Home Affairs and Justice

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point that is specific to Northern Ireland. The legal structures within Northern Ireland—the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland prosecutors—are the right place for the hon. Gentleman to pursue his concerns about sentencing in Northern Ireland. We have been in significant discussions with the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and, indeed, with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the working of the National Crime Agency and how it will interact with the devolved Administrations. We have also been having discussions on that matter with others, as appropriate.

The National Crime Agency will, first and foremost, be a crime-fighting organisation. I have appointed Keith Bristow, the former chief constable of Warwickshire police, as its first director general. He will be operationally independent, but, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd), accountable to the Home Secretary and through the Home Secretary to Parliament.

I see the NCA as having three important characteristics. I would like to set them out, as they reflect some of the exchanges we have just had. First, it must have a positive effect on the safety of local communities by joining up the law enforcement response from the local to the national to the international. That will enable us to do rather better than has been the case so far. Secondly, it must act as the controlling hand, owning the co-ordinated intelligence picture, but working with the police and others to decide on the highest priority criminal targets, agreeing on the action necessary to tackle them and having the power to ensure that action is taken. Thirdly, it must bring its own contribution to the fight against serious, organised and complex crime. That means having its own intelligence-gathering and investigative capability, sophisticated technical skills, and a presence internationally, at the border and in cyberspace. That is how I believe the NCA will help cut crime and lock up criminals.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the National Crime Agency have the authority and ability to go straight into a regional police force computer and, indeed, have the authority to go in and take over an investigation if the director general feels that it should do so?

[Mrs May]

The important point for the NCA is to be able to work with police forces at various levels to ensure that where it is necessary for it to be involved in investigations, that can be done. The Bill will provide for the NCA to have the ability to task police forces around the country. I expect it to work on the basis of co-operation and collaboration. That is the basis on which SOCA and CEOP have operated, and it has worked very well so far. I expect it to be possible to achieve what we want in respect of the effective joining up and collaboration of forces with the NCA and its commands. Any action will be based on the identification through intelligence of the greatest harms, which will allow us to identify the greatest priorities where action needs to be taken.

For justice to be effective, it must also be swift and efficient, and it must be seen to be done by a criminal justice system that properly reflects our society. The Crime and Courts Bill will further set out our reforms of the courts and tribunals system to make it faster, more transparent, more representative of the communities it serves and more efficient in its use of resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be able to contribute to the debate, and I start by mentioning some comments that the Home Secretary made. I particularly welcome the Crime and Courts Bill, with its potential impact on border security, and especially serious organised crime. I have campaigned in the House for a couple of years to ban the drug khat and, as it now looks as if the sale and importation of khat has been linked to serious organised crime, I hope that the Bill will have a direct impact on that. Equally, I welcome the establishment of the National Crime Agency, which must be a step in the right direction. However, I am sure that the key there will be a strong working relationship between the NCA and other agencies.

It is perfectly reasonable for the shadow Home Secretary to stand and oppose many of the Government’s cuts; that is her choice. But I do worry that there now seems to be a pattern whereby the Opposition will go to each of the pressure groups opposing the proposals for cuts, without any explanation of how the funding deficit will be managed. We saw that today, when we seem to have established at least a £1 billion difference between the funding arrangements, with no proper explanation of whether that will equate to a rise in taxes, should the Labour Opposition become a Government again, or where perhaps cuts will come in other areas. Until that gap is bridged, it is very hard to take seriously what is being said. My constituents are not stupid, and I think over time they will realise that, as the Labour party seems to oppose everything and propose very little in return, there is something of a credibility gap.

I will not keep the House long. I apologise for focusing on the families and children Bill. I appreciate that with six days to debate the Queen’s Speech, it is for the Opposition to choose the subjects debated, and time will always be a constraint, but today seems the most opportune time to talk about the Bill. I want to focus my comments on an area that, I hope, is not contentious across the House—the changes to the adoption system. I am pleased that the Government have been to date very clear in their aims. They have said that they would like to reduce the number of adoptions that are delayed in order to achieve a “perfect”, or near, ethnic match between adoptive parents and the adoptive child; to see swifter use of a national adoption register in order to find the right adopters for a child wherever they might live; to encourage all local authorities to seek to place children with their potential adopters in anticipation of the court’s placement order; and radically to speed up the adopter assessment process, so that two months are spent in training and information gathering—a pre-qualification phase—followed by four months of full assessment; to introduce a fast-track process for those who have adopted before or who are foster carers wanting to adopt a child in their care; and finally, to develop the concept of a national gateway to adoption as a consistent source of advice and information for those thinking about adoption.

I, and I sense the whole House, will support all those aspirations. I am confident that the families and children Bill will give hope to the 4,000-plus children in care who are waiting to be adopted by a loving family. It proves that we are not just paying lip service, but acting with due urgency and care to overhaul what is at times a lengthy and damaging process.

[Bob Stewart]

It strikes me that people who are slightly older, sometimes those in their early 40s, who want to adopt a child are debarred from doing so. I want legislation to raise the age limit—perhaps even to an age as great as my own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I welcome you back to the Chair. It is great to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod). I listened to her interesting contribution, and although I may disagree on a few issues, I did agree on others. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate about the home affairs and justice elements of the Gracious Speech.

Before I come to some specifics, I wish to put on the record my general thoughts about the impact on my constituents of the Government’s proposals in the Gracious Speech. Given the country’s woeful economic position—thanks to the double-dip recession made in Downing street—my constituents will see little hope in these proposals. We face record levels of unemployment, with 1 million young people looking for work. They will see little assistance from a Government who are out of touch and fixated on giving help to millionaires but offering little to hard-pressed families.

Nothing is being proposed to get the economy back into growth, to create jobs or to tackle runaway energy bills and train fares. The picture is bleak for my constituents and other hard-working families in Britain. The Government, with such a thin programme of legislation, are effectively walking by on the other side of the road as ordinary people suffer; they are helping only their millionaire friends.

Let me first make some remarks about the Crime and Courts Bill and the proposal to set up the National Crime Agency to take on serious, organised and complex crime, enhance border security, tackle the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, and tackle cybercrime. That agency will be continuing the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which was launched by Labour in 2006, and we wish it well. However, Labour Members are concerned that the Government have taken reform in this area backwards by scrapping the National Policing Improvement Agency. Chief constables are very concerned that scrapping bodies such as the NPIA will mean losing focus on crime-fighting and having to worry about the delivery of training, IT and other services instead. The Home Secretary has refused here, in this Chamber, to answer questions to confirm the budget for the NCA. With the loss of 16,000 officers, further cuts to the NCA will only undermine it even further. The loss of 16,000 police officers from the front line will have a serious impact on efforts to tackle serious and lesser crimes as well as antisocial behaviour.

