on Second Reading—and today this has appeared as being the position of the Deputy Prime Minister—that we should consider putting that in place. All I am saying is that there is a mechanism today for the Government to listen to that. They could even agree with our proposals without us forcing a Division, which would potentially put Members on the spot, forcing them to decide between loyalty to their party or to their principles. The Government could take this matter away and say that they agree with us. | 0.284588 |
591 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.177.1 | The right hon. Gentleman talks about carnage and defeat. I have been around this place during many rebellions, and I do not get the atmosphere in this Chamber of carnage and defeat. I do not feel a tremendous wave of anger against the Government. Could it be that most Members of Parliament think that if it is a choice between judicial oversight or their sons and daughters being blown up on a London tube, they would rather let the Secretary of State take action, and take action quickly? | Edward Leigh | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | The right hon. Gentleman talks about carnage and defeat. I have been around this place during many rebellions, and I do not get the atmosphere in this Chamber of carnage and defeat. I do not feel a tremendous wave of anger against the Government. Could it be that most Members of Parliament think that if it is a choice between judicial oversight or their sons and daughters being blown up on a London tube, they would rather let the Secretary of State take action, and take action quickly? | 0.241862 |
592 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.177.2 | I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the start of my comments when I said that this is a proportionate power. There are real issues of potential threat where this action should and could be taken. The question is whether we should have judicial oversight, as we have in other legislation. He says that there does not seem to an atmosphere of massive rebellion in the Chamber. Let me reflect on that for a moment. We have a number of right hon. and hon. Members from the Conservative Benches who have expressed their disquiet publicly. They did so on Second Reading, in Committee and when the Prime Minister announced the proposal in the first place. They have also gone to the trouble of commenting on their concerns in the press at the weekend. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife has genuine concerns, expressed on Second Reading. Now the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Deputy Prime Minister, representing the 50-plus Members of Parliament whom he leads in this Chamber, is apparently saying that he will seek these changes in the other place when the Bill goes down the corridor. There is disquiet from the official Opposition and our 250-odd Members, as well as from Members of other parties. It strikes me that even now there is potentially a majority in this Chamber to put judicial oversight in place. | David Hanson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the start of my comments when I said that this is a proportionate power. There are real issues of potential threat where this action should and could be taken. The question is whether we should have judicial oversight, as we have in other legislation. He says that there does not seem to an atmosphere of massive rebellion in the Chamber. Let me reflect on that for a moment. We have a number of right hon. and hon. Members from the Conservative Benches who have expressed their disquiet publicly. They did so on Second Reading, in Committee and when the Prime Minister announced the proposal in the first place. They have also gone to the trouble of commenting on their concerns in the press at the weekend. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife has genuine concerns, expressed on Second Reading. Now the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Deputy Prime Minister, representing the 50-plus Members of Parliament whom he leads in this Chamber, is apparently saying that he will seek these changes in the other place when the Bill goes down the corridor. There is disquiet from the official Opposition and our 250-odd Members, as well as from Members of other parties. It strikes me that even now there is potentially a majority in this Chamber to put judicial oversight in place. | 0.32259 |
593 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.178.0 | I am listening sympathetically to some of the strong arguments that the shadow Minister is making, but I am trying to work out whether this is a principled position or an expedient one. Is he saying that in future cases and debates he and the Labour party, which has introduced a lot of draconian legislation, will adopt the principled presumption in favour of judicial oversight of the accretion of Executive power, or is this just a tactical one-off? Can he give me some reassurance on that point? | Dominic Raab | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | I am listening sympathetically to some of the strong arguments that the shadow Minister is making, but I am trying to work out whether this is a principled position or an expedient one. Is he saying that in future cases and debates he and the Labour party, which has introduced a lot of draconian legislation, will adopt the principled presumption in favour of judicial oversight of the accretion of Executive power, or is this just a tactical one-off? Can he give me some reassurance on that point? | 0.281009 |
