Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register. As noble Lords will know, I frequently get up to speak on the rights of trade unionists. I am also president of a trade union affiliated to the TUC.

The purpose of this discussion is to encourage the Minister to go away and, we hope, say, “Well, they made some good points there. We had better bring forward some amendments. We ought to change same of the provisions of this Bill because it really doesn’t work.” Hence, I am speaking in support of the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies.

In Amendment 57B, the noble Lord is seeking to delete the phrase

“the captain of the ship or aircraft, the train manager of the train or the driver of the vehicle must"—

not “can”, “should” or “might consider”, but “must”—

“if so required by an immigration officer or the Secretary of State prevent P from disembarking”.

Immigration officers are also in trade unions. They have a very difficult life. Who is going to decide what they actually order the captain of the aircraft to do? Anyway, if the aircraft is up in the sky and it is suddenly discovered that someone is on board who should not be, what is the captain supposed to do? The captain of the aircraft has two principal jobs: to bring the passengers safely to the destination, and to do the same for the plane. They are not prison warders.

In many cases, of course, if this happened mid-air, they would not have realised the situation when they took off. Those of us who have been around a long, long time and can remember the hostage crises of many years ago will know that the situation became apparent only when aircraft were actually in the air. I am not asking the Minister, “will they be prosecuted?” because the Bill says that they will. I want to know under what circumstances it is envisaged that prosecution will be brought, and by whom it will be brought. Will it be the DPP, the department or the Minister? What will be the aim of the prosecution?

Amendment 58A would delete, amongst other things, the phrase

“knowingly permits a person to disembark in the United Kingdom”.

What is someone in that situation supposed to do? If a train comes into a station, it is very difficult to stop people getting off it. Noble Lords who have travelled to Brussels will be well aware of the number of times it is announced over the Tannoy that “You must not disembark at this station”. If someone does disembark, however, has the driver knowingly permitted them to disembark simply because they have gone into a station? Should they have stopped in the middle of the countryside? I ask the Minister to look at whether there should be an indemnity for transport workers, so that these provisions are not used to prosecute them. If they are, why should any pilot take the risk of flying an aircraft that might have an asylum seeker on it? Rostering is voluntary: you do not queue up and say, “you go there”. That is where the weakness lies—I diverge slightly—in the minimum strikes legislation. You cannot order people to do things, not in a free society; and that is where we live.

I ask the Minister to talk to the transport unions and to his own department about what it is trying to do with this and whether it will actually work. What concerns me about this Bill, as with the minimum strikes legislation, is that we are progressing rapidly towards a fairyland where pass legislation that just will not work. It is not a good thing to do, because it does not breed respect for legislation. I, and many people in Britain, want illegal immigration to stop. There is a general feeling out there in the country, particularly among the trade union members that I deal with, that you should not be able to cheat the system. But you have to make this Bill work to achieve that, rather than just achieving headlines for the Daily Mail, and for us all to look smart. The challenge is to make this work, not to make it look good.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this provision, because when I read the Bill and saw it, I genuinely thought that it must have been a drafting error on the part of civil servants that Ministers had not noticed. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, move his amendment, and to the other noble Lords who have spoken, it seems very sensible to me that this be taken back by the Government before Report. I am amazed that there was no consultation with the trade unions on this issue, which really does affect their members’ livelihoods. If this went through, I can imagine how workers on planes, ships and other forms of transport would react, knowing that it could be used against them.

It right that this Chamber address this issue, being an advisory, revising Chamber that gets things changed that we think are obviously wrong. In addition to what has already been said about consultation, why has this not been discussed properly? As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has said, many trade union members believe that the way we deal with illegal immigration has to change, but this is not the way to do it. This bit of the Bill must be taken out. The Minister should accept that there will not be support for it in this House, and that the other place has not, perhaps, thought about this in a sensible way.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for tabling these amendments, which are supported by the trade union movement and by other noble Lords.

I will put my cards on the table: my personal position is that coercive powers of detention should be in the hands of the state, for a number of reasons. I think Ministers should be directly responsible for the use of coercive power in our democratic society, and those powers should be exercised by properly trained people who enter into a profession to exercise powers such as that. However, that is not everyone’s position. I know that reasonable people, including friends of mine with whom I disagree and some on the Benches opposite, believe, for example, in private prisons. Those are circumstances where there is a contract that a private provider enters into to provide services for detention, coercion and so on. I have problems with that; I will not bore the Committee with my various concerns about it, but I believe that there is an entire Wikipedia page devoted to G4S scandals. I am thinking also of Brook House detention centre and the various people who have died in the context of forced removal from the country. I have concerns about the use of private contractors to exercise some of the most coercive powers of the democratic state.

However, the problem that has been identified by my noble friend Lord Davies and others is even more serious than that, because these are not private guards who have been employed by AN Other private security company—although I am concerned about that, and the scandals speak for themselves—but people who are transport workers. They are used to giving service to the public, which is a very different job with a very different understanding, different training and, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, pointed out, different preoccupations and priorities from the use of coercive force.

On mixed flights, holidaymakers sit alongside deportees. To be fair, that is already a problem; under the regime that we have now, these problems have arisen for some time, but the Bill makes the problem worse. We also have to be realistic that, in the context of the challenges we will face on this planet in the years to come, more and more desperate people will come. The idea of having mixed flights, with transport workers now being responsible for a policy of transportation in addition to normal service provision with the priorities of customer safety, is a total nonsense. If the Government want to pursue the sorts of policy that we are seeing in this legislation, with controversy, coercion and desperate people who may want to fling themselves off the train, the ship or the plane, that is really not appropriate for transport workers. We are now getting into a transportation policy of coercive control and removal, and that really ought to be done by servants of the state, agents of the state, who have been employed for that purpose.

It is not just for the sake of their consciences or for the safety and security of the desperate people themselves—or indeed the terrible people. We keep calling them “illegal migrants” but that is a bone of contention, because of course these people are being removed without consideration of their asylum claims, so we do not know whether they are illegal or not. However, whether they are illegal or are genuine refugees, some of these people will be desperate and will resort to desperate means to escape removal, and the lovely people who I travel with on the trains, when I can, should not be charged with that task; it should be people who are genuine volunteers who have been properly trained, and they should be directly responsible to Ministers when things go wrong, which I am afraid they sometimes will. So the amendments are very well put and I urge the Government to think again.

