Abu Qatada

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

What I agree with is that we should make every effort to reform the European Court, which is precisely what is being done today at the Brighton conference, and what will be done over the next two days, by my right hon. and learned Friends the Attorney-General and the shadow Justice Secretary.

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

I am having a greater struggle today to be magnanimous than I had on Tuesday. Although the Home Secretary might accept that it is no surprise that Abu Qatada will take any measure to make a monkey out of the Home Secretary and the Home Office, was it a surprise to her to learn that a question of ambiguity about the date was raised with the Home Office on Monday? Specifically, was she told and what did she do about it?

[Mrs May]

I have made it clear that the deadline was on Monday 16 April. That is the view that we have put to the European Court. As I have also said in my earlier responses, of course the Government were talking to the European Court throughout the three months, and we were doing so on the basis that the deadline was 16 April.

Abu Qatada

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to refer to the Brighton conference, which starts tomorrow. It will be chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary, who has been working with the other 46 members of the Council of Europe to do what I believe we all want, which is to ensure that the European Court operates appropriately and in a way that reflects its original intentions. The Prime Minister made a speech earlier this year in which he made it clear that there were a number of issues that we wanted to look at, such as subsidiarity and the efficiency of the European Court. It is those matters which the Brighton conference will be discussing.

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

As the Home Secretary who originally certificated Abu Qatada, it would be churlish of me not to congratulate the Home Secretary on making at least some progress on the back of the change in Jordan’s constitution and on getting agreement. However, does she agree that much of the delay has been caused by the operation of the European Court, and that the proposals originally put forward by the Prime Minister for deliberation by the Council of Europe in Brighton this week have now been watered down? Is it not a contradiction to come here and be quite belligerent about believing that something can be achieved by words, when actually, in deliberation in Brighton this week, we will go in exactly the opposite direction?

[Mrs May]

I welcome the comments of the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary who, as he said, first initiated proceedings for the deportation of Abu Qatada. What I would say to him about the Brighton conference is that the Prime Minister was quite clear earlier this year about those areas where we would be working to get some change in the operation of the European Court. Of course, all Members of this House will have to wait until the proceedings of the Brighton conference are complete to see the package that comes out of it, but I have every confidence that the work that my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary has done will indeed enable us to achieve the changes we want.

Abu Qatada

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The specific reason for the European Court finding against deportation was the question of whether the evidence that would be used against Abu Qatada in his retrial—he had been tried in absentia—had been obtained as a result of torture. That is the issue that was raised by the European Court, and that is the issue that we are addressing.

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

In 2002, when Abu Qatada was eventually apprehended, he was in a flat about 400 yards away from MI5 headquarters, using what was then the most sophisticated electronic equipment to communicate his message. Given that the Home Secretary has said time and again this afternoon that the bail conditions are tough and would restrict him from being able to do that again, how can she possibly justify allowing a situation to arise at the end of April, with the Olympic games and the Queen’s jubilee taking place, in which terrorism prevention and investigation measures would come into effect that would do away with all the restrictions that she has set out in the bail conditions?

Parliamentary Representation

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, to the Minister and to the House if I am not able to be here at the conclusion of the debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), not only on securing the debate but on the work she did under your patronage, Mr Speaker, leading the Speaker’s Conference. Some of us in the House today spent well over a year of our lives—not full-time, but it seemed a lot—on the Speaker’s Conference and I hope that the recommendations can be followed through and that it will be possible to make progress.

In order to avoid repetition, I say at the beginning that the issues surrounding the next general election, not only the lower number of Members of Parliament, but the dramatic boundary changes, present a challenge for all political parties. We need to appeal to them to take the matter very seriously if we are not to take a step backwards on gender, on sexuality, on ethnicity and on disability. I am genuinely deeply worried. I hope that the access to public life fund and the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) on internships will assist.

On a lighter note, I think that we have made progress in the 25 years since I came to the House. I was asked when I first came in with my dog whether there would be a problem with animal noises, and I gave an assurance that the dog would not be disturbed at all by the kind of thing that he was likely to hear in Prime Minister’s questions at that time. I did, however, face the enormous problem of persuading people that additional resources would make it possible to work on equal terms. It was a fiasco. We had a working party between the two Houses under the chairmanship of Lord Jenkins, as he became. The recommendations had to be voted on on the Floor of the House. We have come a long way since that terrible embarrassment. One Member, who is still in the House, said to me, “You’re very lucky to get these extra resources.” I said, “I’ll swap you any time.”