That figure of 16,000 was the number of police officers deployed on the streets of London after the riots last summer. In my constituency, the community came together powerfully in partnership with the police to protect our religious places and businesses from the wanton criminality of the riots, but I fear the consequences if there was a repeat of those events with police resources so diminished. The 12% cut proposed by the Opposition could have been made without the need to cut front-line resources and officers, and the fight against crime could have continued successfully as it did over the lifetime of the Labour Government.

[Bob Stewart]

In what way would the hon. Gentleman keep front-line policemen under the Opposition’s proposals when cuts need to be made? How would he do it?

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and I shall answer it later in my speech.

The Government talk about enhancing border security, but the complete shambles over which the Home Secretary is currently presiding gives little confidence that that can be done. Reports from Heathrow at the weekend that, in order to clear the queues at passport control, UK Border Agency staff were taken off security checks and Customs work are very worrying. My constituency, like many others throughout the UK, has a problem with drug-related crime and at the moment the Home Secretary is giving the drug barons and terrorists a clear run through Customs and our borders as she fails to get a grip on this crisis.

One other area of concern, particularly to many of my constituents, is the Government’s proposal to remove the full right of appeal for a refused family visit visa. Like many other MPs, I deal with hundreds of visa cases on behalf of my constituents who often want family to join them for important family events such as weddings and funerals. Mistakes are and will continue to be made and natural justice demands a full right of appeal. Why is that element of justice and fairness being stripped away?

Another disappointment is the absence of a forced marriage Bill in this Queen’s Speech. Again, this is an issue in my constituency, and given the Prime Ministers’ words in January, when he stated that the Government were looking to make forced marriage a criminal offence, and following the conclusion of the Home Office consultation in March, why is no Bill proposed in this next Session of Parliament?

Before I finish, let me highlight a positive aspect of the Government’s proposals. The judicial appointments reform that will increase diversity in the judiciary is very welcome and long overdue. That said, there is very little positive to focus on in the Queen’s speech. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is a message of “no hope” and “no change” and the Government

“just do not get it.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 14.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

As the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—I thank him for his kind words—predicted, I will focus my remarks today on one particular measure in one particular Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech. I have been lobbying for the measure for some months, and I hope the House will forgive me for focusing on a single issue.

On 26 June 2010, my constituent Lillian Groves, a 14-year-old girl, was killed outside her home by a driver under the influence of drugs. Subsequently, it transpired that he was driving a car that was not licensed in his name, uninsured, at 43 mph in a 30 mph zone. A half-smoked joint of cannabis was found on the dashboard, but sadly the police did not swiftly perform a drug test; only after Lillian passed away in hospital, some nine hours later, was the driver’s blood tested. Cannabis was found in his blood and he subsequently admitted to having taken cannabis, but the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that the level was not high enough—the family was never told what the level was—to warrant the more serious charge of causing death while driving under the influence of drugs. The man was charged with causing death by careless driving and causing death while driving uninsured. On 7 July, he was sentenced to just eight months in prison, and was released after serving four months.

[Bob Stewart]

When people do such things, why can we not ban them from driving for life?

[Gavin Barwell]

I think the issues here are the offence committed and changing the law. I will explain how the Queen’s Speech is doing just that, but first I will complete the narrative. The driver who killed Lillian lives locally, so the family have to confront the fact that, now that he has been released from prison, they will from time to time meet this man—who has never apologised to them for causing the death of their daughter—as they go about their business in their local community.

Lillian’s parents, Gary and Natasha, and her aunt and uncle came to see me at one of my surgeries in the autumn after the sentence had been handed down and shortly before the individual was due to be released from prison. A parent myself, I cannot say how high is the regard in which I hold the family. To suffer the tragedy of losing a child and not to be consumed by bitterness, but instead to focus on how to ensure that positive change can come out of such a terrible event, has to be commended by everyone. I also commend the Croydon Advertiser and in particular journalist Gareth Davies, who has worked with the family and designed a campaign for what they call Lillian’s law.

Lillian’s law is a package of measures. It has four elements, the first of which is a change in the law. At present, it is an offence to drive under the influence of drugs, but the law is not the same as in relation to drink-driving. There is no set level of drug in a person’s system above which they are held to be incapable of driving, so the prosecution has to prove that the person’s driving was affected by the drugs in their system, which is not easy. The second element is the licensing of equipment similar to the breathalyser alcohol test that can be used either at the roadside or in police stations. The third is a policy of tougher sentencing for those who commit such crimes, and the fourth is a series of random tests, similar to those carried out in the 1980s for drink-driving, to get across the messages, first, that it is unacceptable to drive under the influence of drugs and, secondly, that people who do so are liable to be caught.

After the family came to speak to me, I did a lot of research. To be fair, the previous Government were aware of the problem and had looked for ways to tackle it, but the work had become bogged down and a number of different Government Departments were involved. I therefore decided to go straight to the top and raised the subject in this Chamber during Prime Minister’s questions. The Prime Minister met the Groves family, took up their case and has worked with the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Department for Transport to ensure that the first key element of the package—a change in the law—is included in the Crime and Courts Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech.

At this point, I wish to pay tribute to a couple of other people. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has previously pursued the issue via a private Member’s Bill. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who have among their constituents members of the extended Groves family and have supported the campaign.

In yesterday’s debate on the Queen’s Speech, the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps understandably, quoted remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), who said that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were

“two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition, and no passion to understand the lives of others.”

I am very disappointed that my hon. Friend said those words. I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition quoted them, but I hope that he and other Opposition Members do not personally believe them. My experience is that Members on both sides of the House have a passion for understanding the lives of others and changing our country for the better. When we try to pretend that the motives of people who disagree with us about the means of doing so are malign, we do politics as a whole a disservice.

The experience of the Groves family, when they met the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street, was not of someone who did not have a passion to understand the lives of others, or of someone who, as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, was standing up “for the wrong people.” They met one of the very few Members of this House who can personally understand the experience that they have been through in losing their child—someone who took a great deal of time to listen to what they had to say and to understand the issue, and who then took up their cause. On a personal level, on their behalf, I thank the Prime Minister for what he has done. I would like to ask my hon. Friends on the Front Bench detailed questions about where we go from here.

