Covid-19: UK Border Health Measures

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The prime drive for the Government is not immigration control, but to ensure that we reduce this virus and the R rate, and that we save lives. The measures that have been put in place are not for any immigration reasons, although immigration enforcement could be used if people persistently flout the rules that we have just put in place. We will ensure that anyone in the asylum system is given appropriate accommodation, in line with public health guidance in terms of social distancing.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I draw attention to my declaration. It is not my intention to shoot the messenger—I both respect and like the noble Baroness—but perhaps she can pass on the strength of feeling in this House, and a very simple message. If the signal you are sending damages your higher education, business and trade, travel and hospitality, and is seen universally as irrational and unworkable, is it not time to stop digging?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, these measures will be in place from 8 June and will of course regularly be reviewed. I totally concur with the points made by the noble Lord. The last thing that we want to do is damage any of the things that he talks about, but we also have a duty to keep the public safe and healthy.

National Identity Cards

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord has highlighted the merit of exit checks, which we have previously discussed. They were reintroduced in May 2015 and those data will prove valuable.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green. If biometrics are so easily attacked and discredited, why have the Government introduced them for passports?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The identity card was a tackle-all type of card. The Government are now trying to be far more robust at identity assurance from a problem-solving perspective rather than seeking a particular solution.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I have been listening with a great deal of care to all that has been said. I have no doubt that Amendment 182 does not go quite far enough, in the sense that if there is to be the intervention of legal process before a court, it needs to be by a judge and not a magistrate. I am in the extremely unusual position of not knowing which way I am likely to vote. I find it very difficult. I am very attracted by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, says: that prior to charge, no one who is being investigated should have the information disclosed. But I do think that one has to point out—as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and other noble Lords pointed out—that sexual offences, particularly with celebrities, are a special case that sells newspapers. In one of the magistrates’ courts where I used to prosecute and defend as a very young barrister, the custody officer told me that it was £25 for the information to be provided. So one knows about it, and the police have, indeed, been criticised.

I happen to know someone prominent in a particular career—I will not say which—who is about to be charged with an offence committed at the age of 13 against a girl of seven. Everybody locally knows about it. For him, that is quite as awful as it would have been for Lord Bramall or Lord Brittan, save for the fact that this man is not likely to be dying. But this very personal thing—it may or may not be true—of someone in their forties or fifties accused of what he did at the age of 13, which has suddenly come out in relation to a girl of seven, is a shock.

The question that I pose to the Minister is this. If we do not do anything by way of legislation, what can we do to protect those who are innocent and have been vilified, and those who may be innocent, and the presumption of innocence, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has rightly pointed out, is there but is totally ignored by the media, and consequently largely ignored by the public? The approach that “there is no smoke without fire” is attractive, and if the press say something—well, it may be true. If we do not do anything, how do we stop an injustice? With huge hesitation, therefore, I am likely to support the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, rather than my very close friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not detain the House for long. I was the Home Secretary back in 2003 when, as has been referred to this afternoon, many of these issues were debated, and I was responsible for the justice system at that time. We struggled with it then and we struggle with it today. I commend the debate and the very substantial arguments that have been made on both sides. I am struggling to know which way to vote on Amendment 182. My instincts are to vote with the Government but to require an answer to the question that the noble Baroness has just put. It is made more difficult now, in 2016 and going into 2017, than it was 14 years ago. The reason for that is social media.

I take the point very strongly that the arrest is part of the process. Arrest prior to charge is extraordinarily difficult to deal with, if someone’s name is out on social media but they then cannot make statements that can be reported in the mainstream press, to actually indicate at least some side of the story that they are intent on putting. With the best intentions, we may take the wrong decision—as usual, for the right reasons—and end up with people who we seek to protect not being able, in the present era of social media, to protect themselves. I look forward to the Minister pulling together the very difficult arguments at the end of this debate.

National Identity Cards

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that my noble friend is saying the same thing as me but in a different way. In this country we have passports and driving licences. As I said, there is no evidence that identity cards have improved security in the European countries that have them.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister who introduced the original identity register and card—I still have mine—I ask whether the noble Baroness would concede that, if people do not like the term “identity card”, it might be a possible way forward for all British citizens over 16 to have a mandatory passport and for all non-British citizens to carry a card that registers their status in this country. Surely that would be a way round what has become a very sterile argument.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I would congratulate the noble Lord on introducing the identity card—but the Government do not agree with them and his identity card is probably invalid by now. I cannot help but repeat that we have passports. In fact, our passports now, particularly the e-passports, where facial identity can be cross-referenced with the actual document, are an improvement on what we had before.