[Chris Bryant]

My right hon. Friend may be interested to hear that when I was helping to organise the memorial service for John Smith at Westminster abbey and I said that we would need a bowl of water put out for my right hon. Friend’s dog, the usher said, “I’m not putting a bowl out for any bloody socialist’s dog.”

[Mr Blunkett]

All I can say is that I wish he had not discriminated on political grounds.

There are major challenges facing us. The nature of the Palace of Westminster has changed to some degree, but not enough. It is not quite the old boys’ club that it was when my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and I joined in 1987, but people still have in their minds a major psychological barrier about what they will experience here. There are also practical barriers, which have been referred to, in the procedures of the House. I hope that we can be more radical in the next three and a half years than we have been in the 25 that I have been here. Unless we change the way we vote, the knowledge about votes, the way in which the day is organised and the support for families, we will not have the diversity and the reflection of society that all of us in this House want.

I congratulate those who have broken through even bigger barriers than I have been able to challenge in my life. To win a by-election as a member of an ethnic minority is a real step forward. Reflecting on the years gone by, I think that it has been shown that the way in which society gradually changes is reflected here, but we have a role in accelerating that change by the way we behave.

The thing that I have probably done best in my public life and am most proud of is not something from my eight years as a Cabinet Minister or from my time as leader of a council. It is having changed attitudes outside— the way that people perceive not only others but, sometimes, themselves. That is a comfort when things go badly wrong.

I agree that we need to revisit the way in which we encourage diversity in supporting Members. I have to pay tribute—I know that it is not fashionable—to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in relation to disability issues. It has been extremely understanding and helpful in a way that I hope will be reflected in further revisions to support family life, particularly in terms of gender challenges. I look forward to IPSA responding to that challenge.

It is important that the Government are able to respond too. I think that Departments have improved. I hope that the Office for Disability Issues will continue and will be able to make progress, along with the access to public life fund. However, there are still ingrained challenges in terms of covert discrimination. There is no question but that people are sometimes grumpy about being expected to go the extra mile to help those facing a challenge that is perfectly manageable and can be overcome with a bit of thought. People do not like to talk about it; they do not even like to think about it; but, believe me, they do behave in quite extraordinary ways.

What I want to emphasise this afternoon is that we must go right back to the way we develop an understanding of citizenship in schools and persuade the Secretary of State for Education, even at this late stage, not to downgrade the programme we put in place 10 years ago and instead to build upon it. It would be an irony indeed if newcomers to this country who were becoming naturalised were more savvy about politics and better able to get to this House than the population as a whole because they had experienced the necessity of passing the dreaded test. Once we have done that and we have continued to change the nature of our politics and the way we speak to each another, we might get even more progress within political parties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has kindly indicated—I have no buzzer—that I have only a few seconds left, so I will bring my comments to an end. Political parties have made progress, as has been mentioned this afternoon, but, my goodness, there are still major blockages. Unless the political parties take a lead, how can we expect the nation as a whole to do so?

UK Extradition Arrangements

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on obtaining the debate. I shall try to respond briefly in the spirit of accord that we have created over the past few days, including on the broadcast media.

I had the unenviable task of agreeing the framework agreement on the European arrest warrant and the renewed treaty with the United States. When someone has Baroness Helena Kennedy and the Daily Mail on their back, they really do need to be on the ball, so I have re-read a lot of material, including Justice Scott Baker’s review, and it is worth those who follow parliamentary debates getting on the website and taking a good look at it.

The review may have flaws, but it is an extraordinarily good examination of precisely what was agreed, what has happened and, therefore, the reality of decisions taken and how they compare, for instance, with the Extradition Act 1989 and European convention rights, which are currently being tested by Babar Ahmad, because his case has gone to Strasbourg. In the case of Gary McKinnon, a review of the medical evidence is taking place for a report back to the Home Secretary, so high-profile cases are being dealt with almost outside, and in addition to, the procedure that we are debating tonight. In other words, the process is being exhausted and carried further, as it should be in cases of controversy and in extenuating circumstances.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of Gary McKinnon, my constituent, and makes a new point, because I understand that he made representations for Mr McKinnon to stand trial via a TV link from this country and, if convicted, to serve his sentence here. Does that not make the case for a forum bar, which would enable such considerations to be transparent, rather than conducted perhaps privately, as the previous Home Secretary did?