The Minister will rightly say that this is not novel. I do not want to pretend that it is totally novel to give directions to conventional transport providers and to contract out aspects of immigration control; bit by bit, that has been happening for decades, and it has simply been turbocharged by this policy. However, it is not safe or ethical, and nothing good will come of it.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about services. I say to all hon. Members who are happy to contemplate a scenario in which the Government walk away from the negotiations and this House is merely a spectator in that outcome, that that is not acceptable and this House should not accept it.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will make some progress, I am afraid, because a number of hon. Members wish to speak. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) will do so.

New clause 66 would ensure that there is a vote on a motion, not just in the event of a withdrawal agreement being concluded, but, crucially, when no such deal has been concluded, should that be the case. That outcome appears less likely following the agreement the Government reached last week and the clarification that the default position in the event of no deal will be regulatory alignment, but it remains a possibility, and Parliament must have a say.

As I have said, there are many, many ways of ensuring that Parliament has a meaningful vote. Amendment 7, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), is very well drafted. I do not think that it is deficient. We would definitely support it and we would not press new clause 66 if he pressed it to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right about almost everything; the only point he is not right about is that I think he will find that my suggestion to him was the appropriate way to deal with that. I will come on to give him precisely the assurance he is asking for, although we have not had a chance to get it on to the face of the Bill. I would argue that a political assurance, which I will give him on top of the others that have been given, ought adequately to address his concerns.

With the genuine and material risk of my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendment in mind, I hope I can go further, bridge the gap and reassure hon. Members, and assuage any residual concerns they may have about the operation of clause 9 in practice. I want to provide three very clear assurances to the House.

First, secondary legislation passed under clause 9 will either be affirmative or considered by the Committee established under the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. Secondly, the Government are committed to publishing such statutory instruments in draft as far as possible, as early as possible, to facilitate maximum scrutiny, which is another point we have discussed.

Thirdly, we expect that the vast majority of statutory instruments enacted under clause 9 will not come into force until exit day, when the withdrawal agreement comes into force. But I can give my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, and the Committee, the concrete assurance that, following the timeframe set out in today’s written ministerial statement, none of the SIs introduced under clause 9 will come into effect until Parliament has voted on the final deal. I hope that that provides important reassurance and is sufficient for hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

That approach has two advantages. First, it retains our ability to use clause 9 in time to fully implement the withdrawal agreement. It also squarely addresses the concern, fairly and honestly reflected in amendment 7, that there should be a meaningful vote—the critical point made by my right hon. and learned Friend—and that we should not bring new law implementing the withdrawal agreement into effect if Parliament votes that agreement down.

[Kate Hoey]

I am sure that a lot of people are looking at this debate and seeing it as being conducted very much in legal terms, with lawyers versus lawyers. Will the Minister outline in very simple terms why there is no necessity for amendment 7 to be voted on tonight?

Pensions Uprating (UK Pensioners Living Overseas)

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and the other Members who have spoken in this debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends because the fact that so many SNP Members are in the Chamber for this important debate sends out a very positive signal.

Some of us have been speaking about and supporting this campaign for many years. As has been said, parties of all political persuasions have made all the right noises and said positive things when in opposition, but have completely reneged on that when in government, because Governments always tend to renege when the Treasury gets involved. I very much welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) because she reflected the views of the leader of our party, who has been committed to this for many years. I hope that we will now treat this campaign very seriously and be strong supporters of it.

I pay tribute to John Markham, who for many years has continued to push this issue with the International Consortium of British Pensioners, the global coalition of all the various campaign groups. He has kept going, as have all his supporters, when—time after time, setback after setback—they must have felt that they were not really getting anywhere. Following the speeches by Members on both sides of the Chamber, I hope they feel that they are now beginning to see movement. I also welcome the involvement and support of the National Pensioners Convention. All of us who have pensioners groups in our constituencies—this issue is certainly raised regularly in my area—know that pensioners in this country, no matter how difficult their circumstances, believe that the arrangement is unfair and would welcome the resolution of this problem.

I am particularly concerned about the issue because it involves many people from the Afro-Caribbean community in my area. They came to this country to work many years ago and many of them are now getting on and would like to go back. Some islands in the Caribbean are covered and some are not. It is just ludicrous that our Government cannot work out reciprocal agreements even with that small area of the Caribbean—let us forget the big countries for the moment. Those people want to go back home in their old age to retire, but do not feel they can go back knowing that their pension will not increase and that they may well need help from their families and relatives there, when they have been working over here. They want to go back home and to be able to retire with dignity.

To be honest, the Minister did not really say anything other than what he read out from his brief, which probably included everything he said the last time he spoke. I do not understand why we cannot get a reciprocal agreement with Australia, Canada and New Zealand. When he winds up, will he actually tell us why we cannot get such an agreement? Have the Government tried to do so? When did they last discuss it? What are the obstacles to it? Those three countries are among the countries closest to this country. They are part of the Commonwealth, and many of their citizens died for us during the first and second world wars. Why can we not get a reciprocal agreement with those three countries, and why can we not get one with the whole of the Caribbean?

Reciprocal agreements are only one way of solving this problem. The best way would obviously be to restore fairness by saying that this is the pensioners’ money, not the Government’s—the money is due to pensioners and should have gone to them. At some stage, a Government will have to accept that enough is enough and that we really must take this bold step. I hope that the suggestions made in this very good paper, “Frozen British Pensions: The Case for Change”, which has a lot in it, can be taken up. If we could at least have a partial uprating, that would be a start.

This is a question of justice and fairness, not of cost. We know that the cost for many of the people who would like to move abroad, go back home or retire to be with their family would be made up through savings over the years. There will be savings—there is no doubt about that—and it will also cost us much more if, as has been said, many people came back to this country just when they will need more support from the health service and all the other social services. On the cost issue, I understand that this sounds like a huge amount of money, but to me, £30 million—it would at least start to redress the problem by following the suggestion in this document—is not a huge amount of money. I do not want to get involved in the EU thing, but I think we are giving something like £50 million a day to the European Union. In the scale of things, £30 million is actually a very small amount.

I appeal to the Minister and certainly to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench to keep up the pressure on this issue, particularly because I believe that a start has now been made. During the 27 years that I have been in the House, I have never seen so many Members involved in holding debates or asking questions on these matters. Two or three committed Conservative Members have always done a huge amount of work on it, but for the first time a lot of new Members have understood the issue. The system has not been explained to people. There are even people moving now who do not realise what it means, because the website is not clear; there is no clarity. Many people who moved a long time ago had no idea that their pension would not be uprated, so we have not made this very clear.

I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate today. I hope that those watching this debate all over the world, who have felt so let down over the years, will feel that at last—thanks to the efforts of the Members who have secured this debate and have spoken today—there is a chink of light and that this situation may actually begin to change.