Orgreave

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I am grateful that noble friends and noble Lords were in government or in this House at the time of Orgreave. The job is to get on with improving policing, and inquiries are not always the answer. The Policing and Crime Bill seeks to make further reforms and efficiencies in the police service to make it better.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I was leader of Sheffield City Council at the time and subsequently lived for many years a mile away from Orgreave. It strongly rent my heart. I entirely understand why people do not want to spend millions of pounds on legal fees or to have the disruption that an inquiry would cause to the existing programme, but evidence has been produced over the past decade and there has been a genuine feeling that the truth has been withheld. Even at this late hour, is it not possible to have the kind of very light-touch review which the elected police and crime commissioner, the Reverend Dr Alan Billings, who leads the South Yorkshire Police, has suggested? It would avoid the catastrophe of a very prolonged inquiry which, as has been described this afternoon, often leads to people not being satisfied at the end of it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there was a discussion—I think yesterday—about a small Select Committee inquiry. Of course, that would be a matter for Parliament. The IPCC considered things last year, but as I said earlier, if any fresh information comes to light, it will take it on board and consider it.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, being the 36th speaker in a Second Reading debate has some advantages and disadvantages. The advantage, of course, is to be able to listen to and, I hope, learn from the substance and detail of the points that have been made. I have tried to do that this evening—other than when I have been called away to another fraternal Parliamentary Labour Party meeting. The disadvantage, of course, is that almost everything has been said. Therefore, I will confine my remarks to two or three simple points which I freely admit do not arise from my understanding of jurisprudence, expert legal training or philosophical depth but from my experience as a practitioner in government. I admit that I have authorised and used intercepts—I hope for the benefit of the people of this country—and, therefore, I wish to say a few words about necessity and proportionality and perhaps a little about scrutiny.

Why do I think that the Bill as a whole is necessary? Of course, details of it will have to be discussed and debated but in my view it is necessary because I have seen at first hand thousands of British citizens’ lives saved not only by intercept but largely by intercept and intelligence based on intercept. Leaving aside when I was Northern Ireland Secretary, when I was Home Secretary I dealt with some 40 to 60 cases of counterterrorism of greater or lesser significance. Almost all of them involved more than one country. I recollect one case where there were almost 20 countries. It is not only the interception of communications, but the global nature of the communications which are now an essential field for interception if we are to protect the lives of British citizens. In one case, which I mentioned earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, the potential victims numbered 2,300 to 2,400. There were seven aeroplanes involved in the plot which was foiled in August 2006. Without going into detail, we were watching, at various stages, minor actors in that tragic drama. It was only through intercept, and some of the powers enshrined in this Bill, that, fairly late in the day, we discovered that we were looking at a subset and the main players were actually somewhere else. It is practical experience which has convinced me of the necessity for this type of power, not in every detail but in general.

Secondly, I do not think proportionality can be discussed unless we see it in the context of two things. One is the threat, and the changing nature of it. The other is the changing nature of communications. Both of these have been touched upon today. In other words, the objectives of the intelligence agencies, Ministers and the counterterrorist authorities have not changed; what has changed is the world, and particularly the nature of the threat and the nature of communications. As we know, the threat now stands at the second highest level—severe—which means that a terrorist attack is “highly likely”. That is not my view but that of the analysts and the authorities who decide these things. As the noble Lord, Lord King, mentioned at the beginning of this debate, the nature of the threat has changed even from 15 to 20 years ago. The threat from the IRA was big enough but they did not tend to want to blow themselves up or be caught. That change makes it much more difficult and reliant on prevention through previous intelligence. In 2014, some 10,000 Europeans went to Syria as jihadists. It is estimated that about 5,000 of them have returned to Europe. In Britain, the numbers are roughly 800, with 400 returned. Last year, the intelligence services foiled seven major plots here, 13 in France and various others throughout Europe. Where they did not succeed, we saw the tragedies of Tunisia, Brussels and Paris. Proportionality has to be seen against that background.

The world of communications has changed. As several noble Lords have said, we now live in a cyber world. Cyber is not an amalgam of technologies. It is not just a means of communication. Cyber is the first man-and-woman-made environment. It now permeates absolutely everything. It gives unparalleled opportunities for people to reach out for education and information; it has an amazing potential to liberate human beings. However, like all forms of technology, it has an amazing capacity to be used for evil as well. It is the communication method of choice for terrorists who would do evil—I am responding to this only in terms of counterterrorism.