[Mr Blunkett]

The forum bar carries forward convention rights and changes the balance, as Scott Baker’s review indicates. Although I do not disagree with a great deal of the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I note that elements of it would not only prolong the process—it has been mentioned already that some people have been awaiting extradition for a very long time—but alter the balance that we are trying to achieve.

If I were negotiating the 2003 treaty and the accompanying Extradition Act 2003 again, I would want a codicil, detailing alongside the treaty the nature of the process in order to assure people that there was a clear balance between the processes adopted in the United States and here.

In 2009 and 2010, I had the opportunity, which I took up privately, to visit the US Department of Justice. I kept it private for two years, because, in reporting back to the Home and Justice Secretaries under the previous and current Governments, I felt that there was some progress to be made by stating the views of the Department of Justice, as indicated to me, on the possibility of taking decisions about any trial, the nature of any sentence and whether, if applied, it might be served in this country.

Those are difficult issues, because we should not presume that somebody would be found guilty. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) is close to Mr McKinnon’s case, so he will be familiar with Lord Justice Stanley Burnton’s commentary on it, and there is undoubtedly the major issue of medical evidence, which is under examination.

Let me deal briefly with where we should be going. We should return to the issues relating to the European arrest warrant, because, as we have just heard spelt out, extradition arrangements have been distorted in cases from eastern Europe to Greece, partly because there has not been a de minimis rule on sentences and, therefore, whether it applies; because people have been returned to—rather than dealt with originally—years after the case arose; and because EAWs have been presented to people outside the United Kingdom when no attempt has been made to serve a warrant inside. All those matters need reviewing for the sake of the sensible application of justice, because once people feel that justice is not being applied, as we have seen from campaigns and in tonight’s debate, justice is questioned.

On the American issue, however, I shall talk about not just balance, but the rule of law, because we must have sensible arrangements that do not rest on whether we think an individual’s case is a good one. The Americans quite rightly put to me, “What about Abu Hamza? Whose hands are going up for a type 1 diabetic who is a double amputee, and for his associate, who is alleged to be bipolar? Who feels they ought to run such campaigns on their behalf to stop extradition?” How do the United States see the issue when they are trying to ensure that principles are applied and a precedent not set which would then create complete havoc in the justice system? The rule of law has to apply equally and sensitively, but it has to include rules to which we can all adhere.

The NatWest three, or the Enron three as the Americans prefer to call them, were totally innocent according to their campaigns, and even I began to be convinced that they were, until of course they reached the United States and pleaded guilty.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

The Enron three told me that if they pleaded not guilty in America and were found guilty they would get 35 years, but that if they pleaded guilty they would get five years. They were concerned about being forced into pleading guilty in America.

[Mr Blunkett]

That is often undertaken—albeit not to the degree that has just been described—in our court system to ensure that people can enter a plea bargain, so it is not unfamiliar to any of us.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Blunkett]

I will not give way any more, because I will lose time.

On the American treaty, there is therefore room for negotiation on the side to take account of my central point: we live in an entirely different world with cyber- attacks. Cyber-attacks from our country on installations in our country can easily be dealt with, but cyber-attacks from a country on the installations or businesses of another country, such as the Pentagon, raise all sorts of issues about how we go forward.

There are rogue and emerging states in terms of cyber-attack and cyber-terrorism to which we would certainly not want to say, “Please would you try the individual in the state from which the attack took place,” and, as such attacks are trans-border and affect installations throughout the world, we need to sit down and work out how we deal with that entirely new eventuality, which affects people across the globe. If we do not, we will rue the day.

With an agreement between prosecuting authorities, it would be perfectly feasible to use video conferencing so that the accused could not only take part in the trial and be questioned, but view the trial and, if found guilty, serve their sentence in a friendly state, where everyone agreed that conditions were acceptable. Let us have the further review on the back of Scott Baker. We have had the review that people wanted, and they do not like it. By all means let us keep reviewing it, but let us do so with a degree of common sense and balance, in the spirit of this debate.

I am aware that there will not be a vote this evening. I know that the Government will take this seriously, but I also know that they will have to govern and they will have to do business with a friendly state where the judicial system is free, open and based on rights, and we should respect it as such.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

I entirely agree. That is very much the thrust of what I will say in the next few minutes.