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown]

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the turnout last time for PCC elections was dismal. I hope it will be significantly better this time, but when I was on the doorsteps last year, in parts of the country other than my own little patch in London I did not find that people knew who their PCC was. I say gently to him that our constituents do not know that when they go to the polls next week they will be electing a PCC who might be taking over their fire service. The Bill will not have been enacted by then.

I think that the timing and, as I will explain, the way we have done this has been wrong. The consultation preceding the Bill did not seek the views of experts and specialists on the substance of the proposals. It set out how a PCC could assume control of a fire and rescue service and then asked consultees what they thought of the process. It did not ask them what they thought of the proposals themselves, and it did not ask whether the proposals would increase public safety or lead to better governance.

It is not in the impact assessment—that very thin impact assessment, which I am sure that the Members who sat on the Bill Committee will have read—but the Knight review of the future of the fire service recommended that PCC takeovers be attempted only if a rigorous pilot could identify tangible and “clearly set out benefits”. The Government chose to ignore this key recommendation and are instead proceeding before any evidence has been gathered about the likely benefits, costs and threats to the plan. It is utterly reckless. The impact assessment is threadbare. The only rationale offered for this intervention is the Government’s belief that there needs to be greater collaboration between emergency services. No one thinks otherwise, but the Government have not provided any justification of why it is more likely to occur under PCCs or any analysis of the current barriers to collaboration. It is policy without evidence or clear rationale.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend is saying. She knows—and surely the Government know—how much co-operation already goes on. It does not have to be prescribed in this top-down way; it works organically and it works really well.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendment is meant to be probing and might not be made to the Bill at this stage, but when the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, it would be helpful if he could provide clarity about the discussions he has had with the Department regarding the title change and about his views and intentions as the Bill continues to progress through the House.

[Kate Hoey]

I rise to support new clause 20 in particular. I declare an interest as chair of the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group. Giving fire and rescue services a statutory responsibility for leading the emergency services in response to flooding is something on which we have had meeting after meeting over the years with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers, who have all said that they supported it, and with Ministers from different Departments. It goes so far, but then it stops. There is clearly a Treasury argument here somewhere, but I feel strongly about the matter. There has been an increase in floods over recent years, and we have seen how our fire and rescue services have responded. What is happening seems wrong when we rely on them.

Let us look at the data from last year. Thirty-four fire and rescue services provided assistance in the worst-affected areas. Data collected by the FBU, which does a good job in getting it, from individual fire and rescue services found that firefighters responded to at least 1,400 flood incidents across north-west England and 450 incidents in Yorkshire. As we saw on our television screens, with politicians lining up to thank them and say how brave they had been and how wonderful they were, firefighters rescued people from a wide range of hazardous situations, evacuating people in advance of coming floods and making various other emergency interventions. It seems strange that we give our firefighters great praise for doing something that we and local people automatically expect them to do, yet we do not make their leading of the emergency services a statutory responsibility. I can only assume that the Government do not want to spend what might be some extra resources on ensuring that firemen and firewomen and all the rescue services are properly equipped.

We have seen terrible examples of when firemen and women have not had the right safety or protective equipment and have had to do things without the correct clothing, with things running out in some areas. They still did those things, but that is wrong and I genuinely do not understand the situation. I am sure that the Minister supported the proposal at one time. Many Ministers have supported it, but when they get into a position in which they actually have to make the decision or are allowed to get involved in it, they seem to change their mind. I hope the Minister will respond to that and that we will get the opportunity to support the change in a vote today.

I now turn briefly to the other issues. I share the position of the shadow Front-Bench team on police and crime commissioners. There is no public appetite for change. Wherever I have been around the country, no one has been clamouring for reform of how we govern our fire services or for any responsibility to be transferred to PCCs. I have not heard any evidence today—we may hear it from the Minister, but I doubt it—that there is a problem with the current governance arrangements. No one has convinced me that the change would deliver an emergency service that is more economic, efficient and effective or would help to improve public safety. We all want co-ordination, and I welcome that co-operation and co-ordination have gone further in some parts of the country than in others. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) said from the Front Bench, we want to see more of that, but we do not need to bring it in this top-down, totally anti-democratic way.

I am not at all ashamed to say that I believe that firefighters and police officers perform different roles. That does not mean that we do not value equally the roles of both, but they perform different roles and have different remits. A police officer is seen as a legal person and someone who is there to uphold the law. A fireman or firewoman, or anyone involved in the rescue services, is seen very differently. Having a single employer will begin to confuse that in the public mind. The preventive work that firefighters do and the way that they are trusted, implicitly and completely, by the public could well be jeopardised if the changes go through.

The Bill and this change would do nothing at all to invest in fire and rescue services’ resources. I have already mentioned the work that goes into responding to large-scale flooding incidents and providing emergency medical response. The Government should focus on putting extra resources into initiatives that will actually lead to the changes and to co-ordination.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that this is frankly more about saving money than improving the service. She probably noticed that the burden has been shifted on to local authorities, with the 2% increase. Eventually, the entire burden for fire and police will be shifted on to local authorities. Then we will have a situation of profligate spending—we have been here before—and local authorities will get capped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

Absolutely; there is no doubt this is a cost-cutting exercise. I accept that these days everybody has to have constraints on the public purse, as far as is possible, but there are ways of doing that and this bureaucratic way seems to have been brought in by people who have had the idea for a long time and now have seen an opportunity to push it forward. The Government should not be pursuing these almost ideological ways of trying to save money. They should be looking at ways of improving our emergency services and ensuring that they co-ordinate well together. It would be wrong to transfer this responsibility to a PCC. We have a valuable, popular fire service that has the confidence of the public, and we should be very wary of making those changes, which I think will have a really detrimental effect on not only how the public see the service, but on its effectiveness out there in the country. I hope we will be able to make some changes to this proposal and that when Members get the opportunity they will vote to put a stop to something that is very wrong indeed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Emergency Services: Closer Working

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) on his great speech. He has given so much support to the firefighters and the fire service. I declare that I chair the Fire Brigades Union parliamentary group, so I have a real interest in the issue.

First, I want to point out how disappointing I found the announcement in January that responsibility for the fire and rescue service was to be transferred from the Department for Communities and Local Government to the Home Office. That is no reflection on Home Office Ministers, or the shadow Minister. I was in the Home Office way back when the fire service was the responsibility of that Department, and if anyone spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who was the Fire Minister at that time—at the beginning of the century—it would have been clear to them that fire not only got a minimal share of resources but suffered a kind of neglect. It was very much the little bit of the Home Office, and that was characterised by the big issues, such as immigration and criminal justice, getting so much more priority.