I remember using one of the first digital phones, back in 1985 on a march from Gartcosh to London. I was given it by a press organisation that wanted to cover the march for jobs. It weighed as much as a brick; it looked like a brick; it was as useful as a brick. You had to charge it for 12 hours to get 20 minutes off it. Now, between 3 billion and 4 billion people in the world are using the internet on mobile phones for communication. They are the communication method of choice for the terrorists themselves. Although it brings unparalleled opportunities for good, it also does for bad. We have to empower the intelligence agencies and those trying to counter the use of that internet technology not just for communication purposes but for propaganda, recruitment and radicalisation purposes as well.

While I have no doubt about the proportionality of the generality of the Bill, my final point is about oversight and balance. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Kennedy is not in her place because she said earlier on that she had been surprised by the humility of my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Blunkett. Well, it is a lucky day as I was going to give her a surprise as well.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

But I am here.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My noble friend Lord Blunkett is here. I do not think that he heard my noble friend Lady Kennedy’s comments but I have a surprise for her. I do not take the view that security overrides everything. I take the view of a need for balance. Various people have mentioned tonight that the protection of our citizens is the first duty of government, but that is a mistranslation. With my O-level Latin, I can tell your Lordships that Cicero’s “Salus populi suprema lex esto” does not mean that that protection is the first duty of government but that the welfare of the people is their first duty. That welfare combines the protection of their rights and well-being with the protection of their lives, which is why we are trying to get a correct balance on this.

I am all for examining the Bill in detail in Committee, including legal professional privilege, issues about journalists and so on. But I would plead with your Lordships: I cannot think of anything that I have seen going through Parliament, in my 30 years or thereabouts, that has had quite so much scrutiny. I therefore hope that it will get a fair wind, because of not only that prior scrutiny but that which is to come from David Anderson as well—and because of our obligation to supply the tools to our intelligence agencies and those trying to protect the people of this country.

Having said that, I have one reservation, which is about the introduction of judges to a greater degree than was previously the case. If the double lock becomes a double decision-making process on the substance of the political decision, I would be very worried. I understand why the Home Secretary did it and the perceptions in certain sections of the public—not what I would call public opinion but certainly published opinion. It therefore became a necessary element of making sure that there was a fair wind behind this Bill. I accept that, but I have some reservations with it. So, with all that, I wish the Bill well and I congratulate the Secretary of State for the Home Office. She has been extremely patient. This has been in embryo not for two years but for almost 10 years, through various people. I wish her well in her present job and in any job that she may be seeking to do in the future.

Hillsborough

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I crave noble Lords’ indulgence for a moment while I say where I come from. I was a new Member of Parliament covering the area around the Hillsborough stadium in 1989 and I am now married to a doctor who was a volunteer in the hospital in Sheffield on that evening. I myself visited some of those who were injured that weekend.

I commend the Statement and I commend the families and those working with them for seeking and gaining the truth and looking for justice. I hope very much that the work of Bishop James Jones will be able to incorporate the proposals of my noble friend Lord Wills, which were debated three months ago in this House and to which I contributed. I hope that the Minister agrees that they would contribute towards meeting the challenge of ensuring that families in circumstances such as these do not have to go through what those families have gone through over the last 27 years.

I have a question for the Minister. In dealing with the immediate future, it will surely be crucial that the people of South Yorkshire, many of whom played a signal part on that day by taking people into their homes, letting them use their landlines and, in many cases, running people back to Merseyside, do not now pay the penalty of costs arising from further investigation and work on top of the costs that have been incurred. Nor should members of the force, most of whom are dedicated, committed officers, find themselves in a situation where they cannot carry out their duties properly. Would it not be a fitting tribute if we were able to move forward with sensitivity and rationality in ensuring that the people of Merseyside receive the justice and truth that they have sought, and that the people of South Yorkshire do not find themselves penalised, financially or in terms of policing, because of what happened 27 years ago?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I agree with the noble Lord about the ordinary people on that tragic day who did indeed open their doors. In other tributes that have been paid, it has been widely acknowledged, even by those who were themselves suffering the tragedy, that the people around the stadium of Hillsborough—the ordinary people of Sheffield—showed the warmth and hospitality that really defines our nation, opening their doors to strangers at a time of acute need. That was reflected by many.

