Border Management (Calais)

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman’s questions raise a number of issues. He referred to the fact that he visited Calais last year. Indeed, at the time he said of the problems of migrants building up at Calais:

“This is not new—we saw problems over ten years ago.”

That is precisely why the previous Labour Government worked with the then French Government to introduce the juxtaposed controls. The Le Touquet agreement was important and I reassure him that we certainly intend to do everything we can to maintain those juxtaposed controls. They are an important part of our border security and we will continue to work with the French authorities, as previous Governments have done, to ensure that they are maintained and operate well.

On the issue of processing people, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in Prime Minister’s questions when asked about it by the acting Leader of the Opposition, there is a challenge to the Italian authorities. People are due to be processed and fingerprinted when they first arrive on European shores, and for the majority of those people that means Italy. My French opposite number and I have been working with the Italian Government and, indeed, other European member states to encourage Italy to do exactly that. The European Council will be looking at the question of Mediterranean migration, as did the Justice and Home Affairs Council that I attended in Luxembourg last week. One of the key messages the United Kingdom has been giving consistently—and others support it—is that the best means of dealing with the issue is to break the link. This is about ensuring that people see that if they make this dangerous journey, they are not going to achieve settlement in Europe.

We need to work to break the organised criminal gangs and the people traffickers. The new taskforce is bringing together people from the National Crime Agency, Border Force, immigration enforcement and the Crown Prosecution Service. Some of them will be based overseas and some in the UK. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that they will be working not just among those British agencies, but with the French authorities and others, to ensure that there is better intelligence and a better understanding of where the gangs are and what the routes are, so that we can take appropriate action against them. I absolutely agree with that. It was this party, as part of the coalition Government, that introduced the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which makes it easier for law enforcement to deal with human traffickers. Obviously, that is important legislation.

My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister has had a number of meetings and conversations with representatives of road hauliers about the security aspects. We believe that, overall, Operation Stack worked well. The process has been in place for some time, but the Department for Transport will continue to look at it and about half of the £12 million has already been spent.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Obviously, none of the member states of the European Union can just take in the vast numbers of people who are fleeing here from poverty and oppression in Africa and the middle east. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the moral and practical dilemma is that it will not be possible for Italy, France or the United Kingdom simply to ship back to Somalia, Eritrea, Syria and other places where they face death and oppression men, women and children who have risked their lives crossing the Mediterranean? In addition to the very welcome steps she has described of EU member states beginning to work together, as opposed to trying to blame each other—it is farcical to blame the Mayor of Calais and the French for the present situation—is any work being done to try to identify, locate and finance civilized camps where people can be held in decent conditions while they are processed and not left drifting destitute to all kinds of places over Europe? While there, they can be processed and proper plans can be made for how to resettle them somewhere they can properly find new lives.

[Mrs May]

My right hon. and learned Friend raises important issues, but it is wrong to assume that all the people coming through those routes are refugees or have valid asylum claims. Significant numbers come not from the countries to which he refers, but from Senegal, Nigeria and other west African countries, for whom the issue is somewhat different. Many people who come across from Libya into Italy are economic migrants who are trying to get into Europe illegally and to get settlement. That is why breaking the link is so important. Those individuals should know that they should not make that dangerous journey because they will not get settlement in Europe as a result. It is also why dealing with human traffickers and people smugglers is important.

Within the European arena, we are talking about the possibility of establishing places—we are currently looking at west Africa—where it is possible to return people. The other side of the matter is working in countries such as the ones my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned, using aid money, to ensure that we are developing those countries in a way that means we are reducing poverty in them, and reducing the temptation or incentive for people to try to move.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

It is a question of the seriousness of the measures. We recognise, because of the changes we are making, that there should be a higher burden placed on the Secretary of State in determining whether one of these measures should be provided. That is why we have moved this up to the “balance of probabilities”. Let us not forget that under the previous control orders regime it was not at that level, but two notches down at “reasonable suspicion”. Under TPIMs, we brought it up to “reasonable belief” and, on the balance of the measures we now have, we judge that moving to the “balance of probabilities” is the right stance to take. I will come on to clause 13 later.

The changes are being introduced in the light of the changing threat picture: the ongoing conflict in Syria and Iraq; the fact that 500 subjects of interest have travelled to that region; the risk that they may pose on their return; and the risk of more people seeking to travel out. It is against that assessment that the threat level has been raised to severe, the second highest threat level, and that has had an impact on our assessment of the measures that need to be available to the police and the Security Service, and it is why we have brought forward the measures in this way.

The measures also follow the recommendations from David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, in his most recent annual report on TPIMs. As he has said, however, there is no need to turn back the clock. Control orders were not working and were being struck down by the courts, whereas TPIMs have been consistently upheld and therefore provide a basis in law that is robust and has withstood the scrutiny of the courts. TPIMs have been endorsed by the courts, counter-terrorism reviewers, the police and the Security Service. This change enhances the powers available to manage TPIM subjects by moving them away from harmful associates and making it harder for them to engage in terrorism-related activity. That is why we judge, at this time against the threat picture we see, that it is appropriate to introduce these measures.