I understand that drugs-testing devices for police stations are already being tested. Perhaps Ministers could give an update on how that testing is going. Will they indicate when they might be in a position to begin testing devices for use at the roadside? I understand that an expert panel is looking at what levels should be set for each drug. That applies to illegal drugs and some prescription drugs that, if taken in significant quantities, make it unsafe to drive a car. I wonder if we could have an update on the progress that that panel is making. I would also be interested to hear what the proposed sentencing policy is for the new offence that will be set out in the Bill.

I have about two and a half minutes left, so I should like to end by making a few comments on what the shadow Home Secretary had to say about police cuts, and on some of the questions that she fielded from Government Members. She tried to contend that Government Members do not know or understand the pressures that the police forces are under. In relation to my local borough operational command unit, I spent three days during this House’s ludicrously long holidays shadowing police officers in Croydon. I spent a day with a safer neighbourhoods team, a day with a response team, and a day with the robbery squad in Croydon. I saw for myself the enormous pressures that they are under, and I heard officers’ concerns about the combined effect of a pay freeze, pension reform and the Winsor review recommendations.

Government Members are certainly not unsympathetic to the case that police officers make, or ungrateful for the huge amount of work that they have done. I am particularly grateful for the work they did in my constituency in the wake of the riots. However, we find it very difficult when Opposition Members seek to avoid any responsibility for the financial mess in which the country finds itself. The level of deficit that this Government inherited is not solely the fault of the Labour Government —they had to intervene in a recession, and we understand that—but the Labour Government did make a contribution to the scale of that deficit.

The shadow Home Secretary was asked to say in detail where, if the Opposition’s proposal is for a cut of £1 billion in police funding, she would find the other £1 billion that is needed. She tried two arguments. First, she said that the scale of the cuts that the coalition proposes goes beyond what Labour would do, but that is not actually Labour’s policy. Labour’s policy is that the structural deficit should be dealt with over two Parliaments, rather than just one. That implies the same cuts over a longer period.

The second point that the shadow Home Secretary made was that growth was the answer; the problem was that the Government’s policies on growth were failing. We all want growth, but growth does not deal with the structural deficit. By definition, a structural deficit is one that remains, however much economic growth there is. The challenge to those on the Opposition Front Bench is still there. There is a structural deficit to be dealt with. The amount is agreed by both parties. If the Opposition do not support a particular cut that the Government propose, where will they find the money that is needed as an alternative? Until they come up with an answer to that question, they will have no credibility.

Immigration Queues (UK Airports)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Up to that point, we had heard the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, make a thoughtful contribution to what is a serious debate. Sadly, the shadow Minister for Immigration has let the side down, with a rant that had no purpose whatever. He also clearly wrote it before he had heard my statement, which addressed the measures we are taking in some detail. The only solution he has—this is instructive, as a glimpse into Labour’s approach to everything—is to spend more taxpayers’ money; and this from a member of the Government who left this country bankrupt, because of their profligate spending over 13 years.

In the midst of that rant, the hon. Gentleman raised one or two issues, so let me deal with them. First, he talked about the uniforms and implied that it was a terrible waste of money to buy new uniforms. I have to tell him that the current Border Force uniform was bought by the previous Government and was designed to last only three years, so it is now out of date and has to be replaced anyway. That money would therefore have to be spent under any circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about what was happening at the border. However, I am afraid that he is relying on unreliable reports. The monitoring for this period shows that in the first two weeks of April, we met all our targets for EU passengers, meeting targets for non-EU passengers on 11 days out of 15. Of course I would prefer to meet our targets for non-EU passengers on 15 days out of 15, but he is relying on information that does not accord with the official figures given by Border Force.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has no particular answers to give. Indeed, what is quite surprising about everything he said was—[Interruption.] He should agree with this statement, which was made last November:

“We seemed to have a consensus from Labour ministers and I thought from…Tory ministers as well that with every year that went by, you should be strengthening the checks at the borders, adding better technology and that kind of thing”.

That was said by the shadow Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that we should make fewer checks. I suggest that he and she get their act together.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that the hard-pressed border officers, who in times of pressure are told to get a move on, are still able to put their top priority—the safety and security of our country—first?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend is exactly right that, beneath this debate, we all need to remember—I can absolutely assure him that every member of Border Force securing our border knows this—that our first priority must be the security of our border. That is what had been compromised, we discovered, over many years, because when the queues rose at airports, people were ordered to reduce the checks. The big change that has happened in the past few months is that we now conduct proper checks at every airport, all the time, which is significantly improving the security of every citizen of this country.

Abu Qatada

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

For far too long, this country seems almost to have been a beacon for terrorists who arrive here legally or illegally and stay here. They live on us like leeches and we cannot get rid of them. Will my right hon. Friend instruct her officials to make as much progress as possible in reducing the time for which those people, who suck our blood for so long, stay in this country before we can get rid of them?

[Mrs May]

I have indeed already initiated work to see whether there are changes we can make to our legal structures in the UK that would enable us to deport people who are threats to our national security rather more quickly and with greater rigour than we can today.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that we will indeed keep the legislation under review. The last thing we want to do is to find that the legislation is being misinterpreted. The reason it is set out in the terms, “The following are examples,” is precisely to send a message to people that that is all they are. There will be other activities that come under the definition of stalking for the purposes of this criminal offence, but we are not putting that exhaustive list in the Bill.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that well-trained police officers will be able to identify exactly what stalking is. From their experience and training, they will be able to say, “That is an example of stalking and we should do something about it,” and I hope the legislation will allow that to happen.

Forensic Science Service

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I have been approached on this issue by a number of constituents, particularly those who used to work in the Huntingdon lab. I also have an interest as a member of the Home Affairs Committee. In fact, I have a number of parliamentary questions on this matter tabled for answer today. Sadly, as I came into the Chamber, they had not yet been answered, but I am sure they will be during the course of our debate, and they will of course be published. As ever, the Government will respond, I am sure, in time.

I congratulate the Science and Technology Committee, and particularly its Chairman, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), on their work. It is a shame that the good and balanced work from the Committee—with one major exception, which I will come to later—has been let down slightly by the quality of the debate on both sides of the House. We have heard a rather tedious debate about who made what mistakes at which point in the past, and a rather odd debate about who is in favour of the private sector and who is in favour of public sector administration. My answer is that I am in favour of whatever gives us the best forensic science services, and I hope that all Members would agree with that.