On the issue of police officers specifically, as we witnessed on our television screens, and as those in the stadium witnessed, there were individual police officers who tried to act in the best interests of the fans who were clearly suffering in this tragedy. It is important that we now see that the people of Liverpool—particularly the families of the 96 tragic victims—have suffered far too long. Twenty-seven years to wait for justice and truth in a country such as ours is plainly and simply unacceptable. Therefore, I am sure that I express the sentiments of all—and it is resonating—when I say that we look forward to the conclusion of the two ongoing inquiries and the inquiry that the CPS will launch to ensure that we get the justice that the 96 tragic victims need.

Population Increase: Migration

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 28th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

Yes, that is our policy, which we repeated in the manifesto at the 2015 election.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that that vague objective might be at least rational, and our presentation to the public would be more rational, if we took full-time and postgraduate students out of the so-called target?

[Lord Bates]

In essence, it does not make any difference. The target is based on the international way in which the ONS calculates the data. There is absolutely no limit on the number of bona fide students coming to study at bona fide universities in the UK. Where there remains a problem is with people who overstay on those student visas. Last year, 123,000 people came in, but we counted out only 36,000. That leaves a gap of around 90,000 which we need to understand better. Exit controls will help that, but we do not think that changing the way we calculate the figures will necessarily make any difference to finding the correct answer.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes very important points, and I am grateful to him for the conversations we have had. As I indicated, I have spoken to a number of Members who have been campaigning on this issue over the years. He is absolutely right that the terms of reference mean that the panel inquiry will look at a period of 44 years—from 1970 to today—and that it is open to the panel to decide whether it wishes to go beyond that period. It is indeed overarching, looking at cases of historical abuse and more recent cases to find out what were the institutional failures when it came to protecting children, and what further lessons need to be learned. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must remember the survivors in this work; it is for them that we are trying to find the answers to what happened in the past and trying to ensure that in future people will not have to go through the terrible experiences that some did. I will set up a liaison group, whose aim will be exactly as my hon. Friend suggested—to ensure that the survivors are kept in touch and able to contribute as the inquiry goes along.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I commend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for the tone of the statement and the response. The emphasis on survivors and victims raises the issue, as the Home Secretary mentioned, of the scale of the problem. What immediate steps could be put in place not just to help the historical victims but to prepare for further revelations? It is beyond belief that this is not a nationwide problem rather than one confined to the areas that have already been identified. Given the enormity of the task confronting the panel, would it be reasonable in practical terms at least to consider having a joint chair, so that two people could address not only the historical lessons but where we need to go in changing the culture and altering the nature of how this country’s institutions have worked?

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion, which was proposed to me by another Member this morning. The point of having a panel is that not just one individual or indeed potentially two co-chairs will be undertaking this work. The idea is to have a group of people coming together with different experience and different expertise. Unlike in simple judge-led inquiries where one person leads, it is very much the case that all the panel members will contribute. The chairman’s role is about the management of the inquiry, but the management in this case will be through a team of people brought together to ensure that the work is done properly.

Home Affairs

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Would the Home Secretary be prepared to revisit the report produced by Baroness Jean Corston, and perhaps talk to her, about the crucial issue of how we treat people in our communities, as well those coming into them, in relation to the conditions they live in?

[Mrs May]

The report by Baroness Corston was indeed significant in its findings on the treatment of women and girls, particularly in the criminal justice system in relation to custodial sentences. I have had a number of discussions with Baroness Corston on this matter in the past, especially when I held the women’s brief, when I was considering it particularly. I have also had discussions with the prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Justice is aware that the matter needs to be considered. I am sure that it will be looking at Baroness Corston’s report—although it was done a few years ago, of course—to see what she proposed.

We must ensure that modern courts run efficiently and effectively without undue costs to the taxpayer. We are therefore introducing criminal court charges to ensure that criminals contribute to the cost of their cases being heard through the courts system. It is only right that criminals who give rise to those costs in the first place should carry some of the burden placed on the taxpayer. We will also introduce reforms to judicial review to ensure that it is used for the right reasons and not merely to cause unnecessary delays or to court publicity. Judicial review is vital in holding authorities and others to account, but this must be balanced to avoid costly and time-wasting applications and abuse of the system.

The Modern Slavery Bill will ensure that law enforcement and the judiciary have effective powers available to put slave drivers and traffickers behind bars, where they belong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I have a declared interest that relates to higher education, which might crop up in my speech.

I thank the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for his reference to the work of my late friend, Paul Goggins, who was referred to by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the day of the Queen’s Speech. I appreciate that reference, because Paul would have been proud that his work, like that of so many in this House, has borne fruit in the form of legislation.

