Syrian Refugees

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The intention is that responsibility for determining that will be with the UK and the UNHCR, working together. The UNHCR will identify cases and we will work with it to identify whether the UK could provide the necessary support in those cases and therefore take them on board. The intention is not to separate families. Obviously there might be children with particular needs, such as particular medical needs, but the intention is not to separate families.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The organisation that goes into the greatest danger and is often best placed to identify victims of torture and sexual misconduct is the International Committee of the Red Cross, which in my view is often much better than the UNHCR. What is its involvement with the UNHCR in deciding who should come to this country?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have made it clear that we will be looking at the issue primarily with the UNHCR, which I think is appropriate, because it is on the ground and identifying vulnerable individuals, but I hope that the International Committee of the Red Cross will work with it to ensure—

[Bob Stewart]

It is better at doing that.

[Mrs May]

I hear what my hon. Friend says and recognise his experience when it comes to people who are displaced and vulnerable as a result of conflict. We will of course look to ensure that the Red Cross and the UNHCR work together to identify the cases that are appropriate for the UK.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and I particularly take on board his last exhortation. He is absolutely right: when it comes to national security, party politics should recede into the background and the common interest of Members of Parliament, whether acting as legislators or residents—or as parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) reminded us—should guide us in our deliberations.

The TPIMs debate is finely balanced. I took part in the Bill Committee on what is now the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, and I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which this week will publish its post-legislative report on the Act’s implementation. While it would be wrong of me to pre-empt its findings, personally, I can offer some opinions on where the balance needs to be struck. I am sure that the first principle that needs to be emphasised is accepted by most, if not all, Members. The fundamental basis from which we all start must be the rule that individual freedom should be curtailed only where there are reasonable grounds for arrest or sufficient evidence to charge a suspect, or where custody is the only appropriate sentence after a finding of guilt. Any departure from that rule has to be exercised sparingly and within the narrowest parameters, and cannot involve indefinite or permanent deprivation of liberty. Balanced against that important principle has to be the duty of the state and its agents to safeguard us in our daily lives, which is why the activities of our security and intelligence services deserve our strong support and praise.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have seen people locked up for a long time. When they come out, their resentment and aggression can grow, and what worries me is our assumption that the aggression and resentment of these six people, after two years on TPIMs, will have lessened. I am worried about them just being released.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend’s point allows me to make two observations. First, we have to be careful, in setting the parameters of any orders we impose, not to heighten the sense of grievance; and secondly and most importantly, the Government have to take other measures, in terms of the resources given to the security and intelligence services, the work done by Prevent and the counter-terrorism work done day in, day out to supplement the TPIMs regime. Is there not a danger that in dwelling on the detail of TPIMs, we ignore the bigger picture and the Government’s welcome injection of extra resources into this area of activity?

The constant vigilance of our security services is not only underpinned by statute, but, as the Home Secretary said, exercised by use of the royal prerogative, which is still the residual source of authority for Government activity in this area and which I know is used daily. The motion calls on the Government to share with the Intelligence and Security Committee the full assessment of the threat or otherwise posed by the six individuals who are to exit the TPIMs regime imminently, and then subject it to a cross-party review. However well intentioned that might be, to link such a process with individual cases is misconceived, because it risks bringing a Committee of Parliament into the field of operations. It is the job of parliamentary Committees to consider the strategy and the legal structure; it is not their job to consider operational matters, and I can see any cross-party review falling foul of that problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee.

A number of principles are at the heart of what we stand for, which is the way of life for which we are fighting. We may not agree on all of them, but one of them, surely, is that people are innocent until proven guilty. That is how our legal system starts. No matter how awful the crime of which someone is accused, that person should have his day in court, and should be found guilty or not guilty. However, Labour Members have spoken up against that in the House. They have said that when someone has never been convicted of a crime, the key should be thrown away. When we were discussing the legislation in Committee, the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe)—I am pleased to see that he is in the Chamber now—said

“there are times when people have to be outside the legal framework.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2011; c. 57.]