Let me come back to the thought process behind this—the intent behind what the then Home Secretary was trying to achieve, with which, as I said, I sympathise. The EAW, the extradition treaty and the 2003 Act were all aimed at dealing with terrorism. What has been the consequence of that? A parliamentary answer told us that between 2003 and 2009 there were 63 extraditions to the USA, of which precisely one involved a terrorist. A number of the others involved serious crimes—although I have to wonder about the two people who were extradited for “satellite signal theft”; Rupert Murdoch’s reach is obviously longer than I thought—but there was only one terrorist extradition. When I looked at it the other way around—extraditions from the Americans to us—I was unable to find any record of terrorists being extradited here. I asked people in the Library to look at it for me. They searched through all the available records and could not find any examples. We should keep in mind that the rather draconian process that we have, which was put in place to defend us against terrorism, does not appear to have had much impact in that respect. In practice, the outcome is much more mundane. The truth of the matter is that we will have far more Gary McKinnons extradited than Osama bin Ladens.

Because of the terrorist problem, the international crime problem, and the pressure for a fast agreement, we have left out some proper protections in the agreements that we have made, particularly with America. Debating this when he was in opposition, the current Attorney-General said that

“we chose in the 2003 Act, bizarrely, to get rid of the protection that existed in article 7(1) of the 1957 convention on extradition, which allowed an extradition to be prevented if the person was being sent to an inappropriate forum for the trial…Every other country has that safeguard. The Irish, who regard themselves as close partners and friends of the United States, and who have an extradition arrangement, have a forum clause in their treaty, which enables the question of the appropriate forum to be considered.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 1419.]

He is right. Not only the Irish, but Norway, Switzerland, Holland, France and Germany all have such provision. In fact, the Germans’ law will not allow the extradition of any of their citizens outside their country. Similarly, two Commonwealth countries—Australia and New Zealand, two of America’s closest allies in the war on terror—have total discretion over who among their own nationals they allow to be extradited. The idea that we are somehow at odds with the accepted—and, indeed, acceptable—approach among the western nations in their battle with terrorism is nonsense.

[Mr Blunkett]

On 16 December 2004, the idea of treating one’s nationals, as opposed to overseas citizens, differently in this country was ruled out by the House of Lords. I should know, because section 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was at stake.

[Mr Davis]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right. My point is that we are dealing with the situation as it is now and what is acceptable among the anti-terrorist community, if I might put it in those terms, and I am afraid that what is acceptable is something far tougher than we have been claiming.

Let me look at the other side—American reciprocity. Much of this is about reciprocity, so how have the Americans behaved? My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), who is the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, asked how many cases have been refused. I have worked in the murky world of international relations in the Foreign Office, and I know that the number of requests refused is zero—but of course it does not work like that. If one wants to turn something down, one rings up one’s ally and says, “Would you mind withdrawing it?” The US subsequently withdrew 5% of its applications, whereas we withdrew 20% of ours. I wonder why. I do not think that the Americans can claim a very great moral high ground in terms of reciprocity. Indeed, the attitude taken to that by many countries, including Canada, Spain, France, Germany and Italy, has traditionally been much more robust than ours.

So what should we do? My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton has made this point in some detail, so I will be quick. We should change the forum arrangements. They should pay proper attention to not accidentally punishing the innocent or over-punishing those guilty of minor crimes. I do not know why the Americans should think it better for Gary McKinnon to spend two years in an American prison than for two American witnesses to spend two weeks in a hotel in Britain while the case is tried. We should have prima facie evidence requirements so that we do not repeat the Symeou experience of somebody spending a year in a foreign prison before eventually being proven innocent. Finally, we should introduce a filter for cases that are acceptable using dual criminality, seriousness and timeliness, so that justice does not become so heavy handed that it tips over into being injustice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I can feel a fascinating and wholly irrelevant debate coming upon us, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Blunkett]

rose—

[Damian Green]

This will be the last intervention on mediaeval history.

[Mr Blunkett]

I just want to make the obvious point that what matters is not when habeas corpus was agreed in principle but whether people can implement it.

[Damian Green]

In his known wisdom, the right hon. Gentleman brings me back to the modern era.

When we entered office last year, we recognised that there were long-standing and deeply held concerns about the UK’s extradition arrangements with other EU member states and about our extradition treaty with the United States. That is why in the coalition’s programme for government we made a clear commitment to review the operation of the Extradition Act 2003 and the US-UK extradition treaty to ensure that they were even- handed. That was why the Home Secretary announced an independent review to be chaired by Sir Scott Baker and assisted by two lawyers—an important point given some of the criticisms of the Baker commission—who between them had extensive experience of extradition from prosecution and defence perspectives.