It is important, however, that appropriate limits are placed on the use of the powers, and the Bill seeks to do that. We are also acting on David Anderson’s other recommendation to increase the test for imposing a TPIM notice, so that the Secretary of State must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that an individual is, or has been involved, in terrorism-related activity, as well as narrowing the definition of what that activity can entail.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I intervene on my hon. Friend as someone who supported the original move from control orders to TPIMs and thought the Government had got the balance about right in the original proposals. I am just wondering what the particular reason is for reintroducing the location requirements. What has been revealed to be missing by getting rid of them? They were thought to be a great restriction on freedom. The shadow Minister appears to believe that two people absconded because there was no location requirement. I think it is possible to put on a burqa wherever one is living and that it is quite possible to get into a black cab if someone has let one keep one’s passport. If that is being used as a reason, it strikes me as an excuse for letting two people go.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. An intervention is meant to be short. It is not meant to be a speech. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to speak, he could have done so earlier. Please, let us shorten these interventions.

[Mr Clarke]

I apologise, Mr Hoyle. What exactly has happened to give rise to the need to bring back what I thought were fairly useless relocation orders?

[James Brokenshire]

In large measure, it has been the changing nature of the threat picture. My right hon. and learned Friend will know from his time in government that in the past two years we have seen a very altered threat picture and, as he will no doubt recognise, a rise in the threat level earlier this year. The Government need to consider, in a responsible fashion, that changed threat picture and the advice we received from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The proposals in the Bill are formed with that insight clearly in mind and David Anderson’s specific recommendation on this point. It has been against all those factors that we have judged that the right thing to do is to introduce the measures in this way, subject to the safeguards I have spoken about in respect of the change in the burden of proof and the specific limitation on relocation being limited to 200 miles from the location of the individual. I will come on to speak on that in a more direct fashion, recognising the point the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North rightly raised in her amendment.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have made a number of changes to legal aid, and we are looking at the position in relation to that particular issue on these new measures.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

The Home Secretary is being very reasonable to a lot of Members who wish to get in. Let us take the position of someone subject to one of these orders who finds themselves in a friendly country such as Turkey or France. If the Governments of Turkey or France request the British Government to take that person back into the United Kingdom without going through the deportation process, is it not a fact that we would really feel under an obligation to take back such a person?

[Mrs May]

If someone were in a country such as France or Turkey, and the Government of that country requested us to take back the individual, it would be possible in those circumstances for us to act in exactly the way that we are proposing in the Bill. I am talking about managing the return of that individual. For example, they might be accompanied by a police officer who would go out to bring them back into the UK, and various actions might be taken on their return. There might be an interview with the police, the introduction of a TPIM notice or a requirement to go on a Prevent programme. Those sorts of measures could be judged on a case-by-case basis.

EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

There has been considerable contact with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland; there has been contact with all the devolved Administrations on this matter. I have personally had a discussion with the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland about it. If the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, I will refer to the difference that the EAW makes to extradition as between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. That is an important issue, and if we were to come out of the EAW, it would be a matter of concern both to the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and to the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

Should I go left or right? [Laughter.] I suspect that in the interest of balance, I should give way to both my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend, but I think my right hon. and learned Friend has seniority.

[Mr Clarke]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the valuable improvements she has made to the arrest warrant were achieved by negotiations with other member states—they were Europe-wide—and that we were strongly supported by, for example, the German Government who also had concerns about the proportionality of the arrest warrant and by many member states regarding the problem of the Polish constitutional position, which did not fit in with everybody else’s. All this was sorted out in a perfectly friendly negotiation, led very much by my right hon. Friend, and its enforcement would be guaranteed by the jurisdiction of the European Court of law if that were ever called upon, which is very unlikely. Better that, however, than 28 separate Supreme Courts putting their interpretation on the rules that we have now sorted out.

[Mrs May]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right that we have had discussions with other member states on the European arrest warrant. Indeed, some other member states, notably Poland, will take steps themselves to change the way in which they approach this particular issue in their legislation. That would mean fewer trivial or smaller cases resulting from the European arrest warrant. The changes we have made are, of course, changes we have made in domestic legislation here in the United Kingdom. The House has had the opportunity to vote on them and to put them through.

Criminal Law

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

May I ask the shadow Home Secretary to reconsider the rather extraordinary step she has taken of presenting this archaic motion and, indeed, ask the House to consider quite where we are getting to on this issue? Nobody enjoys a good procedural row in the House of Commons as much as I do, and this is one of the best we have had for many years. It is perfectly straightforward—people are entitled to do this if they wish—but the House ought to reflect on what impression this is going to give to the outside world if we are not careful. We are discussing serious matters, yet we are all frolicking about in a rather schoolboy manner while the Whips try to get people to come back for an unexpected debate early in the evening. Let us be candid about what is happening.