I do not agree with that as a principle for the rule of law in this country.

[Bob Stewart]

May I point out that it is not just members of the Labour party who are very concerned when people say that they want to do us harm and we cannot obtain evidence against them? I say that we must do something to keep those people out of harm’s way so that they do not harm our people.

[Dr Huppert]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but I hope he would stand up for the rule of law, because it is fought for in many places. People who have committed terrorism offences, of which there is a huge range, should be tried, and if they are convicted they should go to jail for a long time. That is the best place for someone who is dangerous.

UN Syrian Refugees Programme

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman says that many countries are doing more, but I do not know who he could mean. We are providing more support to the neighbouring countries in the region than any other country except the United States of America. Of the 28 member states of the European Union, we were until very recently providing more financial support than the rest of the EU combined. That is a record of which we can be proud, and on which we lead.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I totally support the Government in the amount of humanitarian aid that they are providing, but let us be quite clear that the key to sorting this problem out is to stop the war. That will happen when one side or the other wins, but there is now a stalemate within Syria. Probably the only way ahead will be through a United Nations Security Council resolution. How are we going to get such a resolution, which would be the first step towards stopping what is happening in that very sad country?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman’s question was extremely interesting, but it was a tad distant from the question of refugees. Perhaps with a degree of licence, however, and knowing the dexterity of the Minister, we can hear his response.

Immigration (Bulgaria and Romania)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Mills]

My hon. Friend is right. The idea behind those nations wanting to join the European Union was to grow their economies and to provide better living standards for their people. That must be harder to do if what looks like the best option for their brightest people is to leave for a better wage elsewhere.

I return to the test that was run two years ago. If we were to apply it now, with the excellent unemployment data from the end of November announced this week—we all accept and welcome those figures, which are a great improvement on where we were at the start of this Parliament, or even on the position two years ago, or at the start of the year—employment would be at about 72%, which is still down on where it was before the recession. Unemployment is still 7.4%, which is well up on the 5.1% before the recession; the claimant count is still at 4%, compared with 3%; and vacancies are up to 545,000, which is still down on 621,000. My contention is that if the treaty had allowed us to extend the restrictions for a further period, I can see no reason why we would not have sought to retain them, in the light of that analysis.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for letting me intervene, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. The real dilemma is that as our economy picks up, so will the attractiveness of coming to this country. That is almost a problem: as we get better, more people will want to come here. Does he agree?

[Nigel Mills]

That is one of those welcome problems, in that we all want our economy to be growing so strongly that we become a much more attractive place—but there are clearly downsides in dealing with the legacies of recession, with unemployment and especially youth unemployment still far higher than we might like. We need to get our own people who are struggling into the jobs that growth generates.

To return to my contention, if the treaty had allowed the restrictions to continue for a further period, I am in little doubt that we would have wanted to extend them, if we could, and that brings us to my next point. We signed that treaty a decade ago, but we had not at that point predicted a catastrophic recession, which would take many years to recover from—we are still trying to recover from it—and we had not appreciated just what the level of immigration from the previous accession wave would be, which was far in excess of our estimates. I suspect that had we known those two things when we were signing the treaty, we would never have agreed to restrictions on those two countries being lifted so soon or at this point in the economic cycle.

The question becomes, does Parliament say, “We have to accept that we approved the treaty”—it was passed by this House—or actually do we have the right to say, “With hindsight, that was a mistake and it is now not in our national interest to continue with what we agreed”? We need to change that. Let us simply keep the restrictions already in place for a further defined period—that is a proportionate response to a clear problem—at least until our economy is fully recovered from the shock experienced in the recession. That is not an unreasonable or disproportionate thing to do.

It is worth noting that I was only trying to keep the restrictions that have been in place since Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU. That would not stop completely people from those two countries finding work here. If able to find work in this country and get a work permit, they have been permitted to work here since they joined the EU—that would not change. So my suggestion of not lifting restrictions that are already in place is proportionate at this point. If the Government are not minded to accept that relatively gentle and proportionate measure, I sincerely hope that they think again in the two weeks left before the new year and try to find some other way of keeping the restrictions.