It is important to have high levels of accreditation and standards. Otherwise, there could be concerns, although they might have been over-egged. It is certainly true that in 2009 the US National Academy of Sciences strongly recommended that forensic labs should be buffered from forces investigating crime. That is because pressures necessarily arise from working too closely with them. What that means is that we must ensure that the new scheme does not fall foul of those traps. We certainly do not want the same police officer who is leading on an investigation to be the same person who does the forensic analysis. I believe, however, that it is possible for the police to find a way around that, as, for example, with the good work done by the National Policing Improvement Agency in looking into serious injuries. It has a rather gruesome collection of images, and I do not believe that suggestions of bias have been made in that case.

It is important for the Government to keep an eye on this issue, and I hope they will consider reviewing the impact of the changes over the coming years, particularly in respect of the trust of the public and ensuring that we do not see miscarriages of justice. I do not think that they will happen, but I want to know that the Government will ensure that they do not. They must ensure that there is enough time to analyse samples. A huge number of analysts in the New Scientist report I mentioned earlier said that they were not given enough time to do that properly. I hope that the Government will make sure that we secure the trust of the public in that respect.

There is a related problem. Programmes such as “CSI” have led the public to believe that forensic science is far more powerful than it really is and much more clear cut. It is simply not as simple, powerful or clear cut as is often portrayed. That causes real problems in both directions when a case is being examined. It means that juries expect simple, clear answers, but also that they could be excessively concerned at the times when they are not given what they expect.

There is also a problem—I hope the Minister will find some way to tackle it—with a recent ruling. As far as I know, it has not been overturned, and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. The issue is how juries are taught to deal with the prosecutor’s fallacy and the statistical errors that can arise when looking at numbers. It was ruled in a recent case that Bayesian statistics could not be used in the court. I find that very worrying, because such statistics are key to the way in which data are interpreted. The premise is simple: the information that is available should be examined before a test is carried out. For example, if we hear the noise of hooves, we know that it could be being made by a horse, a zebra or a unicorn, but given our prior knowledge of which animal is most likely to be proceeding along Horseguards, we conclude that it is probably a horse. That sort of analysis is very simple, and it ought to be possible to employ it in a court. I hope that there will be a way of ensuring that juries know how to use such information, because the generating of information—which is what we are talking about—is useful only if the information is examined correctly.

I was shocked to discover that the regulator did not have the statutory powers that I think are necessary, and that that had clearly been the case for a long time. I had genuinely assumed that we would provide regulators with the powers that they need. I hope that the Government will think again, because providing statutory powers would provide some extra reassurance, particularly given the new world in which we are living. I also hope that regulators will have the resources that they need to do their job, because as providers become more disparate, the process of regulation will be increasingly important.

I had intended to ask what more would happen about cold cases and existing samples, but the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston dealt with that, and I assume the Minister will respond to what he said. Nevertheless, we need to think about how we are to ensure that there is continuity after the FSS.

One aspect of the Committee’s report causes me great concern. It involves the role of the chief scientific adviser, Professor Bernard Silverman. He was personally criticised in the report, and I very much regret that: I do not think that it was appropriate. I think that there is a problem with the way in which the Home Office looks at scientific advice, and with the seniority and the access that the chief scientific adviser is given in the Home Office. I have raised those points in the Committee with the chief scientific adviser, who has a slightly different perspective on the issue of the amount of access provided.

I think that chief scientific advisers should sit on the boards of their Departments, and should have access to information enabling them to deal with any concerns at an early stage rather than waiting to be invited to comment. There is a problem across Government in regard to their role, and that means that there will be similar problems in a number of areas in which advice is sought too late in the process. I fear that the Minister will not be able to tackle that problem alone, and I hope that the Government as a whole will ensure that chief scientific advisers are given an important role.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Surely it is up to the chief scientific adviser to put his spoke in at an early stage, rather than waiting to be invited to comment. He should have enough intelligence—I mean intelligence in the classic military-type form—to understand what is going on, and to say “Look, I want to comment on this.”

[Dr Huppert]

I will not make the standard jokes about military intelligence that would normally arise at this point. I entirely understand what my hon. Friend means. That is precisely why I think it essential for all chief scientific advisers to be provided with all the papers. The problem is how they can know what is going on, because some Departments are not as free with their information as others. I will not single out the Home Office in this instance, but I think it right for chief scientific advisers to have the information at an early stage. It is difficult to comment on things that you do not know about until it is too late.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I begin by referring to the declaration of interests that I made earlier in this debate? I also wish to praise the contribution—not only in today’s debate, but in leading the Select Committee—of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). He has framed the general discussion on this subject.

I could talk about the many aspects of the Government proposals that I consider to be short-sighted—the effects on the police, on the current staff and on the international reputation of forensic science in this country, for instance—but instead I shall focus on a central point, which the Select Committee report sums up thus:

“The primary consideration throughout must be the health of the criminal justice system.”

The Criminal Cases Review Commission, the Royal Society of Chemistry, Sir Alec Jeffreys—the inventor of DNA profiling—and senior members of the legal profession have all called on the Government to reconsider their decision, citing the serious negative impact it will have on criminal justice. The Government appear to be concerned only with the question of whether other people will do the work; they have not asked what the quality of that work will be.

I say that because the Government conducted no consultation on the wider criminal justice implications of this decision. Instead, they looked at the books, saw an organisation that cost more than it recouped—I shall say more about that shortly—and decided to close it. They did not consult the Director of Public Prosecutions, and they appear to have neglected to talk to the CCRC. Even the Attorney-General was consulted only in the “final clearance processes”.

The Government undertook no investigation. They looked at none of the wider issues. In the words of Sir Alec Jeffreys, this is “bean-counting”. It is no way to make policy, and this decision smacks, above all, of short-sightedness. The Government justify their decision by talking about saving money, yet the amount that could be saved is contested. As we have heard, the Government say it is £24 million, whereas the FSS, which perhaps knows more about its own budget, says that it is about half that—£11 million in the past year.

[Bob Stewart]

Surely the most important thing is the kind of service we will get. If the FSS is at a certain level and we do not get any other system up to the same level, there is no question of abolishing it. We must have a service of at least that level or higher; otherwise we are wasting our time. Justice must be done, and if necessary we will have to pay for it. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points about the worldwide reputation.

[Mr Slaughter]

I most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his point clearly and forcefully, and I hope that the Minister will address it head on. However, given that other Government Members have constantly referred to the figure—the £24 million, or the £12 million —I fear that the cost argument is the best the Government have. It is not a good argument, and it is not even very valid. As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), although not every piece of FSS work comes from the police services, the overwhelming majority of its work does. So what we are saying is that the FSS is subsidising police services at the moment.