Some 20 or 30 years ago, this sort of thing was quite excusable, and people just thought it was one of the things this House did, usually at bizarre hours of the night. Nowadays, that is not the mood out there and we have to be careful that we do not feed the thoughts of those who do not have a very high regard for parliamentary debate and for party politics, and who believed they were told to expect, as every Member of Parliament expected, that we were going to spend an evening having a serious discussion on how we organise our policing and criminal justice system to deal with the extremely important and growing problem of international and cross-border crime. If the whole thing collapses in time for everybody to go and have a good dinner in the early evening, that will not rise to the expectations of serious members of the public who expect us to have a proper debate.

[Steve Baker]

I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend profoundly. I came into politics only because I was sick of the state of it, yet tonight I see the House of Commons alive. We have the opportunity to find out whether the Government are even asking the right questions. Surely he can see that this is about Parliament seizing back the initiative and reconnecting representatives with the public, who are so upset, largely because of the incompetence of the Labour party.

[Mr Clarke]

I have every respect for the strongly held views of quite a lot of Members, including a lot on my side, who do not agree with me on this evening’s measures, but I think we would win back the respect of the public if we had a serious debate on them. We will not if we bog ourselves down in arcane procedural arguments, most of which are a novelty to people sitting in the Chamber at the moment; we are going into hitherto unknown areas. I have never previously heard a Front-Bench spokesman move this motion at any stage in any serious debate, and I do not expect I will for many years to come.

I sympathise with the shadow Home Secretary’s position; indeed, I agree with her on quite a lot of things. Her problem is that she is leading for the Opposition when in policy terms she agrees with absolutely everything the Home Secretary is proposing, and so do I. I congratulate the shadow Home Secretary on her responsible approach to the subject. Everybody in this country responsible for the fight against crime and for the criminal justice system, and wanting to protect the public, is in favour of this opt-in. I am even more closely aligned with her than with some of my colleagues. I voted with her on the Maastricht treaty. I also voted with her on the Lisbon treaty, which paved the way for these international agreements being reached. That has enabled us to be so much more effective than we used to be in dealing with international criminal fugitives, who not only thrived on the Costa del Sol but were very present in London when they fled to this country before we steadily began to develop today’s arrangements.

The shadow Home Secretary has, however, got absolutely no arguments against the Government’s proposals on the merits. She is therefore making a mountain out of a molehill of a parliamentary procedural thing, which she thinks serves her purpose. Of course she is also enjoying herself, which I quite understand in ordinary party political terms. She is allying herself with my right hon. and hon. Friends who profoundly disagree with her and with the Home Secretary, and who are totally opposed to me in my support for these criminal justice measures. The alliance between the shadow Home Secretary and some of the most dyed in the wool Eurosceptics in this House is a very unlikely one, but I go back to where I started.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I agree with him on many issues relating to the European Union, but I gently suggest to him that good Europeans like us need to understand that we have to carry the country with us. That requires proper processes in this House, not chicanery and not a proxy motion; we need a proper motion on the Order Paper, which is why every Committee that has considered this matter—the Home Affairs Committee, the Justice Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee—decided that there should be a separate motion. That is all we are calling for.

[Mr Clarke]

I hope my opening remarks made it quite clear that the one thing I am not going to do is get drawn back into this entertaining procedural debate we had earlier on. It seems to me as plain as a pikestaff that if we have a vote at 10 pm on what is apparently on the Order Paper, the Government will be bound either to proceed with the opt-in to 35 measures or not to proceed with the opt-in to any of them. I repeat that the public are expecting the House of Commons to debate this seriously. It may be that there are not enough Members of Parliament against it and there are not enough arguments against it to delay us much longer, but I do not think that is the case. Some very respectable Government Members are going to oppose it—if they ever get the chance.

One way or another, this argument about whether or not the strict requirements of parliamentary procedure—allowing everybody to get wildly indignant about what we all know is synthetic anger at the way the procedures have been brought forward—is not a wise way of proceeding. One thing that unites most Members so far, all the way from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) to me, is that we think these are serious issues, and to break down now in an atmosphere of such trivial argument will be a triumph for the UKIP but something that all of us ought to regret.

Business of the House (Today)

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

This really is a sorry day for the Government. The motion to allocate time was tabled on the basis either of error or of falsehood. The Whip went round to Conservative Members of Parliament and said that today’s motion would be on regulations including those on the European arrest warrant. My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is one of the cleverest men in the House of Commons. He has a brain the size of a planet. He is of the highest quality and the most honourable gentleman one could find. I cannot believe that he would make a basic error of this kind.