594 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.178.1 | I hope that I can. It is perfectly reasonable to have judicial oversight of such matters. As I have said, I have introduced it as a Minister in the past and we have supported it for TPIMs. Indeed, some of the issues relating to sunset clauses, which we will discuss later, have been supported by me and by the Government of whom I was a member. To take the point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), there is a reasonable argument to be made that these are serious issues, with difficult people trying to do things that are damaging to the UK’s national interest, and we should be cognisant of that. Part of the great power of this country is that we allow the rule of law to have some judgment over ministerial decisions. In this case, the Home Secretary’s decision will be what determines whether we can have a temporary exclusion order. I am not stopping that happening and I am not trying to shorten it. I am simply saying that there should be the opportunity to have oversight of the Home Secretary’s decisions. | David Hanson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | I hope that I can. It is perfectly reasonable to have judicial oversight of such matters. As I have said, I have introduced it as a Minister in the past and we have supported it for TPIMs. Indeed, some of the issues relating to sunset clauses, which we will discuss later, have been supported by me and by the Government of whom I was a member. To take the point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), there is a reasonable argument to be made that these are serious issues, with difficult people trying to do things that are damaging to the UK’s national interest, and we should be cognisant of that. Part of the great power of this country is that we allow the rule of law to have some judgment over ministerial decisions. In this case, the Home Secretary’s decision will be what determines whether we can have a temporary exclusion order. I am not stopping that happening and I am not trying to shorten it. I am simply saying that there should be the opportunity to have oversight of the Home Secretary’s decisions. | 0.322196 |
595 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.178.2 | In case the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) was asking what the position would be if a Labour Government did not provide for judicial oversight, may I tell my right hon. Friend that in those circumstances there would be a great number of Labour Back Benchers who would make their views perfectly clear and would stand by the principle about which he is speaking? | David Winnick | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | In case the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) was asking what the position would be if a Labour Government did not provide for judicial oversight, may I tell my right hon. Friend that in those circumstances there would be a great number of Labour Back Benchers who would make their views perfectly clear and would stand by the principle about which he is speaking? | 0.244738 |
596 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.178.3 | That is reassuring. I will look forward to my hon. Friend’s support post-May in the happy event of my standing at the Government Dispatch Box arguing for the Government of the day. I am sure that we will continue to have the same level of support that he has given to those on the Labour Front Bench over many years in this House. I hope that I have made the case sufficiently for the Government to consider the issue now and to give us some indication in this regard, saving us the potential difficulty of ping-pong, further discussion and further debate between both Houses in the short period before the measure reaches the statute book. I want to ensure that the Government are subject to that judicial oversight. It would not in any way impact on the ability of the Minister to make decisions effectively on intelligence about who needed to have a temporary exclusion order placed on them, but it would reassure the community in which we also serve. It would also ensure that the Home Secretary’s decisions were subject to some checks and it would, I think, help to enhance our international reputation in dealing with these issues. I commend the new clauses to the House. | David Hanson | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | That is reassuring. I will look forward to my hon. Friend’s support post-May in the happy event of my standing at the Government Dispatch Box arguing for the Government of the day. I am sure that we will continue to have the same level of support that he has given to those on the Labour Front Bench over many years in this House. I hope that I have made the case sufficiently for the Government to consider the issue now and to give us some indication in this regard, saving us the potential difficulty of ping-pong, further discussion and further debate between both Houses in the short period before the measure reaches the statute book. I want to ensure that the Government are subject to that judicial oversight. It would not in any way impact on the ability of the Minister to make decisions effectively on intelligence about who needed to have a temporary exclusion order placed on them, but it would reassure the community in which we also serve. It would also ensure that the Home Secretary’s decisions were subject to some checks and it would, I think, help to enhance our international reputation in dealing with these issues. I commend the new clauses to the House. | 0.337729 |
597 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.179.0 | I was reflecting as I listened to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) putting the case for the Opposition that, when I first came to the House, it was suggested in a maiden speech by a then Labour Member that we should concertina the consideration of Bills because it was quite clear that the overwhelming majority on the Labour Benches at that time would mean that they would have to go through anyway. All I can say is that I am very grateful that we have not taken up that option. The process on which we have embarked—in a sense, this leads me to try to avoid repeating the speech I made on Second Reading and again in Committee—enables us to go over the same ground again but, each time, to examine it from a slightly different angle. The issue being debated this afternoon, of which new clause 3 constitutes the kernel, is in fact quite narrow. There seems to be general agreement that it is necessary to have a process of managed return, and it is perhaps slightly unfortunate that we started off the process with statements that suggested that we were embarking not on a process of managed return, but on a process of excluding people for ever who