Some interesting policy ideas have been announced as different ways to tackle the problem. I was quite attracted by the idea that accession countries whose gross domestic product per capita is well below the EU average should not get full access to freedom of movement until their GDP was nearer the EU average—perhaps three quarters of the average. That would tackle the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), because it would mean that the brightest people in those countries could not leave; they would have to stay there and find ways to grow their own economy.

The gross national income per capita in both Bulgaria and Romania is about $16,000, compared with our GNI of $37,000, so those two countries would fail the test, were we to apply it now. That test is attractive, but its prospective introduction would not fix the problem that might well hit us from 1 January. Surely it would therefore be better to keep the restrictions we have in place while we are trying to achieve those reforms.

The second idea, which was leaked this week, was to have a cap on EU migration. Again, that is an attractive idea and one that, I suspect, would contribute greatly to enabling us to meet our target of net migration in the tens of thousands, although there would be some practical issues with enforcing a cap, and I suspect that other EU member states might not be as keen on the idea. But I find it intriguing that although it is seemingly impossible to try, in response to a clear issue in our employment market, to keep in place for a bit longer restrictions that have been allowed until now by the accession treaty, it is thought that a complete and utter unravelling of freedom of movement—even between the main western European nations—might be possible. I am afraid that I am not so optimistic that we could achieve that aim in a renegotiation; but even if it could, it is a measure for a long time in the future, not one that can help us out in the coming years if large amounts of people decide to come here.

Finally, I have some questions for the Minister. I understand that Governments have had their fingers burnt making estimates in the past, but will he set out whether the Government believe that a large number of people from Romanian and Bulgaria will try to come to the UK when the restrictions are lifted? Independent estimates suggest figures of between 30,000 and 70,000 people a year for the next five years, which would put the total at something like 350,000. I do not expect an accurate assessment, but do the Government think that number is way over the top, is an underestimate or is about right? The people of this country want to know whether their fears are unrealistic or entirely realistic.

Given that nearly all western European nations have kept the restrictions in place until the last minute, I would presume that those countries fear that there might be an issue. It is also worth noting that Romania and Bulgaria will not be joining Schengen on 1 January, as they were meant to, again because of concerns across Europe about what that might entail.

Modern-day Slavery

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point and I hope that the Department for International Development will take note of it.

Tragically, behind the global sexualisation of young children lies increasing demand. One of the reasons for this is online pornography. A brothel owner in South Africa explained how men visiting from across the globe increasingly demand younger girls. The men want to re-enact fantasies developed by watching online pornography and are making ever more violent and sadistic requests of girls. I ask the Minister to encourage the National Crime Agency to be vigilant and do what it can to stop this illegal pornographic content. I realise how difficult that is, but we need to be aware of it as a root cause of some of the increasing sex tourism and abuse of young children globally.

Another possible answer is to look at the mainstream media’s attitude to prostitution. On the surface many, if not most, people would say that a man visiting a prostitute is socially unacceptable, but under the surface films such as “Pretty Woman” and television programmes suggest an inexplicable social acceptability of such actions. Society’s attitude needs to shift on this issue.

Grooming can lead to terrible abuse and for those at risk education is key. Education is also important for the general public both here and abroad, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said. If people travel abroad and are aware of abuse, they have as much a duty to report it to the authorities there as they do here. If people, particularly UK nationals, are guilty of this offence here, they are equally guilty abroad.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

People should report such matters in this country, as well as to the authorities abroad.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent point—I fully agree.

I commend the work of Sandbach high school in my constituency, where a group of young students, led by an inspirational teacher, have for several years been encouraged to educate their peers in school about the dangers of grooming and what it can lead to. They have conducted a national campaign, which has been recognised by the Red Cross, to raise awareness of the terrible plight of trafficked and abused young women in enforced prostitution. I encourage Ministers to look at a Nordic model that seeks to educate young people through schools, and by other means, to understand better this terrible trade, and to understand that in paying for sex they may be paying to rape a victim of human trafficking who is enslaved.