We have Whips scuttling around the House saying that a vote will be taken tonight that will be indicative of what the House of Commons thinks about the European arrest warrant. That is a procedural absurdity. It is legislative legerdemain. The Government cannot conceivably decide that one vote is indicative of another. What might they decide next? Perhaps that a vote to cut taxes would indicate that we wanted to increase them, or that a vote in favour of longer prison sentences would indicate that we wanted to cut them? This is the way of tyranny, because it takes away the right of the House of Commons to hold the Executive to account.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

We have heard a wide range political views, but I think that everyone here today is unanimous in believing that we came here expecting to vote on a decision to opt in to 35 measures and that that vote would affect that decision one way or the other. Before we all get too worked up and decide that this is the biggest threat to parliamentary democracy since the gunpowder plot, may I suggest that we allow the Home Secretary to explain how the Government are going to give us the debate and the vote that we all want, even though my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and I do not always see eye to eye and might not vote in the same way?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a point that is, as always, worth listening to, but he is in error. This matter needs to be debated thoroughly, because it is my contention that this is not accidental. A letter was sent to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), saying that we would have a vote. The Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury said to this House that there would be a vote. The Lord High Chancellor and the Home Secretary sent a letter to the European Scrutiny Committee promising us that there would be a vote on the European arrest warrant and all the other opt-ins and opt-outs. Now that we come to it, however, it is proposed that there will be a vote, after extra debating time, on a number of relatively obscure measures that require statutory instruments, and that that will be intended to determine the view of the House. That is not proper parliamentary procedure; it is an outrageous abuse of parliamentary procedure.

I often disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—and with others, including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—on European matters, but this debate today is of a degree worse than our disagreements. Our disagreements are polite and they reflect our fiercely held views, which we discuss in an upright and, I hope, proper fashion. This approach and this motion are fundamentally underhand. That is why there is such anger, not only on the Conservative Benches and among Eurosceptics. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), is shocked by this, as are the Scottish nationalists, who think that this is a poor way of behaving.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful if that is the case. If the Minister could explain that, it would be helpful.

Amendment (a) was also drafted to include all members of the Committee in case it is felt appropriate in the future to make payments to members of Select Committees alongside the payments that are made to Chairs.

[Minister without Portfolio (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

Before dealing with Government amendment 58, which provides the Government with the necessary powers to make a financial contribution to the Committee, I will add a few words to the interesting and lively debate that we have had on the election of the Chair. I will not repeat every argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) put the case robustly and had some pretty strong support. However, every member of the ISC who is here has responded and he has had to take on some of the more formidable Members on both sides of the House. He is also facing the opposition of all three of the major parties.

I assure him that this is not an establishment stitch-up—quite the reverse. Perhaps the best way of illustrating that is by putting everything in the context of what we are trying to do in this part of the Bill. We are making a remarkable advance in strengthening the powers of this Committee to hold our security and intelligence services to account. For 20 years the Committee has steadily contributed on that front, and we are marching forward considerably in the Bill. This part of it is just as important as the part we debated on Monday, as we are stepping towards making our security services more accountable to Parliament. We are enabling judges, in exceptional cases, to take all the evidence into account and make an adjudication when allegations are made by individuals; and we are committing to holding judicial inquiries when worrying circumstances occur—subject, of course, to those inquiries being able to get under way once police investigations have been properly completed.

These amendments are important, and they are being proposed in the context of a situation where all parties agree that they want this Committee to be a parliamentary Committee and no longer a creature of the Government. We therefore wish to give it more resources and the structure that enables it to do an even better job. The only thing that distinguishes the Committee from a Joint Committee or Select Committee of this House is this problem of the extremely sensitive nature of some of the information that it sees. Only where it is unavoidable are we departing from the normal process of allowing the House of Commons to have a powerful Committee of its own choosing and to exhort it to do its job and report back properly on what is and is not happening in this area.

[Hazel Blears]

I think we are all agreed that strengthening the scrutiny of the Secret Intelligence Service is an important and welcome step forward. However, I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that simply saying that we want to increase scrutiny is not enough. Instead of having the right to request information we are moving to a situation where we would be able to require it. We need additional investigators and that will require a substantial increase in the resources available to the Committee. Simply saying that we want increased scrutiny is not enough. I know he understands that, so will he tell us now that we will be getting an increase in resources to enable us to do the job he wants us to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I encounter many people making bids for resources for their particular, extremely important, activities. My right hon. Friends at the Treasury are receiving a very large number of these bids all the time. I have had some experience of public spending, and I can tell the House that it is not wise to engage in negotiations across the Floor of the House—it is certainly not wise for a non-Treasury Minister to do so. For this purpose, in this debate, given those present, I think we can agree that it is the Government’s intention that this Committee should be properly resourced to do its job, which is why we are taking a power to supplement Parliament’s financing of the Committee. Obviously, the Government have the right to query and test the figures that are put to them, and there are ways in which this can eventually be negotiated.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

We might be getting bogged down in a public spending round, and we have other matters to move on to.