As I made clear during the debate in Westminster Hall, that panel undertook an extensive examination of the issues and carefully examined evidence from a range of parties representing all shades of opinion. Contrary to suggestions by some, the panel assessed representations from those who had experienced extradition first hand and the evidence of their families. It has also been suggested that the panel did not take evidence from solicitors representing the subjects of extradition requests. In fact, one of the panel members was himself an experienced legal representative of those subject to extradition proceedings and brought first-hand insight into the realities of extradition from the UK.

As the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) said, the review has evidently reached controversial conclusions, but I hope that we would all acknowledge that it is a serious piece of work, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). I have been interested to hear the further points made this evening, and I am happy to assure the House that these opinions will be given the most careful scrutiny before we publish what action we propose to take in response to the review. There is a significant body of opinion from all sides that we need to assess seriously before reaching a decision.

Members on both sides of the House asked that we deal with individual cases of particular concern to them. I am, of course, happy to do that. Let me first summarise what I said about Babar Ahmad’s case. He was arrested for extradition purposes in August 2004, and in June 2007 he exhausted all the available domestic avenues for contesting the request for his extradition. He then applied to the European Court of Human Rights. On 12 June 2007, the Court imposed a stay on his extradition and on 8 July 2010 declared his case partially admissible. His case remains under consideration by the Court. The allegations against him in the United States relate to alleged conduct that took place while he was in the United Kingdom. As the House knows, an e-petition on behalf of Mr Ahmad calling for him to be put on trial in the UK has attracted more than 140,000 signatures.

Of course, the Government recognise the concern of those petitioners but it is not for the Government to decide if and when someone should be prosecuted in the United Kingdom.

Border Checks Summer 2011

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I said, I did not give my consent or authorisation for any of those decisions.

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

rose—

[Mrs May]

I will give way to a former Home Secretary.

[Mr Blunkett]

I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. Did any other Minister give their consent or, by indicating that they needed to clear the backlog at Heathrow, indicate that any measures should be taken to free up resources to do that?

[Mrs May]

I am setting out very clearly the pilot for which consent was given by the Immigration Minister and me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Johnson]

I will give way in a minute.

The only surprise is that the one marked “Immigration” has exploded quite so quickly in No. 2 Marsham street. Like many others, I predict that the Government’s pledge to reduce immigration to the levels of the 1980s will not be met, because we live in a very different world from the 1980s. In government, I admitted that we were slow to come to terms—as were many other countries—with the huge increase in migration from places such as Iraq, Kosovo, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. We were using a 20th-century system to deal with a 21st-century problem, but after the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, we progressively managed to get on top of the issue—bit by bit. With only a dribble of asylum seekers entering the country, it took 22 months even to get an asylum claim to the first stage under the preceding Conservative Government, but by the time we left office it was taking six months. The introduction of biometric visas and e-borders all made a contribution.

The Home Secretary might like to correct her remark on Monday that since the introduction of the points-based system, immigration has not gone down. It has. The difficulty for her is that immigration and net migration are two different things. The Government have no control over the number of people leaving the country, just as they have no control, incidentally, over mortality or the birth rate—thank goodness—unless it is in their plans for the Queen’s Speech. In fact, net immigration has gone down; it fell from 237,000 in 2007 to 163,000 in 2008 and to 147,000 in 2009. It has only gone up again since this Government came into power.

The problem is complex, and e-borders are central to its solution. We could have all the checks in the world, but the majority of illegal immigrants in this country have entered the country legally and overstayed their visa. It is not until the e-borders system—the Government have supported it; I presume that they will keep to the same programme—checks people out as well as checking them in that we shall actually solve the problem.

For the Home Secretary, solving these problems was simple. The rhetoric, as usual, was at absolute variance with reality.

[Mr Blunkett]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm a point that the Home Secretary referred to earlier? It was agreed in May 2004 to allow people permitted to be in this country legally to work legally, but 40% of those who registered to work were already in the country. That is why proper legal processes for economic migration and tough border controls have to go hand in hand.

[Alan Johnson]

I do confirm that. The Home Secretary talked about Sangatte on Monday, and it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) who, in an incredible piece of political acumen, did a deal with Sarkozy effectively to move our border from Dover to northern France. That made a huge contribution as well. I find it incredible that the Home Secretary formulated and introduced plans to reduce the crucial biometric checks while the threat level was at its second highest; it was at severe at the time, and it was lowered to substantial only in July. In effect, she turned the UK into a semi-Schengen country by not requiring full checks on EEA citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunkett]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Straw]

Let me return, if I may, to the issue of the Home Secretary’s responsibility. As I was saying, it is the nature of the business, not the nature of the staff, that makes Home Secretaries so vulnerable to things going wrong. I find myself comparing the behaviour of the present Home Secretary with that of Sir Paddy Mayhew, now Lord Mayhew, when he was Northern Ireland Secretary. Some of us were in the House at the time.