Our police forces need more education, too. I was pleased to receive a reply to an inquiry I made a short time ago to the Cheshire constabulary, stating that it now has a specifically appointed member responsible for human trafficking. However, I understand that he has had no formal training. That again means that we have no teeth to enforce legislation in our county. As hon. Members have said, this trade can happen anywhere, anytime and in any part of our country. It is therefore vital that the Home Secretary, as part of the modern slavery Bill, ensures that training is given to our police forces, so they are fully aware of the new provisions and powers. It is no good having legislation if there is not the capacity to enforce it.

It is important that, within DFID funding programmes to educate girls in the countries that we support through our funding, there is an awareness of the dangers of trafficking. We have gone to enormous lengths in this country to promote the education of young girls. It is accepted that if we can give girls an education, we can transform a community. We need to ensure that this issue is part of that education programme. A few months ago, as a member of the Select Committee on International Development, I visited Ethiopia. We inspected excellent work to reduce child marriage. Traditionally, hundreds of thousands of young girls in many communities have been married at a very early age, often as young as six or a little older. Their families think that this will secure their future. In fact, it does the opposite, because they lose their education, often suffer terrible internal injuries through early sex, die in childbirth and so forth.

The Government have done an amazing amount of work to reduce the prevalence of child marriage in Ethiopia, but when we went into one school in Ethiopia and asked the head teacher, “What are your problems with child marriage?”, she said, “We have almost none, but we have a major problem with our young girls simply disappearing. We believe they are being taken to adjoining countries.” We must address that through our aid provision.

[Bob Stewart]

I am bound to speak because my wife saw such children being dragged across South Sudan when she was a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross. They were slave trains of people taking mainly Africans across towards the middle east. She told me it was quite dreadful.

[Fiona Bruce]

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example.

Sex tourism is also prevalent in Mumbai. I alert hon. Members to an excellent e-book campaign that, as vice-chair of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern day slavery, I had the privilege to launch. The campaign is called “Taken: Exposing Sex Trafficking and Slavery in India”. It is organised by a remarkable woman called Hazel Thompson, who spent 11 years in the red-light district of Mumbai. This e-book can be purchased for the price of a glass of wine through the website, takenebook.com. I commend it to hon. Members. Hazel tells of a girl who was 11 when she was trafficked from a poor village in India. Her trafficker was her mother’s friend, and she promised Guddi—the girl’s name—well-paid domestic service in Mumbai that would help feed her struggling family, but when Guddi arrived she was taken to a brothel and raped. The madam of the brothel and her daughter held her down by her arms and legs to restrain her. If Guddi and her family had known about domestic trafficking and where she was really going, her life today would be very different.

The book highlights the extensive prostitution in Mumbai, where women are kept enslaved in a tiny red-light district: 20,000 women and girls are believed to be forced to work as prostitutes in just one small network of streets, and many of them, when they first arrive, are kept in small cages, where they can barely stand up, to break them. Some of them are kept there for months. Many of these women, brought in when they are young women or girls, live there and have no hope of escape. There could be as many as 26 minders from the cage to the outside of this red-light community that they would have to get through before they could possibly escape. It is virtually impossible.

International hotels have a key role to play in addressing this terrible issue of sex tourism. Some hotels actually house brothels. They will say, “We have nothing to do with it”, but they will subcontract part of their buildings, which will then be classed perhaps as gyms or health clubs, but which will in fact be brothels. It is essential that we ensure that international hotels have nothing to do with this. I commend Hilton Worldwide for taking action, operating training programmes at both leadership and in-house levels, to teach hotel employees to identify illicit activities and better understand the issues surrounding child sex trafficking. Hotels, particularly the large international ones, must take a lead in demonstrating that they will take no part in this.