[Dr Lewis]

I hope not to get bogged down. I wish to assist our Front-Bench team by pointing out that the Intelligence and Security Committee has eight staff, whereas the detainee inquiry, which looked at only one issue, had 14 staff and the Committee on Standards in Public Life has 12 staff. As the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) pointed out, the Government’s own impact assessment suggested that to do what is being required of us we would need a budget of £1.3 million, which compares with the existing budget of £750,000. At the moment only £850,000 is being offered, and if the gap is not bridged, this whole reform will be a waste of time.

[Mr Clarke]

I can say only that I, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, am fully aware of the Committee’s views on the amount of funding that it will require. Yet again, I take note of my hon. Friend’s points on the matter, but I repeat that there is not much point in my standing here carrying out a negotiation with him or any other member of the Committee about the figure we arrive at. As someone who has been at the Treasury, I think that the Government must combine providing the right resources, which are undoubtedly going to be more than the Committee has had in the past, with doing a bit of negotiating about what is the necessary cost. Report stage is not the place to resolve the final figure.

Similarly, the status and nature of the Committee will not be resolved finally by statute or by debate on the Floor of the House. A long discussion has been going on to make sure that the Committee has the right status and structure to do its job effectively, and I think we are very near to reaching a successful agreement between the Government, the Opposition, the House authorities in both Houses of Parliament and the current members of the Intelligence and Security Committee on what its status should be. I am told that we still have to have further discussions with the House of Commons Commission and the House Committee in the House of Lords, but I think everybody is becoming satisfied that we are resolving that matter. We are also resolving the question of the accommodation, which probably will have to be on the Government’s estate rather than the parliamentary estate, for security reasons. I will go into more details if hon. Members wish, but I realise that we still have quite a lot of the Bill to deal with. Unless hon. Members are particularly interested in knowing the precise current status of these discussions, I hope I may take it that the House is reasonably satisfied that all parties are going to reach a satisfactory conclusion. I assure the House that the Government have been anxious throughout to make this Committee powerful, properly resourced and as much of a parliamentary body—a body that is accountable and resembles the Select Committees of the House in every way possible—as it can be. I think that soon this will all be resolved.

I shall now deal with amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), although she anticipated my reply. Government amendment 58 is required in order to give us the necessary authority to make the financial contributions that we are going to be arguing about. Amendment (a) seeks to oblige the Government—or at least expressly to empower them—to make an additional amount available for the payment of Committee members. That is not necessary, nor, in my opinion and that of the Government, is it wise to start putting the matter of the payment of members of Select Committees or parliamentary Committees into statute, or implicating the Government directly in that. The payment of members of this Committee, the Chairman of this Committee and members of Select Committees is a matter for the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—from every point of view, it is best left there. Where the Government have to initiate all this, it is a feature of all Governments, of all political complexions, that they can get very politically embarrassed on questions about the remuneration of any Member of either House. So a process that leaves the matter with IPSA and the House of Commons is preferable to the hon. Lady’s amendment.

Finally, I shall touch on the spirit of political debate we have had on the question of whether the Chairman should be elected, and again I must say that the Wright Committee produced a splendid report. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) first proposed this, but he is not able to be here because he is serving on his Banking Commission, as we all realise. We worked together, when we were in opposition, with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is now the Government Chief Whip, on a thing called the democracy taskforce, advocating the election of Chairman of Select Committees and producing proposals that were remarkably close to those of the Wright Committee. I certainly start on the same basis as my colleagues who have been drawn to this part of the debate, but we have heard all the arguments why, in this particular case, the proposal does not work. We are already making the whole thing approved by Parliament. No longer will the Prime Minister appoint the Chairman; the Chairman will be elected by those who know—or will know—him best: members of the ISC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker]

It is clear from the amendment that we do not seek to allow the House of Commons to elect anybody, and it is not a veto but an opportunity for the Prime Minister to approve candidates. Such a mechanism could take place in private; it would not need to be all over the front pages that someone had been turned down. The process could be done beforehand and the candidate would just have to obtain formal written consent for them to stand.

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend is confident that if someone starts campaigning and positioning himself or herself for this job, but then suddenly stops campaigning because the Prime Minister puts an end to it, it will all remain secret and no one will accuse the Prime Minister of political bias—whereas actually they will, and everybody will realise that something about the candidate has caused the agencies successfully to blackball him or her. We cannot agree to that. Some of the Members I am talking about have served in government and would have been perfectly suitable to be Chair of the Health or Education Committees, but partly because of the job I was once in, I knew that I would not have put them on this particular Select Committee and would have wanted the Prime Minister to stop that appointment. I do not think there is an answer to that.