Before I turn to the substance of the Queen’s Speech and the related issues that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has deliberated on very effectively, may I reflect on the nature of last week’s events? Having been the Home Secretary at the time of the 11 September attack and the subsequent dangers, I am mindful of the need for security. However, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the way in which we operate the closures in central London around the Queen’s Speech. To close substantial portions of the area around Westminster from Monday to Friday is, in my view, unnecessary. We should protect the Queen—the royal personage—in any way we can, but there has been an extension in what happens over recent years. I mention that only because it is damaging to the London economy and extremely frustrating for the populace, and it does not necessarily do Parliament any good.

Secondly, as we have seen in the debate over the past few days and way beyond, a fixed-term, five-year Parliament can be seen to run out of steam. If we are to continue with fixed-term Parliaments, I think that it is time to re-examine whether they should last for four years, rather than five. Irrespective of whether a coalition is still required, which I sincerely hope it is not, it is clear from history that Governments need to refresh themselves. That is part of our democracy and considering such a change would be a positive move in responding to the changing needs of the population and the political debate. Four-year Parliaments might allow us to have two Queen’s Speeches: one at the beginning of a Parliament and one two years in, which would allow time for substantive debate and measures that have been carefully planned and thought through. I commend the idea of returning to those issues to Front Benchers on both sides of the House.

We face a moment of rapid change that is unprecedented in our history. There is economic, social and cultural change, some of which we touched on yesterday afternoon during the urgent question and the statement. We face an explosion in communications that brings globalisation and issues on a moment-by-moment basis not just into people’s front rooms, which we used to say in relation to television, but into their hands as they use mobile technology. The immediacy of such issues has changed how people see the rapid change in the world around them.

When we were in a position of economic success, with continuing growth, continuing substantial falls in unemployment and rises in wages, and it was possible to invest in improved public services, globalisation appeared to be benign, if not somewhat bewildering, to the populace. The same is not true at a time of deep austerity, with the results of the global banking meltdown—and it was a global banking meltdown; the previous Labour Government were not responsible for the collapse of the sub-prime market in the United States or the recession across Europe. It is risible that people still repeat that calumny over and again, particularly members of the junior partner in the coalition, who were enthusiastically in favour of the public spending that we were engaged in before 2010 and suddenly changed their mind. Indeed, so was the Conservative party, because until autumn 2008 and a change of mind at the Tory party conference, the main thrust of public expenditure was supported by the Conservative Opposition.

I mention that because the confusion, bewilderment and sense of powerlessness that affects so many of our constituents has a knock-on effect on the way they see the political environment around them, and on whether they trust or believe that traditional politics can meet their needs—hence the rise of the UK Independence party and its temporary, God willing, success in the European Union elections and some local government contests.

Old certainties have gone and people are unclear who they should blame for what is happening around them. Is it a change in the world situation and the insecurities that drive asylum seekers and movements of people across the world? Ten and a half million people have been moved outside their homeland either compulsorily or through fear of the danger of death and torture. People are desperately looking for a better life, and hearing about it in the way I have just described and in a fashion that was not present years ago. Bewilderment and a subliminal fear come from those uncertainties, and people are looking to someone to find answers.

We have the chance to debate these issues today, but that rarely happens any more on television or radio, and certainly not in the print media or through the inanity of many bloggers. We are not reaching, talking to or having a dialogue with—never mind listening to—the fears of people, but there is nothing new about that.

One great advantage of being a Back Bencher is that one has the chance to read. I have been reading the biography of Roy Jenkins that came out a few months ago. He was not a favourite politician of mine, not least because he was paraded as one of the most liberal and radical Home Secretaries in history, whereas most of the legislation he took credit for was promoted by Back Benchers. My irritation at that has been overwhelmed by going back and reading extracts of speeches and articles that he wrote. Fifty-five years ago, he was talking about the challenge of whether we should enter what was then the European Economic Community. He talked about a bigger issue of people living in an atmosphere of illusion or reality, and the unwillingness to address Britain’s position in the world. He spoke about a challenge of living in a sullen and incomprehensible environment in which people looked only to the past.

I fear that we are in that moment once again. People hanker for a past that did not really exist, and they look for certainties that are no longer there. They fear that politicians do not have answers to their questions, and they lash out at anyone near them. I think we must try in our own way across all three major political parties to provide answers that are credible. Nobody can underestimate the bewilderment, and no one should belittle the cry for help from our constituents, above all in a constituency such as mine.