Before closing, I commend the work of some airlines. The “It’s a Penalty” campaign aims to educate tourists about international legislation while they are on British Airways flights to Brazil. There is a film with the Brazilian ambassador, with Gary Lineker and with other prominent footballers. We need to see more of this kind of constructive, innovative campaigning so that we can alert people both in this country and abroad to the fact that this is an international trade and that we must play our part in stamping it out.

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind what I said earlier, which was a statement of fact: that over the years, the courts were beginning to erode the control orders that his party had introduced. We responded to that with a package of TPIMs legislation, and, crucially, by giving extra funding to our law enforcement and security services to help them do their job of keeping the public safe.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The Human Rights Act seems to give succour to some terrorists. Is it not about time that we replaced it with a British Bill of Rights, which would probably protect our citizens much better?

[Mrs May]

As I have already made clear, I think that we should indeed consider replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights, and the Conservatives will take that policy to the next election. Meanwhile, I am taking the action that I can take to make it easier for us to deport foreign criminals in particular, and to ensure that certain aspects of the interpretation of the European convention on human rights reflect the will of this Parliament. As we know, this Parliament is on the people’s side, and that is where the law, and its interpretation, should be as well.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate briefly in this debate. I want primarily to address the issue of the EAW, which is of particular concern in Northern Ireland because of the close co-operation required between the justice Departments in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in tackling terrorism and serious organised crime, on behalf of not just Northern Ireland, but the rest of the United Kingdom.

I recognise that the Home Secretary has clearly stated her intention to opt back into the EAW, but I remain concerned at the impact of opting out without any certainty on opting back in. It may be possible for the UK to opt back into certain measures on an ad-hoc basis, but that will not be automatic and it will need authorisation from the EU. If the UK does opt back into a measure, it will have to accept re-entry criteria and the rules of the Commission and Court. Those things have to be taken into account.

The Home Secretary was unable to give the assurance sought by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) as it is not in her gift to say that we will definitely be able to opt back in; it will be for the EU to decide, in negotiation with the UK. I accept that the intention is to opt back in quickly and smoothly, but it is not possible at this point to be assured on that. The uncertainty may not matter on measures where we do not need or want to opt back in, but it is dangerous on measures that are important to this country and its security—the EAW is one such measure.

As I have indicated, there are continuing concerns in Northern Ireland about the potential opt-out from a number of key areas, particularly the EAW, and the collective impact that will have on cross-border working with the Irish Republic, in particular, and with other states. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has been very vocal in its opposition to the UK’s opting out of a number of important measures and considers it vital that the UK opts back into them as soon as possible. That view was also reflected in the ACPO paper mentioned by other Members.

The House of Lords European Union Committee report was published on 23 April, after the Committee had taken evidence from a wide range of sources. In summary, its conclusions echo the concerns that stakeholders and criminal justice practitioners in Northern Ireland have outlined. Of primary concern is the risk to the EAW; the Committee believed that that was the single most important of the measures subject to the opt-out decision. The Committee was not persuaded that alternative arrangements would address the criticisms directed at the existing European arrest warrant arrangements, and believed that it would

“inevitably render the extradition process more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety.”

The Committee also believed that the best way to achieve improvements to the EAW system was through negotiations with other member states from within. While I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State says that she is pursuing that matter, I remain concerned about the opt-out. I suspect that we would all agree that there are flaws in the EAW—I believe, however, that it worked reasonably well, and the evidence is that it did so—and deficiencies have been identified, including proportionality and the time that some nationals have spent in other jurisdictions on remand following extradition. We would all wish to see those matters reformed and addressed, but the opt-out could have significant repercussions both for the internal security of the United Kingdom and for the administration of criminal justice in the UK, and it could reduce our influence over this area of EU policy.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If the European arrest warrant did not apply, is the hon. Lady suggesting that the close relationship between the police in the Republic of Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland will be gravely affected, and they would not be able to exchange people as necessary?

[Naomi Long]

If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall come on to the specific problems that will occur if the EAW does not operate continuously. There are indeed challenges to that co-operation which are not about will but about means and process.