[Mike Penning]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Hoey]

Yes, I will give way to the Minister—he was not around then.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In those days, in the Home Office, the Fire Minister was separate from the Police Minister, and that is exactly why the Prime Minister has made me the Police and Fire Minister, to ensure that the mistakes of the past do not happen again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be a very good Minister, particularly given his background. He was an FBU representative at one time, I think. For me, however, this is about all the emergency services working together, and somehow the ambulance service and the whole medical side have been left out. That will genuinely affect the very good work that firefighters do in prevention and protection. The level of that work is already falling, and there will be fewer school visits and that kind of thing—I can see that that is the way it is going.

I am also a little disappointed in the consultation. There is no substantial evidence in the document for bringing about the change, and it has the usual kind of civil servant feel to it, with questions being asked to get an answer that coincides with the preferred outcome, because the decision had already been taken. The document did not ask the crucial question, whether having a single employer for the two services is a good idea. I do not think it is. The public have great trust and confidence in firefighters, even when, unfortunately, they occasionally have to withdraw their labour. Support from the public has been enormous, unlike in many other areas where strikes have led to huge public dissatisfaction. There is huge confidence in them, and they are seen as independent and impartial lifesavers. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) have left, but firefighters in Northern Ireland had to work hard for all the communities during the many years of difficulty, and there was confidence in them.

I have a lot of confidence in my local police, particularly Commander Richard Wood, but there is no doubt that the public do not feel the same way about the police as they do about firefighters. I genuinely think that the reforms could damage the reputation that firefighters have built up in their neighbourhoods over decades, so I am concerned. Co-operation will come about if people want it to happen, not because it is made to happen from the top down. The Hampshire examples are good, and the system works there because everybody wanted to work together.

The example that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) mentioned of the fire and ambulance service working together shows that it can work, and that it does not have to be just about saving money. Of course we all want to save money, but I am keen to hear from the Minister what is really at the bottom of the reforms—unfortunately, I will have to leave slightly early.

I particularly want to pick up on the point that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) made about the role of the PCCs. They are not popular, as the turnout at their elections showed. It is crass to try to lump the two services together. It means we will lose accountability, which is very important in London. We need democratically elected people who have an overview and a link into the community. We need to be able to feel that people can be got rid of, which I do not think people feel at the moment.

There are many questions I could ask the Minister, but I do not have time. The Minister should look at this matter again. As enforcers of the law, the police do not have the universal access that the fire service has to people’s homes and to the many hard to reach communities. It is vital that the fire service retains its distinctiveness to ensure continued trust in it. That is my most crucial point.

[Ian Lavery]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fire and rescue service and the ambulance service could do a lot of business together? Those services are humanitarian services that have the confidence of the people in their communities. The police service, which seeks out crime, is not a life-saving organisation, and it does not have that same confidence of communities. Further integration will jeopardise any community spirit in the places we are trying to secure.

[Kate Hoey]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He sums up why I feel so unhappy about this move. It has been rushed through, and I do not think it will work. Even people who felt that there was a role for PCCs are now beginning to say that their introduction was a mistake. If the reforms go ahead, I think we will be back here in a few years saying that they were a mistake.

Courts and Tribunal Services (England and Wales)

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the closure of courts and tribunals services in England and Wales.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) the opportunity to bring to the House this debate on the closure of courts and tribunal services in England and Wales. Given that it was my first pitch to the Committee, I was pretty chuffed to receive the good news.

In July, the Government announced a consultation on the proposed closure of 91 courts and tribunal services across England and Wales called. “Proposal on the provision of court and tribunal estate in England and Wales”, and it closes on 8 October. It forms part of the wider changes to the criminal justice system, which have not been debated in this Parliament.

Many Members have been in contact to say that, with the closure of courts, the way in which people access the justice system will be incredibly different. Given the introduction of new and not-so-new technology, and the fact that fewer people will attend the courtroom in person, we felt that a debate was necessary. I am therefore delighted that the Backbench Business Committee accepted a debate on these significant proposals, which will see some constituents across England and Wales travelling for more than an hour to reach a courtroom. Many Members believe that the changes to the estate of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service could lead to the complete transformation of the justice system as we know it.

I thank the Minister for his support and his speedy responses over the last few months. His continued support in person, on the telephone and in relation to exchanges of emails and letters has been incredibly helpful in allowing me to update my constituents. I know that that is true of other Members across the House, so I thank him.

On 23 June the Lord Chancellor gave a speech to the Legatum Institute on what a one nation justice policy would look like. He said that he wanted

“to make our justice system work better for victims; to deliver faster and fairer justice for all citizens…to make sure the laws we pass provide protection for the weakest… rescue young offenders, and those who may be on the path to offending, from a life of crime”.

He announced his intention to work with the judiciary to reform Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and he wanted—I agree with this—to create a modern and efficient service. That will involve challenging decisions about the current system. One such decision relates to the courts and tribunals estate, and the consultation provides a superb opportunity for Members to make a reasoned and sensible case for the use of courts in their constituencies. I hope it will enable them to present clear evidence to the consultation. Pending the results of the consultation, we should begin a conversation now about the future use of the estate, and about how best to use it in the one nation terms outlined by the Secretary of State.

I understand the reasons behind the Secretary of State’s decision to hold a consultation. In his speech he recognised that a dangerous inequality lies at the heart of the current justice system, because it involves not one nation but two. The wealthy international class can settle cases in London with the gold standard of British justice, but everyone else has to put up with a creaking, outdated system to see justice done in their lives.

The courts are trapped in “antiquated ways of working” that leave individuals at the mercy of grotesque inefficiencies and reinforce indefensible inequalities. Over the past few months I have spoken to a range of key stakeholders in my constituency, and it is clear that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service needs major reform to deliver value for money for taxpayers and fair treatment for all citizens.

Some children in my constituency have waited two years for sexual assault cases to be brought before the courts, and too many cases show that the system is failing the victims and those whom we are trying to rehabilitate. It is right to use this opportunity not just to look at reforming the Courts and Tribunals Service, but also to consider the processes and administration of the remaining courts.

The Courts and Tribunals Service currently operates from 460 courts and tribunals across England and Wales. The estate costs taxpayers around £0.5 billion each year and is underused. In my constituency, usage is well below the 50% capacity, and last year more than one third of courts and tribunals were empty for more than 50% of their available hearing time. As I discussed with Bath magistrates, there is no shortage of cases needing court time, and if more magistrates were provided, capacity could be increased.