People will be aware of the considerable tensions that have arisen after a large influx of people from Slovakia of a Roma background. They are fleeing unbelievable persecution and standards of living that are third world, to say the least. Incidentally, Slovakia managed a turnout of only 13% in the European Union election—I do not think that is a functioning democracy. People come to the UK from that background and those norms of living, and as part of the debate about British values and a society that can address those challenges, we need to invest in and help people through those difficulties. That applies to both the host community, which suddenly finds its way of life affected dramatically, and incomers who need to learn quickly how best to adapt to and adopt the standards of behaviour and norms that we take for granted.

Those big issues require us not to provide simplistic soundbites but to address the underlying complexities. This afternoon I appeal for us all to come together to address those things that are practical and can be addressed. In essence, we are dealing with the transitions of life—transitions that are brought about by economic, social and cultural change globally, and those that affect people in their daily lives as the language and the vista and nature of the community around them changes. We must consider how best the Government, and therefore politics, can assist in that endeavour.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) mentioned immigration, and the importance of getting a grip on things that are possible within the current powers of the Westminster Parliament. There are many pressures outside and many changes we all want, and people can collaborate and work together at local level. There are also global changes that need to be dealt with by a proper debate in a reformed European Union and on the transnational scene. As my right hon. Friend rightly said, many things that could be dealt with at a local as well as national level would assist. I want to touch on some of those today and suggest that in doing so, we might politically give people hope that not only will they be listened to, they will be talked to realistically, be respected, and be told the truth about what we can and cannot do.

For instance, it was never going to be feasible to get net migration below 100,000 unless, as has been pointed out, we rapidly changed the passport system and encouraged our own people to leave the country. We could achieve it that way but that is nonsense. We could never achieve net migration of under 100,000 unless we remove from the statistics those who come here to study as graduate and postgraduate students. The commonsense of doing that has been pressed on the Government over the past four years, and I think it would have got all-party support and told people the truth. If we do not tell people the truth, and if we pretend that we can achieve targets that are frankly unachievable, when we do not achieve those targets we undermine confidence in all the other measures that have been taken.

We have a tendency at the moment to rewrite history—I imagine there is nothing new about that. We all like to paint what we are doing as day zero, and that what came before as either inadequate or totally deniable.

[Pete Wishart]

I am one of the people who think that Labour got it just about right on immigration when they were in government. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in not being bullied by the Tories and UKIP who want Labour to apologise? Labour should stand up for what it did because it did the right thing. Will it say to the Tories and UKIP, “We got it right on immigration and we will not be bullied out of our former position”?

[Mr Blunkett]

The truth is that we did not get it entirely right because no Government get everything entirely right. That is another part of rebuilding trust in the political system.

I mentioned day zero because the tendency to suggest that nothing that came before was satisfactory, adequate or even addressed the issues undermines fundamentally people’s belief that we know what we are doing, or that what happened in the past can be recorded as at least partially successful.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Blunkett]

I will give way but I first want to tell the House about Peter Kellner, the president of YouGov. Earlier this year he pointed out that if the five major retailers in this country acted like political parties, nobody would shop at Tesco, Asda or Morrisons ever again. Although they compete—and rightly make offers to people, as part of the market—they do not trash the idea of supermarkets. If they did, people would turn, as they do with UKIP, to the corner shop. I will give way before I go too far on the analogy between corner shops and Nigel Farage.

[Mr Field]

Perhaps if I represented a Scottish constituency I would hold the same view on immigration as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), given that very few of the newcomers wish to go to Scotland—they wish to settle elsewhere. Would my right hon. Friend accept that the ball is in the court of the vice-chancellors? They all have tough policies that students must pay outstanding fees before they get their degrees. If the vice-chancellors ran a similar system—refusing to award degrees until students fulfil their promise to go home—perhaps the Government would have a different attitude to the number of students coming here. It would not be a problem if they actually went home.

[Mr Blunkett]

There are all sorts of practical ways in which we could assist universities to ensure that people in those circumstances leave the country after graduating, such as the possibility of returning part of the fee. My right hon. Friend has strong and, I think, reasonable arguments to make on this issue, but I do not agree with him on some issues.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned targets and suggested that, in principle, they are not wrong, but that the Government’s target—of reducing net migration to tens of thousands—was wrong. I think he mentioned a figure of 100,000. If he agrees with targets in principle, but disagrees with the target set by the Government, what does he think is the right target for net migration?