From a Northern Ireland perspective, this is of particular importance. Since the EAW came into force in January 2004, the PSNI has received about 265 EAWs for action in Northern Ireland, and 50 EAWs have been issued for action outside the UK. Of those 50, about 31, or 60%, have been sent to the Republic of Ireland. The PSNI believes that there are some areas in the process that could benefit from review, but overall it has said that it

“has proven to be an effective mechanism for ensuring the administration of justice across the EU jurisdiction.”

The Crown Solicitor’s Office believes that the EAW system

“works very successfully. When operated properly it can be speedy, effective and fair.”

Neither the PSNI nor the CSO believe that the UK should withdraw in any way from the current arrangement, and the pressures on the PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service and CSO manpower and costs would increase if we did so. The PSNI and the CSO are concerned about the likely alternatives to the EAW. If the UK withdrew from that system, under the designation by which member states that operate the system are regarded, we would become a category 2 state, as opposed to category 1. Extradition would then have to operate by way of formal requests from the UK Government to other countries through bilateral treaties or under the European convention on extradition. Such requests are more time-consuming to prepare and may involve the sending of witnesses to foreign jurisdictions to give evidence, possibly at significant cost.

With respect to the impact on north-south relations and north-south co-operation, which was raised by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), before the introduction of the EAW, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland followed the system known as the “backing of warrants”, which allowed an arrest warrant issued in one jurisdiction to be passed to police and endorsed or backed by a judge or magistrate in the area where the subject of the warrant lived. The Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 was repealed by section 218(a) and schedule 3 of the Extradition Act 2003. There is no reason to assume that the Irish authorities would be willing to return to such a system. The land border between the two jurisdictions necessitates speedy arrangements that may no longer be available if the European convention or a bilateral treaty were the basis of the extradition relationship. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question, because it is a significant issue. Indeed, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence in the Republic of Ireland, in discussions with the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland, has expressed concern about its impact, given the repeal of legislation that facilitated north-south extradition arrangements.

Crucially, however, Alan Shatter TD has just given up the chair of the EU Council on Justice and Home Affairs, and is therefore exceptionally well placed to gauge the Commission’s appetite for negotiating terms with the UK to opt back in. His clear and continuing concern about the opt-out should sound a note of caution for those who believe that an opt-in will be simple and straightforward. I understand that this is a reserved matter, but even when matters are reserved decisions made by the UK Government can impact on the criminal justice system in devolved settings, and nowhere more so than Northern Ireland, given that we have a land border with the Republic of Ireland and thus a vested interest in close co-operation.

The cross-border dimension is unique in the UK, and important to us. Cross-border co-operation is essential in tackling security threats and organised crime, not only in Northern Ireland but across the whole of the United Kingdom. Of the third pillar measures, the possible opt-out from the EAW is the one that causes most alarm among all stakeholders in the Government, but it creates real uncertainty if we opt out without knowing that we can opt back in or that that will be a seamless process.

I put a question to the Secretary of State after her statement last week, and she said that the matter had been discussed with the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland. However, she did not respond directly to my invitation to confirm that the Minister remained extremely concerned about any interruption to the operation of the EAW, and the impact that that would have on the justice system in Northern Ireland. It is important to talk to the Minister of Justice, and I hope that Home Office Ministers will recognise that listening and responding to what they hear in those conversations is of equal importance.

In response to my intervention today, the Home Secretary suggested that concerns arose only from the point where the Government indicated that they were going to opt out, but had not stated clearly that they intended to opt back in. That is not the case, however, and I put that on the record. Northern Irish Ministers remain concerned even though the opt-in is the Government’s stated intention. That has not allayed concerns, and there is serious uncertainty about the ability to opt in and about any delay in the opt-in process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

We would have been in a happier and more comfortable position had the Government carried out their original intention to deliver memorandums to the Committees by February of this year, followed as soon as possible by more detailed impact assessments. That was not done. The Committees had been led to believe that it would be done so they waited and waited for those things to appear, so that they could start their consideration on the basis of clear information about what the Government had been advised and which way their thinking was going.