Perhaps the police services have got a good deal. For example, if a particular police force negotiates a fixed fee with the FSS for complex cases and an hourly rate for simple matters, clearly that police service will have got a good deal, as it will get a fixed fee for important and complex cases with many pieces of evidence, and where it thinks that there is not much involved in a case, it will pay just for what it wants. If that is right, it may actually be the right way to do things, as it may take the pressure off the police in terms of not submitting items of evidence. If a police force was paying by the hour or for every piece of evidence, and a complex crime scene had 100 pieces of evidence to be submitted, it might think, “Do we really need to submit every piece of evidence?” Perhaps the police are not expert enough to make those decisions and the systems works well, even if it produces a notional deficit for the FSS.

If that is also right, and the service is running at a deficit now, will commercial companies be prepared to allow such a situation to continue? Will they not renegotiate contracts with police forces over time that ensure that they not only cover their costs but make a profit? At least one Government Member has said, “Good luck to forensic scientists if they go off and earn more money in the private sector.” If that is right, who is going to pay for it? If, instead of working in the FSS, former senior members of its staff are hiring themselves out as consultants at a substantial daily rate, that sum will be picked up by the police and by the taxpayer. The argument about finance really does not hold water.

Let me pick up on the point made in the intervention by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). Dependability and expertise do cost money, and without them in criminal justice we would be in the realm of appeals and retrials, which also cost money. We have all received briefing notes detailing the many criminal cases in which the FSS has made a real difference, but the Minister has given us no reassurance that the new arrangements will produce the same essential level of dependability.

Let me set out the practical problems, in terms of criminal justice, with what the Government have proposed. First, although we are told at the 11th hour that the archives have been saved, they are now detached from the FSS—or what will replace it—as indeed is research. We used to have a unitary body that had its expertise not only in its written archive but in its expert staff. It would also have its research arm, and its investigatory and reporting arm. That is the right way to go about things.

Secondly, we must deal with the non-applicability of section 17 powers. Under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the Criminal Cases Review Commission has the power to obtain material held by public bodies. It has requested material at least 150 times from the FSS since 2005, and has indicated that the contractual power to obtain material that will be included in contracts for the provision of private forensic science services is clearly not as satisfactory as a statutory power.

Thirdly, there is the potential for loss of expertise as top scientists exit the profession. That, and the loss of Government funding, will mean a major loss for research and development. Some 75% of forensic scientists have said that the new arrangements will lead to more miscarriages of justice, and there is the potential for that. The Government have provided no reassurance whatsoever on that point, so I hope that the Minister will do so.

[Mr Slaughter]

I can only agree.

The Government say that police labs can pick up the slack, but even if the police behave with complete propriety there will be scope for defendants, through counsel, to allege that pressure could have been brought to produce certain results. The Home Office Forensic Science Service was set up as a successor to the Metropolitan police forensic science service, in part for that very reason. Miscarriages of justice—not necessarily in the Met area—in the ’70s and ’80s were the reason why there was seen to be a need for an independent forensic science service. In the Library debate pack there is a quotation from an expert in cognitive behaviour at University college London, Itiel Dror, who says:

“The fact that more forensic work is going to be done by police doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad, but it means you have to take extra measures such as buffering examiners from police detectives, so they are not breathing down their necks saying ‘we think it’s this person’”.

What assurances will the Government give today that such protection will be in place?

Then there is the question of disparity between the resources of police forces. The Met probably will have the resources, given its size, but will Cumbria? Will Suffolk, or Devon and Cornwall, have the ability to run the same sort of operation? I doubt it. We are losing a comprehensive service that is serving the police, the courts and the public well. The FSS does painstaking work in ensuring that perpetrators of serious crimes are brought to account.

I am sorry that we had to wait for my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) to hear proper tribute paid to the people in the FSS—although, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston paid such a tribute too. That, essentially, is what this debate should be about. In terms of reputation, independence and the flexibility and ability to deal with everything from major complex cases to routine work, as well as the comprehensiveness of the service they can offer, we are losing key points. What are we losing? Expert staff and continuity. It is not even certain whether, from next month onwards, forensic scientists who have gone abroad, left the profession or retired, as a consequence of the break up of the FSS, will be available for ongoing cases. We are losing that continuity in the archive and research facility as well as in the operational service. We are losing a huge body of knowledge, and we are wasting equipment as well as human resources, by closing down the service so quickly in such a short space of time.

What is the alternative?

[Bob Stewart]

I think we might also be losing the ability to have seriously world-beating research and development in FSS-type matters. That is what worries me; we must not lose that R and D ability. If we are going to change, things must be just as good as they were before. If they will not be, we should leave them as they are.

[Mr Slaughter]

I wholly agree, and I ask the Minister, even if he is going to rely on the argument about money, to balance that consideration against the opportunity cost—the risk of losing the services that the FSS provides, which are in some cases easily quantifiable but in others are intangible, in terms of both its archives and its research and development.

I am not going to fall into the trap that some hon. Gentlemen on the Government side have fallen into, of playing the private and public sectors off against each other. I regret that one or two Government Members denigrated the FSS, saying that it was not working, and had to go for that reason. They implied that Opposition Members do not see a role for the private sector, but on the contrary, as the Select Committee report—and, I think, every Opposition Member who has spoken—has emphasised, there can be individual scientists and levels of expertise in the private sector. However, private sector companies are profit-making and will have to look at their bottom line. The way in which the changeover is happening means a mass outflow of experienced staff—often near to retirement age, often on a higher grade and often higher paid—who will be replaced, if at all, by the lower-paid and less experienced staff who come into private companies. That process might possibly work over time, but if it happens in a period of months, that will set up real problems in terms of the confidence that the criminal justice system can have in the quality of advice that it is getting.

We are going from a system in which we have a world-respected organisation to one with a very fragmented system made up partly of private sector organisations of different sizes. We have mentioned one of those, LGC, because it is the biggest, but not others that might be taking over some staff or resources from the FSS. On the other hand, we have the 40-plus police authorities that will each run, to a greater or lesser extent, their own operations, no doubt to different standards and with different ambitions and intentions. We are asked to believe that that system will provide the same quality and level of consistency of service as now. A recent survey by the New Scientist showed that more than 90% of forensic scientists, including those in the private and the public sector, thought that the abolition of the FSS would have a negative effect. Also, more than 75% thought there would be an increase in miscarriages of justice. The New Scientist also said:

“forensic science is not so much a coherent discipline as a collection of science-based techniques brought to bear on idiosyncratic questions of guilt and innocence. Since crime scenes are the very opposite of controlled environments, the answers provided by these techniques inevitably require interpretation.”