On 2 January 1995, the Northern Ireland equivalent of the House of Commons suffered a serious fire and was almost burnt to the ground. Sir Patrick Mayhew, as he then was, set up an inquiry. He gave the results to the House on 19 April, and I remember sitting there admiring the way in which a Secretary of State had taken responsibility for a disaster on the chin. He described what had happened. He pointed out that there had been no fire drills for five years, and that the fire hydrants had suffered from a particular defect: an “absence of water”. He said that new instructions had been issued and disciplinary action had been taken against the staff, but that was after a full inquiry—not before those staff had had a chance to explain themselves—and the staff were not named. It could have been a catastrophe for that Secretary of State because he was, indeed, responsible, but because he set the tone for the inquiry and followed proper procedures, he left the Chamber with his reputation enhanced, not diminished.

Among all who have held the post of Home Secretary there is, regardless of party divide, some camaraderie and understanding about the predicaments one can face. My concern about the current Home Secretary is that she will end this episode with her reputation diminished. I had dealings with Mr Brodie Clark, and I found him to be a very good official. It may be the case that he has done all the things said of him, but, like anyone in such circumstances, he deserves a proper inquiry—he deserves a proper hearing. Hanging him and the other officials out to dry without their having any opportunity to respond or there being any proper process, thereby condemning him before there has been a trial, not only damages his rights, but greatly demeans the reputation of the current holder of the great office of state of Home Secretary.

UK Border Force

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that point. It was the actions of the last Government that led to the build-up of more than 450,000 asylum cases, which has only just been cleared. We are now able to operate a much more efficient asylum system. I can also assure my hon. Friend that this Government are not in favour of allowing an amnesty to illegal immigrants.

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

Last year the Government announced the abandoning of second-generation biometrics; we had not expected them to abandon first-generation biometrics quite so quickly.

I realise that we are dealing with a ministerial graveyard —as some of us know very well—but what monitoring and reporting mechanisms were introduced by Ministers so that they could be informed of the progress of the pilot programme and whether it was being eroded at the edges?

[Mrs May]

We ensured that there would be a proper evaluation of the pilot programme. The point of making it a pilot programme was to establish whether it would indeed be possible to target those who constituted a higher risk in terms of border security, and whether there would be benefits from such action. As I have said, the pilot ended last week, and the full results of the evaluation have not yet been made available.

Student Visas

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Westminster Hall

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

For the avoidance of doubt, I had better declare an interest. From time to time, I receive remuneration from the higher education sector for work I do with it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate. After being a council leader for Sheffield and an MP for the city for 24 years, I thank him for drawing my attention to the international college’s work. I was unaware of the extent of that work—every day, I am on a learning curve.

There seem to be two aspects to what we are debating. The first is the macro. That relates to the overall issue of migration and its impact on our country and the politics in which we are all engaged. The second is the unauthorised, the unauthenticated and the unacceptable. That relates to those colleges and institutions that either do not exist or, if they do, do not provide what they say on the can they offer. In addition, such institutions do not offer courses of sufficient quality to students of sufficient quality.

Those two aspects are getting slightly mixed up, although that is not because the first matter is not important. To coin a phrase from the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, I certainly have scars on my back from the near four years I was Home Secretary in terms of the two major pieces of legislation that we introduced and the changes we made. That included the two-thirds reduction in asylum, the security and immigration provisions on French soil, the measures regarding liaison officers at airports across the world and a substantial tightening up of how we operated visas. Such policies provided a foundation on which my Government subsequently built and this Government have been building. The issue is incremental. If we take a step in one direction, we find that the plastic bottle has bulged out in another. I suggest to the Minister, who is deeply committed to this matter, that immigration will affect this Government, as it did previous ones.

As the issue has been mentioned, I would like to say how much I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about embarkation and e-Borders. I was responsible for kick-starting e-Borders, but I claim no credit or discredit whatsoever for the contract that was let. In fact, when the 20-year rule comes in, there will be letters on file from me as a Back Bencher advising against what was done. The speed of operation to get this right is critical because, if we do not know who is leaving, we really cannot make a judgment about whether the system is working. That applies directly to students who have fulfilled their courses and/or their term afterwards for permission to work. If the system is working properly, much of what we are debating would be seen in that broader context, and we would not be so obsessed with artificial targets for future migrants. We would be able to deal with the issue of what a migrant actually is and provide a proper definition in a way that removes the harder edge of politics.