[Bob Stewart]

Does that mean that we now have a set time by which all the Committees are to complete their consideration? For example, is the end of consideration period to be completed by the end of the year?

[Sir Alan Beith]

We have an end of consideration date at the end of October, which is clear in the motion and emerged from discussions between Committee Chairs and the Government. It was not our ideal timetable, which would have started back in February, but that is where we are now.

What we have to consider now is how best the Select Committees can do their job in drawing the attention of the House and the Government to any concerns they might have about opt-ins that are on the list and opt-outs—or not-opt-ins, if that is the right phrase—that they might wish to consider. It is for the Committees, as Ministers have confirmed, to decide how they will go about this task, but a timetable has been set.

There is still more information which can usefully be given to Committees in the form of a more detailed impact assessment than is contained, for example, in the Command Paper. We are entitled to continue to seek that, and if we do not get it, awkward questions will be asked of Ministers when they come before the Committee, in order to elicit the information that we need. Our purpose, which will be fulfilled by the exclusion of these words, was to give the Committees of the House the scope to which they are entitled, which the Government from the beginning said they would have, in order to consider these matters before the final decision is made.

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We are absolutely clear that it is not in the competence of the European Commission or the European Union to interfere in matters of national security. Those are sovereign matters that remain with the member states. I think it is right, however, that on those measures where cross-border co-operation will help us in the fight against crime—as has been the case with some of them—we should seek to continue to be part of them.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Would greater involvement in the European Court of Justice result in longer delays in the repatriation of European criminals under sentence in this country to their country of origin?

[Mrs May]

No, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice should not lead to that. The European arrest warrant in itself, of course, enables people to be extradited rather more quickly than under the previous arrangements. What is crucial with regard to the measures that I have outlined today, and those that I will outline in the amendments that will be tabled to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, is that we should give British citizens the protections and safeguards that will enable the European arrest warrant to be operated in such a way that it overcomes the problems that Members have identified in the past.

Abu Qatada (Deportation)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

It is indeed the case that other individuals were on the plane with Abu Qatada. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that having reached this stage we wanted to ensure that the deportation did in fact go ahead and went ahead successfully.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When I was an intelligence officer in Northern Ireland we spent a lot of time trying to drain the water from terrorists—in other words, the people with whom they lived. However, they were coerced and frightened. Such people may well be replicated on the mainland. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to try to identify terrorists and get them away from the society which sustains them and allows them to operate in England?

[Mrs May]

We do of course have a strategy for dealing with terrorism. The officials at the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, which is based in the Home Office, work with the police, the Security Service and the other security and intelligence agencies to make sure that we can, where possible, prevent terrorist attacks from taking place in the United Kingdom. Sadly, in the past couple of months we have of course had the incident of the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich. Prior to that, we had seen a number of plots by terrorists to do harm and to kill people here in the United Kingdom thwarted by the very good efforts of officials, police and members of the Security Service.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am now even more grateful. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall not speak at 90 mph, then. I want to take a few minutes of the Chamber’s time, because the Bill is a superb opportunity to break generational cycles of antisocial behaviour. I am changing the subject from forced marriage to how we can, through early prevention measures, stop today’s babies becoming tomorrow’s ASBO kids. The Bill rightly puts victims at the heart of our response to antisocial behaviour. However, a key part of the background to bringing in this Bill was the Government’s clear determination to focus on long-term solutions to antisocial behaviour.

In the May 2012 White Paper it was clear that the underlying issues driving antisocial behaviour, most notably mental health issues and troubled family backgrounds, should be addressed through this Bill. Not only that, but during pre-legislative scrutiny early intervention was identified as a crucial part of changing the route to antisocial behaviour, so I hope that the new clauses I will be submitting will help the Government to make even more progress in getting rid of the appalling blight of antisocial behaviour.