had gone abroad and were suspected of having committed terrorist offences but were in fact British-born nationals. That was very properly abandoned and the Home Secretary has now proposed a perfectly sensible package, endorsed by David Anderson, the terrorism reviewer, that will be useful in enabling us to meet this undoubtedly real problem. The question is therefore about the detail. In this case, that means the difference between the Home Secretary’s taking an executive and administrative act, then allowing it to be judicially reviewed if there is disagreement with it by the individual concerned, and having some kind of judicial oversight. Scrutiny, except in exceptional cases in which there has to be rapid administrative action, would normally be triggered by going to a court and getting a judge’s permission in the same way as we do with TPIMs. Throughout this process, I have favoured the principle of judicial oversight. I appreciate that the granting of a passport to an individual is an act of the royal prerogative and therefore one that is normally carried out by the Executive. For that reason, the Home Secretary has been able, in some exceptional circumstances, to withdraw and remove the passports of nationals abroad who are also dual nationals and subsequently to have that challenged through a review process. It is worth bearing in mind that passports have taken on a rather different significance from 101 years ago when, effectively, the vast majority of British nationals travelling abroad did so without passports at all. Indeed, a passport was an exceptional document that one was granted for the purpose of having one’s bona fides attested to by the state. Nowadays, a passport is a pretty essential tool not only for travelling in and out of this country but for travelling when abroad and avoiding some of the problems that might beset someone whose passport is deemed invalid. For those reasons, although I understand where my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is coming from when she wishes to preserve the principle that this is a prerogative power and that the removal of the passport and its cancellation when the individual is abroad should be subject to judicial review, the power is so exceptional that that judicial oversight is by far the most prudent course. It is not just by far the most prudent course and helpful for the individual concerned but, ultimately, helpful to my right hon. Friend as that would give it the validity it needs to be effective, without which I fear that we might well end up in rather more complex and lengthy litigation and, above all, with a sense of grievance sometimes creeping in for people who consider that they have been treated unfairly. I appreciate that the subject is emotive. Indeed, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) makes clear and highlights the anxiety, which is, I am sure, shared across the House, that people should behave in a way that is utterly incompatible with their British citizenship, in some cases going abroad and openly proclaiming both their renunciation of allegiance in some form and their allegiance to a power that appears to us to be utterly repugnant in its behaviour. Those feelings are understandable and very strong. At the same time, however, it is right that there are essential principles of our common law that individuals enjoy the benefit of the presumption of innocence and that free-born British subjects may come and go without let or hindrance in their own homeland. If they have committed serious offences while abroad, including treason, they should be brought to justice here on their return. We do not have the principle of excluding people from their own land, quite apart from the breaches of international law that that would involve. | Dominic Grieve | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | I was reflecting as I listened to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) putting the case for the Opposition that, when I first came to the House, it was suggested in a maiden speech by a then Labour Member that we should concertina the consideration of Bills because it was quite clear that the overwhelming majority on the Labour Benches at that time would mean that they would have to go through anyway. All I can say is that I am very grateful that we have not taken up that option. The process on which we have embarked—in a sense, this leads me to try to avoid repeating the speech I made on Second Reading and again in Committee—enables us to go over the same ground again but, each time, to examine it from a slightly different angle. The issue being debated this afternoon, of which new clause 3 constitutes the kernel, is in fact quite narrow. There seems to be general agreement that it is necessary to have a process of managed return, and it is perhaps slightly unfortunate that we started off the process with statements that suggested that we were embarking not on a process of managed return, but on a process of excluding people for ever who had gone abroad and were suspected of having committed terrorist offences but were in fact British-born nationals. That was very properly abandoned and the Home Secretary has now proposed a perfectly sensible package, endorsed by David Anderson, the terrorism reviewer, that will be useful in enabling us to meet this undoubtedly real problem. The question is therefore about the detail. In this case, that means the difference between the Home Secretary’s taking an executive and administrative act, then allowing it to be judicially reviewed if there is disagreement with it by the individual concerned, and having some kind of judicial oversight. Scrutiny, except in exceptional cases in which there has to be rapid administrative action, would normally be triggered by going to a court and getting a judge’s permission in the same way as we do with TPIMs. Throughout this process, I have favoured the principle of judicial oversight. I appreciate that the granting of a passport to an individual is an act of the royal prerogative and therefore one that is normally carried out by the Executive. For that reason, the Home Secretary has been able, in some exceptional circumstances, to withdraw and