Evidence is clear that hearing rooms in the estate are underused. In the financial year 2014-15, recorded national utilisation levels by jurisdiction were as follows: Crown Courts 71%; county courts 53%; magistrates courts 47%; and tribunal hearing rooms 71%. Although Bath has a relatively modern building, much of the national estate is ageing and requires extensive maintenance. The cost of keeping buildings in a fit state is unsustainable given the overall financial pressures placed on the Department. I therefore understand the need to reduce the outgoings of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and improve efficiency.

It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that today I will make the case for Bath magistrates court to stay open. The Government’s own report states that the court was built in 1989 and is in a good state of repair. It has five courtrooms, of which four are magistrates courtrooms. The court has separate waiting rooms for prosecution and defence witnesses, and video link facilities for witnesses to give evidence. It does not have a prison video link, but I wish to query the lack of a court hearing loop as stated in the consultation, as I understand that it does have one.

After speaking to a range of key parties, there is an opportunity to use the court building more effectively than in the past. If Bath courts are kept open following the consultation, I wish to ensure that our buildings and others around the UK are at the centre of the Government’s reforms to improve the criminal justice system, that they have the best technology and improve access to justice, and that they work effectively in the interests of the most vulnerable—the victims of crime and those in most desperate need of rehabilitation services.

I therefore welcome the fact that the Minister has noted that he would like to maintain access to justice, particularly in rural areas. I also welcome the fact that he wants to make the system fairer and faster, as the Government look to invest significantly in digital technology to enable more issues to be resolved without people needing to go to a court or tribunal building to access justice. This includes extending the use of video links to enable victims and witnesses to give evidence and participate in hearings remotely.

Of course, it is the staff who work in the courts and tribunals who experience the inefficiency every day. From visiting the courts in my constituency, I am baffled as to how they put up with the cumbersome IT processes that they have to go through and the archaic systems. On my visit to the courts in Bath a couple of weeks ago, I was interested to learn that many letters have to be sent out via first class mail, rather than via email. The voices of staff are the ones we need to listen to most when it comes to the reforms.

We need to make sure that prosecutions are brought more efficiently, that information is exchanged via email or conference call, rather than in a series of hearings, and that evidence is served in a timely and effective way. It is not just within the criminal courts that the case for reform is clear. Millions of people each day access our civil courts to reach custody agreements after divorce, contest their traffic offences or settle a dispute over intellectual property rights. Without our civil and family courts or our tribunal services, our contracts are unenforceable and individuals are left with no recourse when deprived of their rights.

As we look at reforms to the civil court estate, we ought also to be looking at maximising efficiency. If the estates are to be kept, we must address the reasons why the current system prevents people from filing their cases online, is often not in plain English, and adds stress owing to its complexity and bureaucratic nature. I am pleased that the Government have recognised that we need to question whether many of these formal hearings need to be heard at all in our current court and tribunal estate, and why we are not submitting more information online and using our estate in a much more efficient way

Like many Members, over the summer I consulted my constituents on the proposed closures and received hundreds of responses. I thank them and the legal professionals, charities and magistrates who sent me their views. One thing is clear: the vast majority know that the criminal justice estate needs reform. Many are clear that it is underutilised and that it needs to be better used to help service those most in need—the victims of crime and those who must be rehabilitated. So far, over 84% of the respondents to my consultation believe that Bath magistrates and county court should stay. However, very few have ever needed to access the services provided by the courts—probably something I should promote a little more. Those who do need the services provided are often the most vulnerable in society, and I think it is right to maintain local access to justice while providing for efficient use of the services provided in the courts and tribunals estate. This is something I will come on to a little later.

At this point it is important to set out the chronology of the relevant reforms to the criminal justice service and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in order to set the scene for Members as we begin a wider debate on the reforms to the criminal justice estate. In March 2014, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and the Senior President of Tribunals announced details of a programme of reform of courts and tribunals. At the heart of this programme are the use of technology and the principle of proportionality. Modern technology could not only make the justice system more accessible, but reduce the costs of the whole system.

In January this year the president of the Queen’s bench division, the right hon. Sir Brian Leveson, published his “Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings”. In his report he focused on changes to procedure which can be achieved without the need for legislation, but which make better use of technology and other advances within the criminal justice service. All the recommendations were designed to streamline the way in which the business of the criminal courts is conducted, without losing sight of the interests of justice. Therefore, rather than tweak the current system, as has been done over the past 50 years, he tried to identify ways in which our current procedures can be adapted to make the best use of the skills, resources and IT systems available.

With the report published, it makes sense to review the estate in the context of wider reforms to the courts and tribunals service. In March this year my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), then Lord Chancellor, welcomed the Leveson report as a “detailed and valuable report”.

On the wider issue of changes being made to the courts and tribunals service as a whole, I am sure the House would be interested to receive a statement about the progress that the Minister is making in introducing the Leveson report’s recommendations. Given that the improvements to the IT provision, recommended by Brian Leveson, are fundamental to the proposed closure of the courts, it would be useful to understand what stage they have reached.

I would like to set out the debate on the wider consultation, explore how the criminal justice service must be reformed and give an opportunity for Members to explore the reasons why courts in their constituencies should remain open, be reformed, or, in an unlikely circumstance, be closed down, as the structure of the consultation permits.

The consultation sets out a number of key principles that the Government have considered to decide which courts would be included in the proposals. The first principle is ensuring access to justice. Within this section of the consultation, the first consideration is the assessment of the impact of possible closure on professional users, lay court users and tribunal users.

One argument that has been repeatedly raised is that the founding principle of magistrates courts is that justice is delivered by local people who understand the local area and understand where retribution is appropriate. Following the announcement of the consultation, I met magistrates from Bath on numerous occasions and they said that knowing the local community provided a huge benefit when delivering local justice. I am very concerned that this experienced provision of justice will be lost if cases are diverted to Bristol, where this thorough understanding of the nuances of Bath is likely to fall short. Indeed, if one is a part-time magistrate holding two or more roles, how is one able to deliver justice in Bristol as well as work simultaneously in Bath?

The second principle is taking into account journey time for users. I am pleased that the consultation notes that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service acknowledges that users should not have to make excessively long or difficult journeys to attend hearings. However, there is a limit to that and I am pleased that at the Justice Committee on 17 July the Lord Chancellor stated that he wanted to make sure that the time it will take for any citizen to travel to court remains less than an hour.

As a Bath resident, it is near impossible to get from Bath city centre to Bristol city centre within an hour by bus or car. If one is trying to get to Bristol court from any of the villages or small towns, this is simply near impossible. Regular trains do run between the cities. However, those attending court would face a walk of half an hour on arrival, which would pose a challenge to some—for example, the disabled.