I want to outline why getting it right in the early stage of life could be the single biggest challenge of the 21st century. I am aware that I have touched on this subject many times in the Chamber, and thankfully I feel I am beginning to convince colleagues of its merit, but I want to touch again on what early attachment actually is. As babies we are only sensory beings. When we cry, we do not know what is wrong—that we are wet, hot, cold, tired, hungry or bored. We just know that something is wrong. Babies rely on an adult caregiver to meet their needs, to soothe them, and ultimately to help them learn that the world is a good place.

In the first year of life, the baby’s brain will form a million neural connections per second. Most of us receive good enough care from good enough parents, so our brain connections will develop into a healthy pre-frontal cortex, and we will become emotionally resilient adults, making a positive contribution to society. However, for the baby who is neglected or abused, the development of the brain will literally be stunted. Not only that, but the constantly raised level of the stress hormone cortisol, as a result of the baby being left to scream himself into exhaustion day after day, will lead to a significantly greater risk that they will suffer poor physical and mental health outcomes, and crucially in relation to today’s debate, that they will develop a high pre-disposition to high risk-taking behaviour, such as violence, substance abuse and criminality.

I want to see early intervention clauses in the Bill because what happens to the infant before the age of two has a profound effect on their later ability to contribute to society. Let me give three quick examples. First, violent criminals are shown to have a high level of tolerance to their own stress levels. Secondly, there is a study of long-term prison inmates that suggests that they have attachment problems stemming back to babyhood. Thirdly, the dramatic increase in recent years of the incidence of hyperkinetic syndrome in children points to the increasing prevalence of insecure attachment. A lack of secure attachment to a loving adult in babyhood will lead to a lack of social capacity in adulthood. All too often, unloved or neglected babies go on to have no real sense of responsibility or code of conduct, and they struggle to empathise with other people.

So much of the cost to our society of antisocial behaviour could be slashed if we focused our efforts on turning around the fate of these individuals in the perinatal period. Supporting families that are struggling to form a secure bond, via parent-infant psychotherapy, family-nurse partnership, better antenatal assessment of maternal mental health, better training for health visitors and family workers, and more joined-up working by midwives, health visitors and children’s centres, would all contribute to a better society. Such changes are cheap compared with the cost of social breakdown.

Preventing just one in 10 young offenders from entering custody would save £100 million per year. Just one adult inmate costs the taxpayer around £112 a day, and a child in care costs over £300 a day. I am afraid that too much of this Bill attempts to sort out problems once they have set in. This is the position we have got ourselves into as a society. The cost of dealing with it is vast, and reoffending rates are very high, so I urge the Government to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to overhaul the way we deal with antisocial behaviour.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend quickly outline what real, practical measures could be taken to help families in this situation, including, I presume, taking the child away if necessary?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have certainly mentioned some of the specific measures. One of the big problems at the moment, which the Children and Families Bill seeks to address—I was delighted to be part of its Bill Committee —is the need to speed up proceedings when children need to be taken away. All too often, when there are doubts about whether a baby can stay with the birth parents, social workers find it difficult to make that final decision, so the baby is repeatedly passed into and out of care. Very often, the toddler can be three or even older before a final decision is taken. They can be passed backwards and forwards, with profound and detrimental consequences for their early brain development.

That is at the very sharpest end where there are real doubts and concerns about that child’s ability to stay with their birth parents. In the less terrible cases, perhaps mum has suffered desperately from post-natal depression, perhaps she has had previous children taken away, perhaps she has a violent boyfriend, husband or partner at home who is causing her great difficulty in being able to form that secure bond with her baby. There, clearly, we need to be providing talking therapies, not drugs. All too often, when a mum presents with post-natal depression to a GP, she will be offered antidepressants, which will mean that she cannot breastfeed and she becomes something like a zombie, unable to form that vital secure bond. That has profound consequences for her infant, as I have outlined.

I urge the Government to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to overhaul the way we deal with antisocial behaviour, and to put far greater emphasis on prevention. Prevention is not only cheaper but much kinder than cure.