That is saying, in effect, that forensic science is sometimes as much an art as it is a science. That means—I think this is the point that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was making—that when someone, whether they are appearing for the prosecution or the defence, is trying to talk to a jury and pull out of very disparate and sometimes contradictory pieces of information the best case that can be made, in fairness, in looking for a way towards the truth, the more expertise and experience that can be brought to bear on doing that, the better. That is what I fear we are losing with this precipitous and hasty measure. We are also losing a service that has been respected around the world, and has built up its reputation over many years. It is irreplaceable. For that reason I ask the Government to think, at this stage, about what they are putting in place instead of the Forensic Science Service that has served the country so well for so many years.

Abu Qatada

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I believe the feeling of the whole House is the same as that of my hon. Friend, in that we all want to be able to deport Abu Qatada. That is why the Government are making every effort to negotiate with the Jordanians to see whether it is possible to put in place the assurances that would enable that to happen.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Surely this international law is an ass. It is clear that this man is a terrorist and he laughs at our weakness. He considers that he is at war with us—that is what he thinks. In wartime conditions, our Government can take extraordinary actions, so surely he should not come out of prison. If we cannot send him to Jordan now, he should stay in prison until we can send him there.

[Mrs May]

It was the Government’s view that he should not be given bail. We argued that vigorously before SIAC, but Justice Mitting determined that he should be given bail, on the conditions that I set out earlier.

Parliamentary Representation

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) on securing this debate. May I say to the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), for whom I have great respect, that the Fawcett Society estimates that at the current rate of progress it would take 14 Parliaments—nearly 70 years—to get equality, so he may need to reconsider his view?

I understand that there have been 4,897 MPs since 1918, of whom just 366 have been women, including the 142 serving today. When I was elected in 1987, this place was not a comfortable place for women. Sexist behaviour and intimidation were rife, as was documented by the redoubtable Tory MP Teresa Gorman, who had to put her age back by 10 years to get selected. There were no shrinking violets in the 1987 intake, but there was no women’s agenda either. The House was clearly deeply unrepresentative of society as a whole, and I often said that it was a cross between a boys public school and a working men’s club.

So some of us were very much committed to making great changes, and we encouraged others to stand. During the 1980s and 1990s the number of women candidates did rise significantly, but of course they did not get elected because they were in the unwinnable seats. We Labour women knew that we had to get our hands on the seats where sitting Members were retiring or the seats that were targets for our party and likely to be won. For that sole reason, we adopted the all-women shortlists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said, when they were challenged, the number of women MPs of course fell back in 2001 after the tremendous progress of 1997.

Following the 2001 election a report was produced by Laura Shepherd-Robinson and Joni Lovenduski, and I want to refer to their findings as they are so relevant. They stated:

“Although fewer women than men come forward for selection, women are not selected in proportion to the numbers…Instances of overt discrimination…occurred to a greater or lesser extent in all the political parties…There exists a self-perpetuating male candidate syndrome whereby selectorates choose candidates that match their pre-conceived idea of what an MP ‘should be like’—i.e. like the last one…‘Favourite sons’ who are virtually guaranteed selection before the process even starts were reported as a problem in all the political parties…Ethnic minority women faced additional problems…Justification for this was…that voters would discriminate against the candidate and selecting them was therefore ‘too much of a risk’.”

Those findings are highly relevant today, because we still have female representation of only 22% from a population of 51%, and ethnic minority representation of less than 5% from a population of more than 10%. People with disabilities are hardly represented at all, even though they are provided with the incredible role models of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett).

As the motion says,

“increased competition for seats…may leave under-represented groups more poorly represented”

in future. It is more than likely that under the pressure for places, parties will revert to the type described in the study I cited, and there will be an expectation that progress on equality should be delayed.

What can be done to increase the representation of women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities? First, this House must continue to reform itself so that it becomes a place in which ordinary people feel that they can be productive, effective and able to sustain a private life alongside a parliamentary and constituency life. Further reform of the hours, the calendar and procedures must be undertaken, and I am glad that we will have an opportunity to do that this year.

We must also ensure that our parties remain resolute in the aims they have all espoused of greater equality of representation. That means constant vigilance and analysis of how selections are progressing, financial help for those who need it, and the creation of level playing fields so that people from diverse backgrounds can come forward, attend all the selection conferences and stand a fair chance.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As a new Member, I sat in the Members centre and beside me was another new Member, from the Opposition. I watched and was alarmed that she spent two and a half hours on the telephone from the Members centre trying to find accommodation and failing. In the end I said, “What’s the problem?” and she said, “I’ve just got no money left and I can’t live.” That is wrong and we must put it right as soon as possible.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

I support the hon. Gentleman absolutely. Of course, we had the MPs’ expenses scandal and of course there were abuses, but we have gone in a direction that means that it is very difficult for people of ordinary means to support a second home and everything that goes with being an effective MP. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that that is yet another reason why it will be increasingly difficult to get the equal representation in this House that we all seek.

Recent experience from all parties demonstrates that only determined positive action can produce the results that we need. When sitting MPs are displaced as a result of the boundary changes and the reduction in numbers, that will be much more difficult. All-women shortlists will have to continue in the Labour party and, frankly, I think it must be obvious to the other parties that that is the only mechanism to have delivered really big numbers.

There are two possible ways in which a group’s interests can be represented—by the presence of its members in the decision-making process or simply by having its interests taken into account in that process. History shows that the interests of women, ethnic minorities, other minorities and those with disabilities have not been fully taken into account at any time, and if we do not continue to assert our rights to direct representation, our numbers will fall and our democracy will be much the poorer.

Immigration

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I will start with the issues on which I completely and utterly agree with the Minister. First, I agree that this is not an issue we should—[Interruption.] I am sorry, the Minister is wittering something, I think. [Interruption.] He is carrying on.

The Minister said that he believed this House should consider immigration on a regular basis, and he is absolutely right that if serious politicians in the mainstream political parties do not talk about immigration, we vacate the scene and leave it to extremists from other political parties and those who have no desire to foster good community relations.

Sometimes the debate gets heated, although I suspect it is not going to get very heated this evening if the proceedings so far are anything to go by. Some talk about immigration in this country is undoubtedly racist, but I have never subscribed to the view that just because somebody thinks immigration is the single most important political issue facing the country, that makes them racist. If I were to think that, I would probably be telling most of my constituents that they were racists. That is not because the Rhondda is full of people who have come to this country in recent years. In fact, I believe that of all the constituencies in the land it is the one where fewest people were born outside the UK, but that does not mean that my constituents are not directly affected by many of the issues that are enveloped in the whole issue of immigration.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding. Many have confused asylum with immigration, and serious politicians have always wanted to keep those issues apart, as the Minister for Immigration has.

