Data Protection in the Areas of Police and Criminal Justice (EU Directive)
Baroness Hoey Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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—
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.
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.
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.
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.
EU Criminal Policy
Baroness Hoey Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Baroness Hoey Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I entirely support what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree that this will be particularly bad law because it is going to be retrospective? It will apply to people who are squatting at the moment, and who thought that they were doing so legally. The House should not be pushing through this legislation in this ridiculous way, without scrutiny.
John McDonnell
I believe that it will damage a large number people’s lives, some of whom are squatting at the moment for no other reason than that they are homeless. They will be criminalised by this retrospective legislation, which is something that I thought Members of all political parties across the House had rejected.
What will be the effect of the new law on squatters’ lives? We know that many, although not all, vulnerable people live chaotic lives. They will be fined up to £5,000 or face up to a year in prison. Not many will have the resources to pay the fine, so prison will be a reality for a significant number of them. I have heard no estimate from the Government of the extent to which this will swell prison numbers. I fear that people will be drawn into a cycle of squatting and going to prison. One third of people coming out of prison have no home to go to, so they will get back into the squatting cycle.
I hope that the House will not pass the new clause into law, but if it is determined to do so, I have tabled amendments to ameliorate its impact. Amendment (a) would provide that squatting remains a civil matter in all residential buildings that had been left empty long term and were not being brought back into use. This would ensure that residential buildings that had been lived in recently or that were being brought back into use would be covered by the criminal law. That includes the question of refurbishment that was raised earlier.
I have looked at the statistics cycle over the past five years and found that, on average, between 650,000 and 700,000 residential properties stood empty during that time. Most are private properties, and 300,000 have been empty for more than six months. When there are 40,000 homeless families, 4,000 people sleeping rough in the capital, and 1.7 million households on waiting lists, desperate for decent accommodation, it is immoral that private owners should be allowed to let their properties stand empty for so long. My amendment could force those irresponsible owners to bring their properties back into use. More importantly, it would mean that desperate people who need a roof over their heads would not be criminalised for resorting to occupying a property that was being wasted by its owner.
It is not for me to criticise the Speaker, of course, but I regret that my amendment (b) was not selected. I had hoped to try to persuade the House to protect the most vulnerable people in our society from being dragged into the courts, but I am sure that there were good reasons for not selecting it, and perhaps it will be debated in another place.
My amendment (c) would address the fact that the present wording of the new clause criminalises those who are currently squatting in a residential building. It is one of the principles of good government that retrospective legislation is unjust. I should like to quote from article 11, subsection 2, of the universal declaration of human rights:
“No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time it was committed.”
There is a basic injustice about retrospective legislation, and I hope that the House will accept that and address it at some stage in this Bill’s consideration.
Finally, there is a mounting housing crisis. I criticised the last Government as much as this one for their failure to address the supply of decent housing. We have got the return of appalling housing conditions in my constituency—overcrowding, high rents and the return of Rachmanite landlords. People are desperate and will resort at times to any means to put a decent roof over their and their family’s heads. Squatting is sometimes the only way. People should not be criminalised for wanting a decent home.
The new clause is being rushed through Parliament. The Secretary of State launched in July a consultation on a range of proposals to criminalise squatting. The consultation ended in October. More than 2,000 responses were received, 90% of them opposed to the Government’s proposals. Clearly, there has been no serious consideration of the consultation responses because the clause was brought forward only three weeks after the consultation closed. This is rushed legislation, and rushed legislation, as I have said, is generally poor or bad legislation. The consultation, if it had been properly taken into account, made it clear that the current laws were sufficient to deal with any abuse. Professionals, police and others have told us so. My fear is that we now risk putting people on the streets and possibly into prison because our society has failed to provide them with a decent home. If this clause goes through tonight, I believe that many will regret it.
I give notice that I wish to press amendment (a) to a vote.
Tom Brake
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, which provides its own explanation.
The final point that I wish to make is about the retrospective nature of the provision as, again, it is an area that the Government need to examine carefully. As we have not had an in-depth debate here tonight, I suspect that it may well be a point that is examined much more closely when the matter is raised in the other place.
Kate Hoey
I, too, wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the way in which he spoke, because this issue too often becomes one of exaggeration, where inaccurate things are said on both sides. He gave a very reasoned outline of why this coalition Government are rather silly in proposing this measure at this time and in this way. I, too, have been in this place a long time and I have seen legislation go through as a knee-jerk response to something that has happened. Very often people later regret very much that such legislation went through.