I also worry that the cost of travel may lead some to not attend court, resulting in harsher penalties at a later date and the involvement of the police to force them to attend a hearing. Each of these steps places a further burden on local services and the taxpayer. It would be useful if the Minister updated the House on the Government’s proposals to provide financial support to the most vulnerable to get to and from the court.

The third principle is the alternative provision of criminal justice services in other locations. If Bath court is to close, I am already working with our council in Bath to discuss the use of our original courtroom, which was indeed a council chamber. As I have explained, there are public buildings in my constituency, as there are in the rest of England and Wales. I hope the Government will work with our councils and other public bodies to offer up facilities where security threats are low. The Government need to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of upgrading current facilities while investing in local civic buildings. Let us not forget that the equipment needs to be brought up to the standards set out by Leveson. We will therefore need financial help to achieve that.

The fourth principle is the need to take into account the needs of the users and, in particular, victims, witnesses and those who are vulnerable. I am pleased, therefore, that the Secretary of State said that the Ministry of Justice has looked at the types of work that the court does and the need to ensure that particularly sensitive people are not exposed to additional upheaval and unnecessary distress.

If the courts are to close and there is an increase in the distance that people have to travel to access the courts system, we need innovative solutions to improve access to justice. In the previous Parliament, some excellent work was undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) on pop-up civil courts. These courts could open in village halls and community centres. The move would end the requirement for all defendants charged with low-level offences to attend a central court building. This would enable improved access to justice. For people who, for example, have committed a speeding offence, I imagine that having to attend so publicly could have an additional benefit of making them think twice about speeding in the future. Instead of having a public forced to come to the courts for this sort of offence, the public should see justice in their own communities rather than at a magistrates court.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for the court in Bath. On distance, does he accept that in London and other inner-city areas, although a court might seem very near, all sorts of travel issues, such as with bus routes and so on, might arise? In my constituency, for example, a consultation is under way over whether to close Lambeth county court on Cleaver Street. The closure of this court, which is centrally located on all transport networks, would make a huge difference, particularly to the poorest, who are likely to have great difficult getting to the court if there is a change of venue.

[Ben Howlett]

I agree. As the crow flies, the distance between Bath and Bristol might look like a 30-minute journey by car or bus, but when one factors in the congestion renowned in my constituency, it can be a problem. I know exactly the problems the hon. Lady mentions in Lambeth from my travels through her constituency. It can be particularly problematic for vulnerable people who cannot necessarily afford to access the courts system. In some instances, they might be left in a place that is slightly foreign to them without the money to get home. As I will discuss later, that adds additional costs to the overall system.

The idea of pop-up courts could be applied to a host of lesser offences, including minor criminal damage, failure to pay the television licence or being drunk and disorderly, which could ensure that the most vulnerable can access the courts effectively. The second key principle is value for money. I have largely covered that already, but no doubt Members will want to mention it later. The most interesting principle in the consultation is the third, about creating efficiency in the longer term. I agree with the Government that we need to reduce our reliance on buildings with poor facilities and remove from the estate buildings that are difficult and expensive either to improve or to upgrade. As I have said, however, the Bath courts are already large, having 12 courtrooms, a youth court and county court, and have excellent facilities for court users, staff and judiciary.

Here, then, is my pitch to the Government. Following conversations with magistrates, service users, charitable organisations and others in Bath, I would like to encourage the Government to back the creation of a new justice and rehabilitation service in Bath. I would like our court buildings transformed into a one-stop shop, providing a range of services that attendees might require and enabling all services within the criminal justice service to be accessed at source. That could involve drug and alcohol services, social care and children and witness support under one roof.

Someone in court because of actions resulting from alcohol abuse could leave the court and walk across the corridor to an alcohol rehabilitation charity. Someone struggling to cope with money who needs help from Citizens Advice could access such advice immediately, instead of having to leave the court estate. By getting the help immediately, offenders could rehabilitate quicker, while advice from a local organisation can be tailored to the local area. No doubt that would increase local support for the venture. The criminal justice system must aim to help prevent reoffending, and such ease of access would provide a way of doing that.

The Bath courts, like many others around the UK, have appropriate rooms that could be utilised in that way—these vacant rooms, after all, are the cause of the consultation. Offering rooms within the estate to local organisations and charities would take the pressure for funding these services off central and local government and the NHS. I know from experience that rents in Bath are extremely expensive, and that many charities essential to improving the lives of offenders would appreciate having such access to those who need their help and to facilities from which to operate.

It is also proposed that we move to an estate providing dedicated hearing centres and concentrate back-office functions where they can be carried out most efficiently. Bath magistrates court and county court already provide a range of different services. Without wishing to run before I can walk, I am pleased that the Government have recognised the need to invest in some of the buildings that need improvement, and I hope that following the consultation the Minister will open discussions with MPs as each case is assessed to ensure that plans deliver value for money. In addition, when it comes to the redistribution of the courts around England and Wales, it would be good to discuss the redistribution of local justice areas as well. It makes no sense that a resident living east of Chippenham has to go to Swindon, or that someone living closer to Bath has to go to Yeovil.

In summary, I hope I have made a strong case not only for reform of the courts and tribunals estate, but for better utilisation of the current estate to help create a one nation justice system. On Bath, I end by reminding Members of what was said in Select Committee on 17 July by the Lord Chancellor:

“when you announce a series of closures or economies it will always, always, always be the case that you find someone who will make a very good argument as to why in a particular circumstance a closure should not go ahead…I want to stress that when we make our announcement about closures, it is not the final word. If a strong case is made and, on the balance of judgment, it is worth keeping a court open, we will revisit any individual decision where we think we may have got it wrong.”

I hope I have made a very good case that the Bath court should stay open.

Leveson Inquiry

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I think I have the figures. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Committee divided at the end—10 in favour, and 7 against. I would point out, however, that among the seven were Lord Black of Brentwood and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who I think my hon. Friend will find are not necessarily totally in agreement with his particular viewpoint.

The Hunt-Black proposals are no longer on the table. I agree with Lord Leveson that they were not sufficiently independent. It is clear that the new body has to be completely independent of the press, and it has to have a board that does not have serving editors on it. There are elements where a new body could have some kind of statutory support. Some hon. Members may have seen the comments of Shami Chakrabarti, who talked about how a body could have statutory recognition. I would draw the House’s attention to the submission made to the Leveson inquiry by Lord Hunt, in which he pointed out that the Irish Defamation Act 2009 contains a provision that recognises the activity of the Irish Press Council and allows the courts to take account of

“the extent to which the person adhered to the code of standards of the Press Council and abided by the determinations of the Press Ombudsman and determinations of the Press Council.”