I asked the Minister whether the Government had decided where they were going on the threshold salary that somebody should have if they were to bring in a dependant. He said it was a “good try”, but I asked solely because I thought the Government had an announcement to make today. I suspect that they were originally going to announce something, which was why they decided to hold this debate, but suddenly there were other important matters to be discussed, the announcement disappeared, and with it went the Home Secretary.

It is a simple fact that because world travel is now so much easier for the vast majority of people, there is inevitably more migration. People can physically move around the world and relocate, and many more do so. Occasionally—I am sure all hon. Members have heard of this in their constituency surgeries—people go abroad on holiday, meet somebody and fall in love with them and want to bring them back to this country. For that matter, my parents met not in this country but in Spain—they were both British—and came back to the UK.

Many other things have affected migration in recent years, not least the fact that countries that were once closed to the rest of the world have opened up, Spain being a classic example. Under Franco, Spain was closed to many, and people could not easily get a visa to go there or vice versa. Similarly, most of the eastern bloc of the EU was closed, as were Portugal and many other places.

In addition, the UK, which is primarily a trading nation, has always had much inward and outward migration. In Wales, we are particularly conscious that, at the turn of the 20th century, when there were no jobs in south Wales, many Welsh people went to live in Argentina, which is why there is a large community of Welsh speakers there. Indeed, William Abraham tried to migrate to Argentina but could not get a job there. He ended up coming back here and became the first MP for Rhondda.

The Minister referred to the fact that many British people go abroad, but it strikes me that British people abroad are often far and away the worst at integrating into local communities—one has only to visit Buenos Aires, where there are more piped bands than there are in Stirling and Edinburgh put together, to recognise that enculturation is not the primary focus of British people when they go to other countries.

For that matter, one has only to look at areas of south Wales to see that inward migration has been a vital part of the economic success of the past. Calzaghe is a not-unknown south Walean name, because people came from many places to work in the mines at one time. The English-Welsh word for a coffee shop is “brachi” because many thousands came from Badi in Italy in particular to work in the mines as that was where the work was. Likewise, many came from Ireland and even a few from England.

The problem, of course, is that migration has very many different vectors. It is not, as some have assumed, that migration to this country has been stimulated because we have a supportive welfare system or a strong NHS. In actual fact, the vast majority of migration is caused by elements that push people away from their home country, be that war, famine or political instability, which often leads to asylum. I remember a debate a few weeks ago with the Immigration Minister on migration from north Africa. He was optimistic that the situation developing in the Maghreb would mean that many fewer would come to the UK than were originally expected either for asylum or other reasons, but the most recent figures show that there has been a significant migration to the UK and a significant increase in the number of asylum cases. That issue will inevitably have to be kept under review.

One other potential vector, which other hon. Members have addressed on other occasions, is climate change. If the seas of the world rise because of climate change, there is a strong likelihood that some of the poorest people in the world will not only want to move but have no choice but to do so, because many of their homes are in the most exposed areas.

I agree with the Minister that migration is not always good. Very often, refugees end up extremely disoriented when they arrive in this country, either because their language skills are not brilliant or because they do not understand the system—they might not even understand what side of the road we drive on and things like that. I was struck by that the other day. There was a fight in Tesco Metro and a young man, who had clearly been drinking, was shouting at the shopkeepers, “You have no understanding. I am in this country. I am allowed to be in this country, but I am not allowed to work.” It turned out he was Albanian. Who knows how he will manage to get himself home? The pain of many of those who are forced to travel the world because they are simply seeking a better place for themselves can be writ large.

Often the receiving communities are ill equipped, either financially or culturally, to welcome people. When the number of asylum claimants in the UK was at its highest—not necessarily because of anything that had happened in this country, but because of factors in other parts of the world at a time of particularly unstable international relations—many communities in this country found it genuinely very difficult to take on board the number of people who went to live there, even though they wanted to be welcoming.

In addition—this is what I am most aware of in my constituency because a number of constituents have raised it with me—many feel that there are few jobs out there at the moment as it is, particularly at the lower end of the scale. There are few jobs for manual labourers, and when they get them, they are sometimes turfed out after just three or four months because somebody comes from another EU country and is prepared to do the job more cheaply. A constituent came to me last week. He was delighted when three months ago his son got a job in Gloucester—he travelled there and back every day—but then his son and the five others who were employed were sacked and their jobs taken immediately by people from Poland. The vast majority of my constituents simply do not understand why that should be so and feel that there is a fundamental unfairness in the system.

No hon. Member will today suggest that we should change all the EU’s provisions. Labour Members have already accepted that we should have introduced transitional arrangements for the countries that joined the EU more recently. We should have gone along with countries that did so, and we underestimated the number of people who would come to this country. Of course, two more countries will have full rights in 2014, and it will be interesting to hear the Government’s estimate of the number of people who will come to the UK from them.

Although it is easy to identify some of the problems in relation to immigration, it is not always easy to identify the answers. I have been lobbied quite ferociously by quite a lot of lesbian and gay organisations on what they term “gay asylum”, which is when somebody comes to this country because they will be persecuted for their sexuality in their country. Those organisations believe that nobody should be sent back to their country to face discrimination and a difficult life. Although I wholeheartedly agree that we should not send lesbian and gay people back to Iran to face almost certain imprisonment, it is very difficult to have a simple, straightforward open door for anybody who chooses to claim that they are lesbian or gay. I suspect that the problem is not as simple as people would want it to be.

Similarly, I raised the issue of family members coming to this country. Nobody in the House would believe that somebody bringing a spouse or a member of their family to this country should be able to do so and then put a burden on the state. The question though, as the Migration Advisory Committee has pointed out, is what placing a burden on the state means exactly. Does it mean that someone should not be in receipt of benefits or does it mean that at no stage in the future should that person receive anything from the state? That determines the level at which the threshold would be applied.

Some of the poorer constituencies and communities are of course concerned that the rule will allow rich people to go abroad, fall in love and bring someone back, but poorer people will not be able to do that. The danger is that the rule is unfair.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman referred to being a burden on the state, which also makes me think of problems connected to education and the NHS. It is not just whether migrants are employed; it is also their need for services that we ordinarily expect for our citizens.