The system has been devised in such a way because Members on both sides of the House, and current members of the Committee, have done their best to make this as democratic and parliamentary as we possibly can. The Wright Committee has transformed things in this House. The Government have introduced the election of Select Committees and they are being made more powerful. Alongside that reform, we are making the Intelligence and Security Committee far more parliamentary and powerful. The fact that there is a comparatively detailed difference in the way that Parliament votes for the Committee members and how the Chair is elected does not undermine the policy and the Bill.

I hope I have explained why everybody involved, including those on the Opposition Front Benches and my allies in the Liberal Democrat party, have been driven to the conclusion that this is the best way of resolving the problem and moving to a decent amount of parliamentary democracy, without jeopardising our national interest. I therefore hope I can persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe to withdraw the amendment and persuade the House to give the Government power to continue negotiating these finances by accepting amendment 58.

[Steve Baker]

Not for the first time I have made common cause with a well-known Member from the left of the Labour party, and I am grateful that on this occasion I have done that for the first time with the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). I was also grateful for the support from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), who brings to bear his experience from the Wright Committee.

Some of the arguments against these elections have been somewhat ingenious, and I shall treasure Hansard tomorrow when I look at the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who I think brilliantly set out the advantages of appointment over democracy. I shall look at that with some joy. We have all understood what the Bill provides; it certainly takes us forward although, as I have said, I would prefer the Chair to be elected in the way that I outlined. I am glad we have held this debate and aired the issue.

The Opposition have said that this provision puts the cart before the horse, but they did acknowledge the context, which is crucial. We have seen encroachments on the principles of liberty and justice, which many of us thought we were sworn to defend. However, in the view of this Government, and the previous Government, such measures have proven necessary to protect the public, and we are where we are. With that in mind, and having listened to both Front-Bench speakers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I commend the Bill in its present form to the House.

The first point to reflect on, in considering the Bill in its entirety, is the debt we owe to our security and intelligence services. Unfortunately, we face unprecedented threats at different times from various enemies, both at home and abroad. It is extremely important that we have highly efficient intelligence and security services to protect the lives of our citizens and the normal civilised business of the country. We have to support the intelligence services on which we rely so heavily.

Secondly, this country upholds the highest standards of human rights in this area of its activities, as in other areas. We all expect those who work in our intelligence and security services to have the same regard to the values that we are defending as everyone else does—that we do have regard to the rule of law. The British Government are, and, as far I am aware, always have been, firmly against the use of torture, firmly against unlawful and extraordinary rendition, and firmly against practices on which some of our allies take a more relaxed view. I would like to think that the British intelligence and security services are not only among the best in the world, but uphold much higher standards in the way they conduct themselves than is true of the vast majority of the nation states of the world.

The vast majority of Members agree that we are grateful to the security services, and that it is important that they are held as accountable as everyone else. We follow another principle that the Government, as far as possible, hold dear, which is that of transparency: avoiding unnecessary secrecy wherever possible, and being as open in our dealings with the public in every aspect of our public life. Plainly, that has to be modified to a certain extent to protect the absolutely essential secrecy that our security services need, and which the people who co-operate with them, the agents who help us and the various people we have to rely on throughout the world, need.

I believe that the part of the Bill that we will look back on with greatest pleasure is the considerable steps we are taking to give extra powers to the Intelligence and Security Committee. In ensuring that the security services are held accountable, accountability to Parliament is extremely important. I will not rehearse all the arguments, which have taken most of today, but the Committee is now to be truly a Committee of Parliament. The House of Commons will be able to elect the membership—on the nomination of the Prime Minister, but members will be appointed by parliamentary vote. The Prime Minister’s nomination is a necessary precaution in case some unknown feature of a Member of Parliament’s background might make him or her a less suitable member of the Committee than would otherwise be the case.

As we have seen over the years, the Intelligence and Security Committee is one of the most important Committees of the House. Its membership, not surprisingly, tends to comprise heavyweight individuals from all parts of the House of Commons, with a membership that is highly respected in all parts of the House for the work it tries to do. However, I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department set out in the debate. We have examined in detail the various processes that we now have in hand to enable the Committee to require evidence to be given to it and to hold the security services thoroughly to account, in all the sensible circumstances that can be managed, while at the same time ensuring that no risk is posed to national safety and national security.

The most controversial part of the Bill is the one we debated on Monday, in which we seek to make the security and intelligence services more accountable to the judiciary and courts of this country, particularly as in the last few years a growing number of people have alleged before our courts malpractice against the security services and sought substantial damages for events in which they say our security services were complicit. Things are plainly unsatisfactory as they stand, and we have all quoted many distinguished members of the judiciary to illustrate that. Opponents persuade themselves that they are so against the principle of closed proceedings of any kind that they wish to keep the present law, which they regard as satisfactory.