That seems to me entirely sensible. It is a way of giving the press incentives to join such a body. However, Lord Hunt went on to say:

“I do not believe this in any way crosses a ‘red line’ for those of us who have serious qualms about a statutory regulator: the Press Council in the Republic of Ireland may be recognised in a statute, but it is not created by it.”

That, essentially, is the difference in this matter. It is a question of whether we trust the press to establish a truly independent body with real powers that will be able to punish breaches of the code, and that the press will abide by it, or whether we believe that the press will not go along with that, and that therefore there must be statutory support. It is not a question of powers; there is no difference between what is on the table in terms of the powers available to the body and what Leveson recommends. It is merely a question of whether we trust the body, and the press, to go along with it. If we do not, we support the idea of statutory regulation. However, we must be clear about the fact that starting to legislate over the press would be a huge step for us to take.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that protecting journalists’ sources is a fundamental principle of investigative journalism? Leveson seems to want to throw that out of the window if the information has been “stolen”. Does he realise that under such a system none of the expenses scandal involving the House of Commons would have emerged, and is that not very worrying indeed?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I agree. I think that there are serious practical problems with some of Lord Leveson’s recommendations, and the hon. Lady has highlighted one of them. The whole area of data protection raises some very big questions. There is also the question of whether Ofcom should have any involvement in press regulation. I think that Ofcom itself would have severe misgivings about that, because it is not what it was set up to do. It was set up to do an entirely different job. It is a Government-appointed regulatory body, and even if it acts as a backstop regulator, that will be giving a Government-appointed body, the chairman of which is appointed by the Secretary of State, a role in the regulation of the press.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

My hon. Friend has made himself an authority in this area. He will know, therefore, that international experience is different from what he has described. The relationship between the level of crime and the level of incarceration differs across the world. The experience of countries such as Germany, Spain, Finland, Netherlands and Canada, and the state of New York, tends to contradict his analysis, while the experience of Florida and Denmark tends to support it. There is no clear evidence of such a simple relationship as he suggests.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

How many prisoners who come under the category of “prisoners protesting innocence” have gone way over their tariff, with the Parole Board refusing to release them because they refuse to admit that they were guilty, even though some of them may have served 25 years?

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I do not know the precise answer and suspect that it would be difficult to get the precise data to analyse the problem. There is such a problem, not least with sex offenders, who are often reluctant to engage with the system and often protest their innocence when they are not innocent. It is a problem to get such people to engage with offender behaviour programmes. The hon. Lady is right that there is a class of prisoner who does not engage in that way, rightly or wrongly, and who presents the system with particular problems. I will follow up that matter.

Data Protection in the Areas of Police and Criminal Justice (EU Directive)

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I will deal with that, but in deciding whether to exercise the opt-out, the Government looked at the most pessimistic reading of events. The conclusion to which my right hon. Friend refers has been before the European Scrutiny Committee, but that impact assessment does not take into account some of the consequences that would flow if we exercised an opt-out. I shall talk about those consequences later in my speech, but they include negotiating all the bilateral data protection arrangements that would be required were we not party to the directive.

Having held the responsibility of Europe Minister, my right hon. Friend, of all people in this House, will understand the complexity of the legal basis—complexity that has increased considerably since he and I were serving in the Foreign Office together, I as a special adviser and he as a Minister. If he will forgive me, I will get my arguments on the record, give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to contribute in the light of that, then respond to their remarks at the end of the debate. I will therefore resist taking too many interventions. This area is complex enough without adding further to that complexity—

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Blunt]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, let me get our position on the measure on the record, then I will be able to respond to interventions and points made in a more disciplined way.

It is the Government’s view that the proposed data protection directive can be classified as a Schengen building measure; therefore, under protocol 19 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which governs how the Schengen acquis are integrated into the UK framework, the UK does have the option of opting-out of the directive. The deadline for notifying the Council of the European Union of an opt-out decision is 14 May.

The Government's position is that the continued ability to share information on crime and justice matters between nations is of fundamental importance. In an increasingly globalised world, crime does not stop at national borders, but reaches across jurisdictions and involves people of many different nationalities. The Government therefore support proportionate, clear and coherent data protection rules that keep personal data safe, protect the rights of citizens and enable our police to pursue criminals to protect the lives and interests of our citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

If we were outside the directive, our ability to negotiate essential data-sharing agreements, such as we are in the process of doing on the passenger name records directive and the European Union third-country passenger name records agreements, could be significantly undermined. Equally fundamental, exercising our opt-out on this measure could throw our participation in other, broader Schengen measures into question and the Council could take the decision not allow us to continue to participate in valuable data-sharing arrangements under the police co-operation provisions of Schengen. This would be a serious problem for our law enforcement agencies, which benefit from the sharing of criminal data under Schengen.

It is therefore our careful collective judgment, based on the most pessimistic view of costs and benefits, shared with the European Scrutiny Committee, that our national interests are best served by participating in this directive so that we are party to the framework governing data-sharing for policing and criminal justice across the European Union.

[Kate Hoey]

I thought it was this Government’s policy to bring back gradually more powers from Europe. The directive is gobbledegook to most people and seems to me to be expensive and to do nothing at all for the safety of this country. Why are we going down this road?

[Mr Blunt]

I am afraid I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The directive is important for the security of our citizens. I will go on to give an example of the kind of co-operation that we wish to protect under these arrangements. If we are not party to these arrangements, we will have to start negotiating at least 27 bilateral arrangements, which would take us to precisely the same place as the directive, without the benefit of negotiating under the directive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who is just leaving the Chamber, made an excellent speech. I agreed with practically every word he said, as I did with the hon. Member for Stone, who outlined that the way in which the measure is being put through the House is totally against the way in which the new Government supposedly intended to treat European legislation. That is wrong but rather typical of Governments. This Government and the previous one, and everybody in the establishments of the parties at the top level, want to avoid a genuine debate––and certainly any debate in the country––and rush measures through.

I, too, read the directive checklist for analysis on EU proposals. I happen to feel sorry for poor Mr John Bowman, who is the lead policy official who wrote it, because everything in it points towards why we should not support the motion to not opt out of the directive. That is not just because of the cost analysis, but it is worth quoting that for the public, who may well be listening. It states:

“The proposals would impose substantial costs which would largely fall on the criminal justice agencies”

and ultimately on the taxpayer.

The checklist also states:

“The overall impact is likely to be substantially negative”.

I heard not one single word from the Minister on that. He should have listened to the previous European debate just an hour and a half ago, when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury took many questions and ended up getting a lot more information. This Minister simply wanted to get through his speech and was prepared only very rarely to give way. He did not in any way respond to all the arguments against supporting this motion tonight.