remove the passports of nationals abroad who are also dual nationals and subsequently to have that challenged through a review process. It is worth bearing in mind that passports have taken on a rather different significance from 101 years ago when, effectively, the vast majority of British nationals travelling abroad did so without passports at all. Indeed, a passport was an exceptional document that one was granted for the purpose of having one’s bona fides attested to by the state. Nowadays, a passport is a pretty essential tool not only for travelling in and out of this country but for travelling when abroad and avoiding some of the problems that might beset someone whose passport is deemed invalid. For those reasons, although I understand where my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is coming from when she wishes to preserve the principle that this is a prerogative power and that the removal of the passport and its cancellation when the individual is abroad should be subject to judicial review, the power is so exceptional that that judicial oversight is by far the most prudent course. It is not just by far the most prudent course and helpful for the individual concerned but, ultimately, helpful to my right hon. Friend as that would give it the validity it needs to be effective, without which I fear that we might well end up in rather more complex and lengthy litigation and, above all, with a sense of grievance sometimes creeping in for people who consider that they have been treated unfairly. I appreciate that the subject is emotive. Indeed, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) makes clear and highlights the anxiety, which is, I am sure, shared across the House, that people should behave in a way that is utterly incompatible with their British citizenship, in some cases going abroad and openly proclaiming both their renunciation of allegiance in some form and their allegiance to a power that appears to us to be utterly repugnant in its behaviour. Those feelings are understandable and very strong. At the same time, however, it is right that there are essential principles of our common law that individuals enjoy the benefit of the presumption of innocence and that free-born British subjects may come and go without let or hindrance in their own homeland. If they have committed serious offences while abroad, including treason, they should be brought to justice here on their return. We do not have the principle of excluding people from their own land, quite apart from the breaches of international law that that would involve. | 0.291644 |
598 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.180.0 | Although I share some of my right hon. and learned Friend’s concerns about riding roughshod over a lot of ancient liberties, does he not accept that what he says about “free-born British subjects” is very much a throwback to a bygone age? Many of our constituents would not recognise the notion that the individuals we are talking about are in any way free-born British subjects, because many of them have come here as immigrants, perhaps rather recently, got passports and then misused them, as our hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) rightly points out, by going abroad and then, having renounced many of the liberties for this country, wishing to return. [Interruption.] I will be off my feet in just a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Does he recognise that point? | Mark Field | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | Although I share some of my right hon. and learned Friend’s concerns about riding roughshod over a lot of ancient liberties, does he not accept that what he says about “free-born British subjects” is very much a throwback to a bygone age? Many of our constituents would not recognise the notion that the individuals we are talking about are in any way free-born British subjects, because many of them have come here as immigrants, perhaps rather recently, got passports and then misused them, as our hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) rightly points out, by going abroad and then, having renounced many of the liberties for this country, wishing to return. [Interruption.] I will be off my feet in just a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Does he recognise that point? | 0.272849 |
599 | 3d6c79a6-f5d9-4841-a351-01d4007957e5 | uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2015-01-06c.180.1 | I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I must say that I profoundly disagree. I think that the issue is as relevant today as it has always been. British nationality, and British citizenship, are important rights, and they are shared, and should be shared, irrespective of a person’s background or ancestry. That is a fundamental principle on which this country operates and on which the House works. I consider it a very serious matter if we are to say to any group within society that they may be deprived of what is effectively their birth right, and that birth right is extended to all. I should make it quite clear that that in no way endorses the right of individuals to behave contrary to law. If they do so, they should be punished, and punished severely. | Dominic Grieve | null | null | ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS | Internet Communications (Regulation) | Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill | I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I must say that I profoundly disagree. I think that the issue is as relevant today as it has always been. British nationality, and British citizenship, are important rights, and they are shared, and should be shared, irrespective of a person’s background or ancestry. That is a fundamental principle on which this country operates and on which the House works. I consider it a very serious matter if we are to say to any group within society that they may be deprived of what is effectively their birth right, and that birth right is extended to all. I should make it quite clear that that in no way endorses the right of individuals to behave contrary to law. If they do so, they should be punished, and punished severely. | 0.266391 |