[Mr Blunkett]

I did not actually say that I agreed with targets, but in one perverse way I do. The points system that I started to introduce before I left the Home Office at the end of 2004, and how it is used now to bring in the skills that we need from outside the European Union, are themselves targets, by the very nature of the way in which they are set, the advice that is taken from the independent commission and the way that we respond. Part of the difficulty that we have been debating—and it gets tangled up with the issue of whether we should be in or out of the European Union—is the nature of free movement.

[Mark Pritchard]

The Leader of the Opposition has apologised to the British people, who want to see net migration come down. It is not just the policy of the coalition Government: it is the British people who want to see net migration come down. Non-EU migration has come down. EU migration is still a challenge, and it is one that the Government will face as the Prime Minister renegotiates power back from Europe—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunkett]

I mentioned a moment ago that there were things that we did not get right. For instance, we did not do anything like enough to work with host communities to prepare them for integration. We did not do enough to expand the gateway programme for entry into the UK under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which would have provided a sensible, planned process—as the small experiments we indulged in did achieve—for giving people the chance to escape from horrendous circumstances. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for introducing the anti-slavery legislation, which builds on the modest progress we made 10 years ago, including the sexual offences legislation. It raises, of course, the issue that people face death and torture, organised criminality and slavery, and we need to deal with that. Expanding the gateway programme would have reduced the fear of a massive influx of asylum seekers. Incidentally, the number was reduced from 110,000 in 2002 to under 30,000 by the time I left the Home Office, and it is much lower today. The asylum issue was paramount in people’s minds 12 years ago, but now the issue is movement within the European Union.

Incidentally, before that, when we were not doing so well as an economy, British workers went to other parts of Europe. Those of us who are old enough—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and I are—remember the television series, “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” about British workers working in Germany. There is nothing new about this—the question is the volume, the flow, the preparations made and the measures taken. Some—indeed, all—of the measures outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford are reasonable, and we could add others.

First, we could include conditionality in relation to entitlement to benefits, toughening that entitlement substantially, and ensuring that people cannot draw benefits for family who live abroad, including child benefit. In 2007, I talked at length to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer about this, and his officials were adamant that proper checks were made—but I doubt it. We need clear, enforceable rules that give people confidence that we know what we are doing. We also need points systems and clarity about the need for particular skills; tough benefit rules; tough conditionality requirements; action to avoid exploitation, by working with employers to enforce the minimum wage; and action to ensure that people return to their country of origin if they do not find a job, because they are not holidaymakers or visitors. Those are all practical steps that all three major parties could support.

What would not be practical—and I say this honestly to some of my good friends with whom I agree on many other issues—is to withdraw the right of free movement. We could go back to the time we joined the European Union, or to 1958 and the treaty of Rome, and pretend that everything should have been different, but we are where we are. If we have freedom of movement, we should not prohibit people from working legally. If we did that, they would work in the sub-economy. They would be here, and they would undercut British workers, their conditions and their wages. In 2004, at a time of substantial economic growth and when we needed people to work—and the offer was on the table for young people in our country to gain the skills and take up the jobs—the vacancies were filled by people from what are now the central and eastern parts of the European Union, the E8 countries. We found that when we allowed—and I take total responsibility for this—people to register, work legally and pay tax and national insurance, 40% of them were already in the country. It is the same now for the Romanian and Bulgarian entry, which was not a calamity as people in UKIP predicted. Some of the people now working openly were in the country before January and had been to and fro from Bulgaria and Romania under the existing limited scheme.

We need to tell people the truth: there are things we can do and things we cannot do. There are targets that can be met and targets that are foolish. If we tell people the truth we might get their respect. The Office for National Statistics needs to be very careful in the assumptions it makes—I have had correspondence with Andrew Dilnot on this—from very dubious source evidence.

I am sorry to keep going back into history, but we have to learn from history rather than live in it. In 1968, Anthony Crosland, who was a very radical, free-thinking moderniser at the time, made a speech at a fringe meeting at the Labour party conference which was then written up into an article. In it, he said there was a real fear that by the year 2000 there would be a population explosion of between 15 million and 20 million. Between the census of 1971 and 2001, the actual uplift was 3.2 million.