It is inevitable that there will be politics involved in discussions on immigration. We might then debate issues and not end up with policies that damage the country, rather than enhance its well-being. I do not intend to repeat what has already been expressed, because time is pushing on and extremely good points have been made. Even those points that I have doubts about have been enlightening. I would, however, like to reinforce some of the key points that have emerged.

First, the economic value to this country is not just the money that comes into the universities or the local community, but the way in which those who have benefited from both the study in, and the experience of, our country add to our potential economic value in years to come, as they become the advocates for Britain and part of global institutions and enterprises, whose connection with and alumni from our institutions make an enormous difference to Britain in this global economy and international trading world.

Secondly, to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), our universities are able to offer that social responsibility much better if they have a higher level of agreed income. The income that is coming in from overseas, free as it is from issues of debt repayment and the difficulties that we have debated over recent months, adds to a university’s ability to contribute to the wider community and the social well-being of our country. The issue is much broader than whether the university itself has an enhanced income, important as that is.

Thirdly, there is an issue about whether we really want numbers of legitimate, verified students, with the right qualifications in the right quality of institution, in this country. If we listen carefully to the debate, we will hear that everyone pays lip service to the importance of legitimate students coming here, but we then hear a different nuance, namely, “But they are foreigners and that is dangerous, because our electorate do not really like foreigners.” We need to get off that and on to where migration policy has not worked properly—even the measures for which I was responsible did not always work—and the importance of enforcement. We need proper inspection and enforcement, including clamping down on those colleges that do not really exist or are just an excuse for people to get into the country. Moreover, if our legitimate university and higher education institutions, both in the public and the embryo private sector, are not checking whether students are taking up their courses, enforcement is the crucial element. That is the end at which we need to ensure that we get this right, rather than trying to reduce, per se, the number of legitimate students coming into the country. That is critical.

In 2000, I led a delegation, which included the Higher Education Funding Council and this country’s leading universities, to China. The Chinese welcomed us and were very pleased to have a two-way arrangement with us that includes students coming on a temporary basis to learn our language and about our systems. That was a good thing to do, and anything that damages it would be a major mistake.

That brings me to my central point. It is the message we send that is absolutely critical, and the message that has been received outside this country is the wrong one. It is not that we want to avoid the illegitimate, the unacceptable and the fraudulent, either in terms of the provision in our country or of those coming in for reasons other than to study properly. The message that is being received outside this country, as has already been said, is, “You will not be welcome.” Will the Minister do everything possible, along with our embassies and high commissions, to change the message, so that it is received properly and understood by students and industry? Sponsored students are very important, and major enterprises across the world need to know that their potential employees, or those who are sponsored by them, are welcome in this country.

I want to touch briefly on the complications that we face. Many of them could be overcome if there was greater flexibility in the transition period—there is no question about that. It is no good for the Minister, who intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, to say that, if firm offers were made before 21 April, certificates would be honoured. As was pointed out almost immediately, many of those offers are conditional and do not therefore apply. In some sectors, including professional bodies and professional courses, the number of certificates has been capped arbitrarily, sometimes at levels including those that have been taken on from institutions that no longer exist or have been deregulated. They have, therefore, been punished for picking up students who were badly treated by those that did not come up to standard.

I would like us to address why we do not use highly trusted sponsor status and the oversight mechanisms of professional and private sector operators, which will now be operated by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education—I congratulate it on the speed with which it has moved—rather than a complicated system that does not rely on enforcement and inspection, but on the front end rather than the back end. To complicate matters, it is crucial—this has been said by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller)—that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills gets its act together with the Home Office, so that they speak the same language and that those with expertise share it. For instance, on professional qualifications for accountancy, why suddenly drop in, as the statement and assessment did on Monday, that there has to be approval at gold or platinum level by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, when it has preferred providers of its own? These professional qualifications are a bit like the guild system in mediaeval England.

I counsel the Minister to be very careful not to get involved in what is corporatism. For somebody who is a declared libertarian, that is a dangerous position to be in. We should not put into the hands of those who have a specific interest in particular providers the ability to exclude other providers. That is a dangerous game in terms of the kind of oversight that we would expect.