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed, and in a sense that is the conundrum that the Government have to try to resolve. At some point, they will obviously change the threshold from its present low level, but if they go for a significantly higher figure, the danger is that it will introduce an unfairness. The strange thing is that while people might be intrinsically opposed to individuals in general being allowed to bring others into this country, they tend to adopt a slightly different attitude when confronted by individuals that they have got to know.

The NHS also has specific needs in relation to migration. Several hon. Members have approached me about problems that their local accident and emergency units are having, because these days many doctors do not want to work in those units—there can be violence, many people are drunk and there is no ongoing care for patients. Many trusts, and many local health boards in Wales, have been looking to recruit internationally, but it is impossible for them to do so because of the way in which the rules are structured. That is placing a very precise burden on some accident and emergency units. Of course it would be better if we planned better so that we did not have skills shortages, but in some parts of the country they do exist.

UK Extradition Arrangements

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

There have been extradition arrangements between our two peoples since the later part of the 18th century. As for plea-bargain arrangements, there are also pressures on defendants in the British system. We do not refer to them as plea-bargaining, but defendants know that if they plead guilty, they are likely to receive a lesser sentence, so although we have no plea-bargaining arrangement, it is not correct to assume that the two systems are completely different.

The conclusion reached by the Baker report is that there is no significant difference between the tests that either country applies. In all extradition requests that have been submitted to the United Kingdom since 1 January 2004, the United States and many other states have not had to provide prima facie evidence, instead having to provide only the information sufficient to satisfy the extradition legislation. There are many countries, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand, from which we do not require prima facie evidence before extraditing to them. We should not therefore require the United States to jump over that hurdle when the other allied nations whose legal systems are based on ours do not have to do so. I understand that countries that have signed the European convention on extradition orders do not have to jump through that hoop. Those countries include Turkey and Russia. Those who call for a prima facie standard, as I understand the Joint Committee on Human Rights has done, must explain why Russia should be required to have a lesser standard than America, if America were put under the pressure of proving to a prima facie standard.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Should we not require that standard of everyone? Is that not the way forward?

[Michael Ellis]

Well, that is one way of looking at it. Certainly, if we were to decide to require everyone to hold to the prima facie standard, that might be fairer, although it would be extremely expensive, bureaucratic and time consuming. For the accused person and for witnesses, the interests of justice are not served by delaying matters, so that would be the problem there. However, before the 2003 Act, I believe there was a requirement to find a prima facie standard. If not, there was certainly an imbalance between the United States and the United Kingdom in that respect. The United States had to apply greater burdens to extradite people from the United Kingdom than the United Kingdom had to supply vice versa.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The Bill returns to the House after its consideration in the other place. It was subject to lengthy and detailed scrutiny here in the summer, with 10 sittings in Committee, a Report and a Third Reading, all of which were characterised by a high standard of debate.

Their lordships have now given the Bill the full benefit of their expertise, and I am pleased to say that its main provisions are largely as they left this House, reflecting an acceptance that, however unfortunate this might be, there are a small number of individuals involved in terrorism whom we cannot successfully prosecute or deport, and the measures in the Bill are needed to deal with such individuals.

The Bill returns from the other place subject to 11 Government amendments, which are largely minor and technical changes to clarify drafting and better to reflect the policy intention. I will briefly explain why we have made those amendments, dealing first with Lords amendments 1 to 10 before moving on to Lords amendment 11 and Opposition amendment (a).

Lords amendments 1 and 2 make a small but necessary change to clause 8. The clause provides that the court must, when granting permission to impose a terrorism prevention and investigation measure notice—a TPIM notice—at the outset of the process give directions for a directions hearing in relation to the automatic full review of the case. As the Bill was originally drafted, that directions hearing would have had to have taken place within seven days of the TPIM notice being served, unless the individual agreed to postpone it.

The programming of such hearings is, of course, a matter for the courts. It became clear that the original provision had unintentionally introduced a restriction on the discretion available to the courts to manage similar directions hearings in the control order context. We were therefore asked by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service to make a change to the Bill in order to provide the courts with a degree of flexibility in that respect and to facilitate effective management of court time.

We have therefore amended clause 8 so that the court may programme the directions hearing later than seven days after service of the TPIM notice, if it so directs. Of course, the intention is that directions hearings will be listed within those seven days where possible, but when the court is unable to do so, for example over a holiday period, the amendment will give the court the discretion to list the hearing slightly later.

Clause 8 still ensures, at subsection (5), that directions given at the hearing must provide for the substantive review hearing to be held as soon as reasonably practicable.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

How much later might it be possible to review the decision? The period is one week to start off with, but could it amount to 28 days, three months, or will it be flexible, with the court having the jurisdiction to decide that issue as well?

[James Brokenshire]

It is the purpose of the amendment to give the court discretion, although a practice has been established through the jurisprudence on control orders which informs that process. It is therefore intended to provide the court with the flexibility, as I explained in my introductory remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hazel Blears]

My hon. Friend has always taken a principled stand on these issues, and I respect him for it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have recognised that in a tiny number of cases we will not be able to prosecute, because that would lead to disclosure and therefore, because it is based on intelligence, a risk to agents and techniques. I said in Committee that I wanted to see the figure reduced to the smallest irreducible number possible, because I accept that we are talking about special measures that are outwith the normal framework of our legal system and transparent justice. I therefore accept my hon. Friend’s concern, but it is the case, I am afraid to say, that there are people who pose a significant and substantial threat to us who cannot be prosecuted at the current time, and some measures have to be taken to protect the public against them. None of us goes down this path with relish. I have said it before, but let me say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who intervened earlier, that this is not a matter of Labour Members rubbing their hands with glee and wanting to put people under house arrest. Rather, it is about saying, “What is the absolute necessity to protect the public?”

[Bob Stewart]

I very much support most of what the right hon. Lady is saying. None of us in this House wants control orders or TPIMs, but we do not have a choice. However, it is much better that we legislate for these matters and deal with them properly under the law, rather than have what happens in some nations, where people are just lifted and then disappear. That is what we are trying to do. The people concerned are very dangerous—or apparently very dangerous: we cannot prove it, but we do not want to take the risk—and I am afraid that we have to put up with this lack of liberty.

[Hazel Blears]

The hon. Gentleman speaks, as he did in Committee, from a position of great personal knowledge—in many ways, far greater than mine or my colleagues’—from having had operational responsibility on the ground in similar circumstances. He understands that, although we are all reluctant to go down this path, on occasion it is necessary. However, we have a democratic framework—people can challenge the orders; they can go to court; they can litigate; they can launch appeals—which is absolutely as it should be.