It is quite wrong that something that has been introduced so recently, and where a substantial number of people in a consultation—90% of them—were opposed to it, is being put through in this way. As everyone else has said, this is, in reality, a Second Reading debate. No scrutiny will be provided in the House of Commons on the detail, so all these questions are being raised by different people about different aspects of it and we will not get a full answer. We are abrogating our duty and our responsibilities as Members of Parliament if we allow this measure to go through and hope that it will be dealt with in the other place. I am disappointed that Labour’s Front-Bench team is not taking a more robust view on this measure. There is always a danger for politicians in that regard, because they may worry about what the headline will say, but sometimes the headline is totally inaccurate and sometimes it has been devised because of the inaccuracies, the half-truths and the mistruths that have been put around over a period of time. Even at this stage, I hope that the Labour Front-Bench team will consider amendment (a) seriously.
I believe that the retrospective nature of the measure is quite wrong. I also believe that there is squatting and squatting. The public see the difference in the kind of squatting that we have all condemned, whereby people take over someone’s house because they are away on holiday. However, there is already a law to prevent that from happening and those Members of Parliament who say that that has not been observed in their area should talk to the police because it means that the police are not enforcing the law.
The kind of squatting that I support is the kind that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) mentioned, when large blocks of flats and houses that have deliberately been emptied early by a local authority or a private developer sit empty for months or years waiting either for some work to be done or to be knocked down. I see absolutely no reason why people who have come to London as the capital city of their country to try to get work and to live but who have nowhere to live and no chance of getting a local authority flat or of affording a private sector property should not live in those empty properties. Most of those squatters would be perfectly willing to sign something saying that they will move out as soon as work is to start. Instead, we see such places being left empty for years.
I am very sad indeed that we are seeing this knee-jerk response and that the Government are trying to introduce this measure so quickly. They will live to regret it and I hope that even tonight, at this late stage, Members who have come along thinking that there was no debate to be had and that this was a matter of, “Let’s just get this through”, will think very carefully and will at the very least support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I rise to support new clause 26 and I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) who, along with myself, have moved this matter up the agenda. I am grateful that the Minister has listened and that we now have some clarification over this area of law.
I have practised as a solicitor and I can tell the House that, regardless of the 1977 Act, this area of law is completely unclear. It is unclear to the police, to lawyers and to home owners and it certainly is not working. Millions of home owners will be grateful that the new clause is, I hope, going to reach the statute book. There could be nothing worse for someone returning from a holiday than to find that their home has been occupied by squatters. Insult is then added to injury if they are told by their lawyer that they need to embark on a long and complicated civil law procedure, and a costly procedure at that.
I note the point that has been made by Opposition Members about there being doubt about the exact numbers of properties that are occupied by squatters, but the fact remains that if a home owner returns to their property to find it occupied by squatters, it is 100% occupied by squatters and the overall statistics are, frankly, irrelevant.
Let me make one further point about the amendment on which I understand we are to divide. It provides that an offence would not be committed
“where the building has been empty for six months or more”.
One point that has already been touched on is of real concern to many people. When a family member dies and leaves a property empty the personal representatives might have to wait many months—often longer than six months—before they can obtain a grant of letters of administration. There are many instances of properties being occupied by squatters in that time and, for that reason if no other, I hope that the House will reject the amendment. The new clause is a great step forward. It is often said that an Englishman’s home is his castle and I hope that this will help to reinforce that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Hoey Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Djanogly
A number of the consultations did address this issue, including those with the judges, so we are acting to contain an avenue for abuse which my hon. Friend identifies. The Government intend to remove legal aid for immigration and asylum judicial reviews, where there has been an appeal or judicial review to a tribunal or court on the same issue or a substantially similar issue within a period of one year, as well as for judicial reviews challenging removal directions, subject to certain exceptions.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
As we are talking about immigration appeals and judicial reviews, what message does it send out to the law-abiding member of the public when someone such as Phillip Machemedze, that appalling Zimbabwean who was responsible for torturing, killing and doing dreadful things in Zimbabwe, is told by a judge that he cannot be sent back because he might be tortured or his human rights might be affected? Surely immigration and asylum is about people who have behaved well and are running away from tyranny, and not about people who are part of that tyranny.
Mr Djanogly
Where human rights are concerned and where someone risks being terrorised in their country of origin—I am not saying that it is right or wrong that they should go back—it is right that they receive legal aid to defend their interests.