I am afraid I am still at the stage where I do not see how on earth we can say that the present law is satisfactory. People bring claims and are prepared to give evidence, as they are perfectly entitled to, in support of them. The nature of the evidence that the security and intelligence services and the Government would wish to produce to defend some of those claims is of the kind that cannot possibly be given in open court. The courts have made it clear that sometimes there is indeed scope for closed proceedings, but that they cannot be held through an ordinary civil action unless Parliament has decided the circumstances in which these should be allowed.

We already have closed proceedings in this country in several areas—there are about 14 instances of different jurisdictions where we have closed proceedings, largely in the immigration field. It is of course less than perfect justice, because the only possible challenge to the evidence is from special advocates who have been security cleared, and they are not as free as they would be in an open court case to take full instructions from their clients. Everybody knows that, but in fact they have more weight as advocates than most people appreciate. Given the circumstances, most judges are prepared to listen to challenges, realising that they have to bear in mind that they need to be particularly scrupulous, because there are limitations in how far the evidence is being tested before them.

The best test is that special advocates win in closed sessions—I have been fond of citing one or two instances as these proceedings have gone along. The last case that the Government lost—that of Abu Qatada, which caused a tremendous public controversy and still is—was lost before a judge, Mr Justice Mitting, who does not have the reputation of being a melting-heart liberal. Abu Qatada won in closed proceedings in a British court, defeating my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Government in our attempts to remove him for a trial in Jordan. Obviously the judge was not satisfied that torture would not play a part in the proceedings if Abu Qatada was sent there. The idea that Ministers have the ability to present things to a judge in circumstances where the closed advocates have no hope is mistaken. What we will get is a judgment, whereas what we get at the moment is silence.

In the main, we have been attacked by people who say how much they deplore secrecy and silence, yet the effect of being granted a public interest immunity certificate, which is the only course open to Ministers wishing to withhold evidence that could damage national security, is total silence. The evidence cannot be used by the claimants, cannot be taken into account by the judge and is not available to the defence. As we all know, cases are being brought with increasing regularity in which the Government have no alternative but to offer no defence, because no evidence can be called, and then to start negotiating the amount money to be paid in compensation.

I have never given exact figures for the compensation involved—although some have appeared following interviews with me—because the claimants usually want to enter into confidentiality agreements on the settlement. However, there is no harm in telling the House that millions of pounds are being paid out to claimants whose cases have never been tested or challenged. I make no apology for repeating my suspicion—one that is held by most objective people—that there is a serious risk that some of the money is finding its way to very undesirable quarters, and probably to terrorist groups in the case of certain plaintiffs. I am not talking about all of them, and I will not say which of them this applies to—that was never decided by the courts—but some of those people will have links to organisations that will have some of that money on them. I do not think that the public understand why the Government cannot defend themselves. That gives rise to genuine disquiet among perfectly intelligent liberal members of the general public.

We have had a long, satisfactory debate, during which the Bill has been transformed in both Houses. We are still not in total agreement on the wording, but we agree on the principles. The judge will have the widest possible discretion to decide that he is going to hear evidence in closed proceedings only when it is relevant and has to be heard to decide the case, and when it would damage national security if it were given to the wider world. Furthermore, the just and effective administration of justice will have to be served by hearing it in private. I will not repeat all the arguments that were put on Monday.

The overall effect of the Bill will be to improve the reassurance that we can give to the public and to the world that we uphold the highest standards in this country, and that we seek to maintain them by holding accountable those who work on our behalf. I believe that the outcome is not only legally sound but an eminently sensible common-sense solution to the obvious practical problems that arise when we wish to combine the rule of law with the protection of national safety and security. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Home Affairs and Justice

Lord Clarke of Nottingham Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend, who is the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, makes an extremely important point. I wanted to come on to that report, because, overall, we can see the queues getting longer while Ministers do not seem to have a clue what is going on.

Last Monday, the Minister for Immigration claimed the maximum queues were an hour and a half and accused the media of making “wild suggestions”. By Tuesday he was admitting the wild suggestions were nearer the truth; by Wednesday we were told the Prime Minister was getting a grip; by Thursday and Friday the queues were getting worse and worse. There were two-hour waits at Stansted and three-hour waits at Heathrow, reports of trains delayed by queues at Paris, Customs checks stopped at Heathrow and reports that staff from Manchester were being put on a plane, told to work for a few hours at Heathrow and put on another plane back again.

Finally, this week, we got the truth from the borders and immigration inspectorate. Passport staff at terminal 3 have been cut by 15%, shortages mean that they cannot cope with the queues, and management changes brought in under this Government are making things much worse. The Minister for Immigration charmingly told us that the report was out of date because action had been taken since September to sort it out, but since September things have got worse, not better. The report says the staff are all on at the wrong times—more when the airport is quiet and fewer when all the planes are coming in.