I do not underestimate the bigger challenge that we face now, but I simply say to the House—one does not get this opportunity very often, Madam Deputy Speaker; in all the recent debates I have spoken in I have had between six and 10 minutes to speak, so forgive me—that we need to have a serious, open, non-partisan, non-knockabout debate on immigration, otherwise the issue will corrode people’s confidence in the political system. It will erode any kind of sensible debate on our future in Europe. It will undermine people’s belief that we can do things sensibly on their behalf and that we are listening to their cry for help; not patronising them by simply mouthing whatever it is that they want to hear, but suggesting practical measures we can carry through. If we do that, we might be able to calm the debate and deal with the issues thrown up in recent weeks. What are British values? What do we expect from people in our communities? What can we demand of people who come in from the rest of the European Union or the rest of the world in terms of their response to the norms of our society? Getting those questions right might do all of us a favour.

Above all, it might restore confidence in the democratic political process, which is so crucial to getting people to vote and to take seriously the one other thing that is offered to them—hope. At the moment, so many people in the most deprived parts of Britain, who are facing the most severe aspects of the austerity programme, lack hope. Above all, in the general election next year we must give people that aspiration and hope for the future. If we do that, they might respond with a belief in becoming engaged as active citizens and backing their party of choice by voting, and above all with a belief that democratic politics is something they want to espouse and support; that might come to fruition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I do not feel the need to transmit that message to my right hon. Friend, who has no doubt heard it. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

I am grateful that there is broad support for many of the provisions in the Serious Crime Bill. It will make a significant contribution to the Government’s continuing fight against serious and organised crime, of which the National Crime Agency is perhaps the most visible manifestation.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Jessica Lee) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), both of whom have great records of campaigning in this area, talked about the child cruelty clauses. I am sure that the whole House recognises that child cruelty is an abhorrent crime that needs to be punished. Every child should be able to grow up in a safe environment. The changes that we will take forward in the Serious Crime Bill make it absolutely clear that cruelty likely to cause psychological suffering or injury is covered under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. We are modernising the language used in that section to help the courts to implement it more effectively.

A number of other matters have been raised, including the fact that the Serious Crime Bill will create a new offence targeting people who possess any items containing advice or guidance that could be useful to someone committing or preparing to commit a sexual offence against a child—so-called paedophile manuals. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) not just for his kind remarks about ministerial action on this, but for the long-running and extremely effective campaign that he has carried out in this field, of which, as he said, this is one small step forward. I am delighted to have his support in this matter.

The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is a carry-over Bill, delivers the vital next stage in this Government’s mission to deliver a more credible justice system. Much has been achieved to date. Prisons are now places of hard work and discipline; we have implemented fundamental reforms to transform rehabilitation by bringing together the best of the public, private and voluntary sectors; and all community sentences now contain an element of punishment. The Bill builds on those achievements, by ensuring that criminals are properly punished, young offenders turn their lives around through education and modern courts run efficiently and effectively.

[Mr Blunkett]

Will the Minister acknowledge that the probation service faces a very serious position with the changes from 1 June? Will he, with the Home Secretary, make representations to the Justice Secretary to take a look at exactly what is happening on the ground?

[Damian Green]

As the right hon. Gentleman would expect, the Justice Secretary and the prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), take a close interest in what is happening on the ground. I hope the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that the purpose of the changes in probation, as I explained to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), is to make rehabilitation more effective than it has been in the past. Reoffending rates have not fallen despite the great efforts made by the National Offender Management Service and those who work in the probation service. We need change to get those reoffending rates down. The vast majority of crime is committed by a very small number of people, so if we can get the reoffending rates down, we can continue to get overall crime down. That is the most effective thing we can do.

As I said, this is a carry-over Bill. I am grateful for the work the House has done to progress this important piece of legislation. There has been very thorough and lively scrutiny of the Bill during its Commons stages, and I am sure that the quality of debate will continue as it completes its second day on Report. I should inform the House that we have today tabled an amendment to introduce an offence of police corruption, because it is untenable that we should be relying on an 18th-century common law offence of misconduct in public office to deal with serious issues of compliance in modern policing. We tabled the amendment to establish a statutory offence of police corruption to supplement the common law offence and to focus on those who hold police powers.

A number of references have been made to the social action, responsibility and heroism Bill. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for his speech, not least because he was reporting from the front line as a first responder and, as he told us, a regular snow clearer in his constituency. He knows what these situations are like, and he said precisely why this Bill is necessary. [Interruption.] The shadow Attorney-General is expressing some cynicism—or, to be fair, scepticism—about the Bill. My hon. Friend knows that legislation is necessary, because people are worried about doing something that their conscience wants them to do. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) is chuntering from a sedentary position.