In brief, I do not think that any Member present does not think that it is a good idea to progress on the road of tightening up in relation to those who have been fraudulently operating the system or those who come here and are not legitimate students. Let us all agree on that. We might even agree that those of us who tried in the past did not come up to scratch in achieving the goals that we set ourselves. A little humility from all of us on that might not be amiss. It is important that the lessons of history are learnt: sometimes, speed leads to the obverse of the objective that is sought, and a little give and take—sensibly, openly and without criticism when people are flexible, so that we give the Minister a bit of leeway—might achieve the overall goal that he and, I believe, BIS seek, namely a system that works and welcomes people into this country, because it is good for our economy, good for our social life and good for the future of Britain.

National Crime Agency

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for an important question. The establishment of the NCA will require legislation. We aim for that legislation to be in place so that the NCA can be fully operational in 2013, but we believe that this is an important area and that we need to start working before then. The transition to the NCA can be eased by work such as developing the organised crime strategy, starting to develop the co-ordination capability on organised crime within the Home Office, which we are doing and, as I have just indicated, starting to develop the co-ordination capacity in relation to economic crime. These are the precursors for a more seamless transition to the NCA.

As we develop the agency, we intend to establish a position for an individual who will head the work. An individual at chief constable level will be appointed fairly soon—within the next few months—and will be able to work within the Home Office over the period before the NCA is set up. At that point there will be a transition for a permanent individual to be established as the head of the NCA.

We want to learn lessons—for example, from the setting up of SOCA, where there were some difficulties in terms of personnel and their move over to SOCA. We will be looking at the lessons to be learned from that.

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

I congratulate the Home Secretary on the prettiest little speech rewriting history that the House has heard for some time. I plead guilty to having been responsible for launching the Serious Organised Crime Agency. I had hoped for a 50% remission, but I will have to settle for a third instead.

The truth of the matter is that SOCA has had enormous successes but was bedevilled by the over-emphasis on intelligence rather than on enforcement, yet this afternoon the Home Secretary once again placed intelligence at the centre. In the new economic crime directorate, the new border directorate and the relationship with Customs and Excise, who will be responsible for the emphasis on economic and, by its very nature, cybercrime—the Treasury directing the policy or the Home Office laying it down? We had problems with that, and I did not hear any explanation of how the present Home Secretary intends to get round that difficulty.

[Mrs May]

I am sorry about the approach that the right hon. Gentleman took in his comments. If he had listened carefully both to my statement and to the response I gave to his right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, he would have heard me make it clear that I think SOCA has done good work over the past few years, but I believe, and I think those involved in SOCA would agree, that we can do more. We can build on the experience that it has built up. By making SOCA the organised crime command within the National Crime Agency and being able to take advantage of the synergies across the law enforcement agencies and police forces, we will be able to do a more effective job in the future.

On the intelligence issue, yes, there will be an intelligence capability at the NCA. That is important, but the difference is that the NCA will clearly be a crime-fighting body and the commands within it will be crime-fighting commands.

In relation to cybercrime, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, there will be a cybercrime unit at the NCA which will cross all the commands, because cybercrime is both a crime in itself and a tool for the execution of other crimes.

Prevent Strategy

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing that letter to the attention of the House and, in doing so, raising a very important aspect of the work on which we wish to focus. There is a great deal more to be done in prisons, and a number of steps that we intend to take are set out in the Prevent strategy today. I should be very happy to receive a copy of that letter, if he feels able to share it with me, so that we can look at the specific allegations that have been made, but we intend to work more carefully with prisons, prison staff, the National Offender Management Service and those going into prisons to deal with individual prisoners in order to try to ensure that we do not see the sort of activity taking place that he has identified.

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

Who could possibly disagree with the three objectives that the Home Secretary has set out? But she has not done herself or her Government justice by seeking to make party political points about those who had to deal—I did not have to—with the reality of post-7 July 2005. I have just one very simple question. How can she this afternoon talk about building on our institutions and on an understanding of our values and history while the Education Secretary is proposing to withdraw citizenship from the school curriculum?

[Mrs May]

In relation to my comments on the previous Government, we did a proper review of the Prevent strategy to identify those areas where change was necessary. We have done that, and I have brought to the House a number of areas where we believe the previous Government’s strategy was flawed and where it is necessary to make changes, which I have set out before the House today.

In relation to what is happening in education, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is quite clear about the necessity of ensuring that values are indeed taught in our schools, but that that is done in a number of ways, including through the proper teaching of our history.