It is just baffling to everyone that the UK Border Force and the Minister for Immigration do not seem to be able to work out what time of day it is, but at least they are doing better than the Home Secretary, who is still rather challenged by the day of the week. I know that the Home Secretary is not on Twitter and she might have missed the attempts to cheer her up through the difficult time that she is having. They have started to suggest songs, such as “ Sunday, Wednesday, happy days,” “I don’t know why I don’t like Tuesdays,” “Eight days a week” and—clearly—nothing by The Police. How about Peter, Paul and Mary’s “Not leaving on a jet plane and I don’t know when I’ll be back again”?

Getting the date wrong in a case such as Abu Qatada’s, however, could have been very serious. Everyone is very relieved that the European Court decided to reject Abu Qatada’s appeal not because of the date, but because of the merits of the case. We should all welcome that decision. We all want him deported as soon as possible and the case has been repeatedly and thoroughly considered at every level in the courts, but lessons also have to be learned at the Home Office too. Three weeks ago the Home Secretary came to the House and was adamant that she had got the date right. Twelve times she told the House the deadline was Monday. In scathing tones she said to me:

“We are talking about a simple mathematical question.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 509.]

Sadly, it was a mathematical question that neither the Home Secretary nor her Ministers seemed able to answer.

The Court was very clear in its judgment that the deadline was Tuesday and Court officials said so at the time. It is no good the Home Secretary’s saying that the Foreign Office is now complaining that the Court’s guidance was not clear enough. If it was not clear enough, why not ask questions at the time? Why did they not ring up the Court and ask the question? Why did they not listen to the media and to the others who were raising with her the point that the Court was saying very clearly that the date was Tuesday, instead? Why take the risk?

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

It is all irrelevant now.

[Yvette Cooper]

The Justice Secretary likes to chunter from a sedentary position that that is all irrelevant now, but the trouble is that it is not. The Home Office makes these serious decisions every day of the week. If it cannot even get what day of the week it is right, how can we have confidence in its decisions about the future? How can we have confidence when the Home Secretary next comes to the House and tells us categorically that she is right and that the Home Office advice is right when we still do not know why they got it so catastrophically wrong this time around? Surely she should now come to the House and explain why the Home Office got this so wrong, why it could not ask the right questions and why it did not take advice, listen to it and avoid taking the risk—a risk that could have added further considerable delays to this process.

[Yvette Cooper]

We still have a problem in that we all want Abu Qatada deported but he has not yet been deported. I agree that the process has taken far too long in the British courts and in the European Courts. I even agree with the Justice Secretary that reforms need to be made to the European courts to try to speed things up although there are considerable questions about the progress he has been able to make. I do not think, however, that we should have self-inflicted problems with the Home Office creating additional delays by getting something so basic wrong. This is about the serious decisions the Home Office takes and if it is unable to learn the lessons of the past or to recognise the errors it has made there will be serious problems in the future.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

Do I gather that the right hon. Lady welcomes the fact that we got 47 countries to agree to get rid of these arrears so that there are not years and years of delay before things can get on? Does she welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just won her appeal, which has not been delayed, and that we are now able to resume the ordinary deportation process? Why is she getting bogged down in procedural niceties that are now quite irrelevant and why did not her Government do anything about this for eight years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) has just asked?

[Yvette Cooper]

It is indeed gallant of the Justice Secretary to leap to the Home Secretary’s defence. They are huge friends—this is obviously a change of relationship between them. We are delighted to see their rapprochement.

I agree with the Justice Secretary that it is important to get rid of the arrears and try to deal with the backlogs at the European Court. That is a problem and I hope that some progress can be made. We are all very pleased that the Court rejected Abu Qatada’s appeal, but I must say that the Home Secretary made that more difficult, not easier. Abu Qatada should not have been able to appeal and she could have delayed her decision by a single day. The procedures matter because we do not want the Home Office to screw up important procedures. Whether it be in situations such as that when Raed Salah walked into this country because the Home Secretary did not get the procedures right to enable his being stopped at the border when she wanted him to be stopped, or whether it is about getting the date right, it does matter because this is not just any other omnishambles for this Government. It is not like a pasty tax or queues at the petrol pumps—this affects our national security. Whether about counter-terrorism or police on our streets, these decisions affect public safety. Whether on our borders or in our courts, these decisions affect our national security.

When we have 16,000 fewer police, a 10% increase in personal crime, 1,000 fewer foreign criminals being deported and this latest report showing 100 more illegal immigrants absconding according to the most recent figures, people are anxious. They are already worried about their jobs and their financial security and they do not want to have to worry about crime and public safety as well. This Queen’s Speech is failing the people of Britain just as the Home Office is failing on policing, border security and public confidence. It is a Queen’s Speech that offers no change, no hope and no direction from a Government who are not listening or learning. They should change course before it is too late.