The ministerial sign-off—presumably by the Minister tonight—reads:

“I have read the analysis above of the potential impacts of this proposal and I am satisfied that, given the significance of the proposal, the time and evidence available, and the uncertainty of the outcome of negotiations, it represents a proportionate view of possible impacts.”

That is precisely why the people of this country are sick, sore and tired of everything that this Parliament does on the European Union.

If the outcome of the case of the Romanian rapist, who has suddenly become a very famous person tonight—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) also mentioned him—was possible before we had this directive, why do we need it? The system worked perfectly well in that case. It even worked for the Albanian head chopper. It seems to me that we are struggling for reasons to prove that this directive will help, but the real reason we are pushing it through quickly is, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth said, that there is a whole raft of European Union regulations coming that we will have to make a decision on and this Government know that on their Back Benches, and increasingly on this side I am glad to say—although there are none here tonight apart from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East—resentment is felt towards the European Union and its regulations, its burden and its undemocratic nature. The Government therefore want to get this through as quickly as possible.

I cannot understand why we cannot have bilateral agreements. If we have the agreements there already, why cannot we strengthen them?

[Henry Smith]

Is it not the case that if we opt in to this directive, it will be a one-way decision that we cannot back out of? It will be decided through qualified majority voting, so we may not get exactly the sort of directive that would suit the United Kingdom, which is yet another reason.

[Kate Hoey]

I absolutely agree, and that is precisely what some of us wanted to ask the Minister about, but he was not prepared to take interventions. I hope that he will respond to some of these questions. He himself said that he does not like bits of it—some of it is excessively bureaucratic and it is far too prescriptive. He said that the Government do not like the domestic aspect of it, but that they will negotiate. He actually thinks that we are going to believe that we would manage to change very much of this, when the reality is that we rarely change things and we ultimately give in. We will give in on this. If this is put through tonight, no matter how much we decide that it is not a good thing, we can do nothing about it.

It is an absolute disgrace that after a one and a half hour debate, and my party refusing to even vote on it, this will be pushed through. This is just one more sign. I remind the House of the people’s pledge campaign, which is all-party—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East. We are keen to see a referendum on the European Union. It is holding by-election-type referendums across the country. In Thurrock, just before Easter, 90% of the people who voted—in a higher turnout than in most local elections—voted for an in/out referendum. Anyone who has been watching this debate tonight and listening to the arguments put by the Minister will even more strongly believe that we need a referendum and an opportunity for the people to decide their destiny.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

EU Criminal Policy

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said one very wise and pertinent thing. It was not the only wise and pertinent thing he said, but it was one that struck me, and that was that it is almost invariably the case that it is undesirable to introduce into a mature and well-developed legal system another layer of legislation that is already covered satisfactorily by domestic legislation.

I recall that in the 1990s I had practical experience of such an occasion, when the European Union introduced its own sanctions on Serbia. It introduced a directly applicable regulation in exactly the territory on which this country had already legislated under the United Nations Act 1946. I recall that the case in which I took part challenged the domestic legislative regime on the basis that it occupied territory in which the European Union had legislated and that the two regimes, minutely analysed, could not be seen to be compatible. Not only were they not compatible in their substance, but they were incompatible in the sense that it is well-established case law in the European Court of Justice that any legislative activity by the European Union must take precedence and primacy not only in the substance of its impact and effect but in its appearance. In other words, the legislative authority of any particular action in a member state, once the European Union has legislated, must be seen to emanate from the European Union. To that extent, it is an extremely intolerant legislative authority.

That means that one must examine extremely carefully—I see that the Secretary of State for Justice is doing so as regards the market abuse framework—whether the introduction of European Union law into a sphere that is already occupied by domestic legislation will cause such a complicated unintended consequence. I recall that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the time was poised with an order to lay before the House in case the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Appeal accepted the arguments that I and others were advancing. He was ready to go that morning, because of the chaos that would have ensued had the domestic legislation been struck down as incompatible with the European Union’s legislative action.

It is extremely undesirable that that should happen and, having listened to the various balances that have been struck by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is so often proved, even after many years, to be right, I prefer the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. The Commission has a cavernous maw into which legislation is sucked into a black hole along with our rights, prerogatives and spheres of sovereignty. I am strongly concerned about the consequences for this Government if they continue with their policy of opt-ins, as was observed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed a few moments ago.

When a country opts in to a sphere of competence of the European Union, it does not opt in merely to a different wording or to some dilute or mild consequence of that kind. It opts in lock, stock and barrel to the hegemony of the European Union institutions, by which I mean the European Court of Justice, the Commission and the rest of it. That might attract complacent smiles on the Opposition Benches—and even on the Government Benches—but just think of what legislative territory is already included. Firearms control—which has not been mentioned so far, but which is covered by a series of European directives—organised crime, VAT, drug trafficking and money laundering are all covered by extensive directives and directly applicable regulations. There is not a Crown court in this country that is not, as we speak, preoccupied with such trials. If we opt in, we are opting in to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and enabling it to examine our procedures in our Crown courts and see whether they comply with the minimum rules that this policy will set down.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I have listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman and I agree with everything he has said so far. Does he agree that the most iniquitous thing about all this continuing opting in and moving into an ever-closer European Union for this country is the fact that the British people have never given their permission for that to happen? Does he agree that that is what we should really be arguing for now?

[Mr Cox]

I do agree. The fundamental underlying principle that should exercise all Members of this House when it comes to criminal law powers being assumed by a supranational organisation is that what is or is not criminal, and what is or is not an action that puts an individual citizen of this nation beyond the pale of the criminal law, should be a matter for this House. It is to this House that citizens of this country entrust the moral judgments that underlie decisions about what should be criminalised and what should not. We are directly accountable to that citizenry, whereas the institutions of the European Union are not. That is why I have come to this debate to sound a note of caution and warning. That is also why, having listened to the different expressions of caution that have been so well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who chairs the Select Committee on Justice, I prefer the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.

There is no doubt but that a vast field is already occupied by the European Union, and if we see a panoply of institutional responsibility and jurisdiction introduced into the criminal law, we will be exposing our procedures, our rules of evidence and our very jury trial itself to challenge in the European Court of Justice as not complying with the minimum rules set down. That might not happen this year or the next, but the European Union thinks in terms not just of one decade, but of decades and decades; it proceeds slowly. That is why, like Cassandra, or like Balaam’s ass, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone so often stands in our way—or indeed, like the angel that prevented Balaam’s ass from going on, he beckons to us and indicates that we would do well to think very carefully before we simply approve policies of this kind without understanding that there is an underlying caution that we should always exercise.