Violence against Women and Girls

Peter Bone Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. It might help Members to know that a Division is expected shortly. When it happens, we will suspend for 15 minutes, but we will add on the time that is lost. I intend to call first those who have notified the Chair that they wish to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that when we suspend for the Division that will be, as I said, for 15 minutes, but as there is a lot of public interest in the debate and an overflow of visitors, if hon. Members get back as quickly as possible we will continue straight away. Perhaps during the suspension would be a good time to try to squeeze in a few more chairs.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

I know that the right hon. Lady—she is a passionate advocate on this topic—cannot be here for my closing remarks, so I wanted to comment now. We are drawing up an implementation plan to deal with the domestic abuse offence. Officials from the Home Office have met the national policing lead on domestic abuse and the College of Policing, and they will be meeting the CPS, to work on implementing the offence in such a way as to ensure that it genuinely offers better protection to victims. We have debated the generalities today, but I wanted to make sure that the right hon. Lady knew the specifics before she left.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Ms Mactaggart, had you concluded your speech?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I have concluded. I thank the Minister for her comments.

Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the United Kingdom) Bill

Peter Bone Excerpts

Friday 6th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

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

As I said in the debate on my previous Bill, I will try to be brief, because there are many other Bills that we want to deal with today. I am grateful to the excellent Minister for Security and Immigration for being here.

This is only a two-clause Bill, but it is perhaps slightly more controversial than the one on getting rid of wind farm subsidies. The idea is straightforward: if someone comes to this country, commits an offence and is given a term of imprisonment, at the end of that term of imprisonment they should be deported to the country that they came from. That should be done quickly, and they should not be allowed back. People in my constituency and up and down the country are furious when people who come to this country legally, and receive our hospitality, commit an offence and then remain here. It seems wrong that they should do so.

The Government have been very good—I am sure the Minister will speak about this—at taking certain foreign prisoners back to where they came from. My Bill extends the rules to include countries to which foreign prisoners cannot at the moment be returned. I particularly refer to countries in the European Union. Under my Bill, once foreign prisoners were sent back to the European Union, they would not have the right to come back. They would be removed without reference to any human rights legislation. It is rather important that I read part of clause 1(1), so that the House understands this:

“Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, or any other enactment”.

This is a very simple Bill. It will say that this Government are sovereign, and absolutely have the right to return home foreign prisoners who have committed an offence and are jailed. When they are sent back, they will be banned from coming back to this country. That is in clause 1(2), which refers to

“measures to prevent an individual excluded under subsection (1) from entering the United Kingdom.”

Where the law permits the removal of foreign prisoners, the Government are keen to do that, and they have done a lot of work on it; but when the Minister speaks, I think that we will find that, for various reasons, their desire to return foreign prisoners to where they came from is thwarted. Much of that is to do with human rights legislation. All the Bill does is remove that hurdle and deal with migration from the European Union. If someone who committed an offence in this country was sent back to the European Union, they would not be allowed back in.

Those are simple measures that are understood out in the country. I hope that this is the sort of thing that will be dealt with when, after the 2015 election, a Conservative majority Government renegotiate the European Union superstate. I hope that the idea that we can decide to send people back and not let them back in will be a red line.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not consider, on reflection, that his definition of “qualifying offence” is perhaps a little too wide? It could include a serious motoring offence.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention, but no. A person who has been jailed for up to five years for careless driving should be sent back. We are considering situations where someone has received a term of imprisonment. It is quite difficult to get a term of imprisonment without doing something pretty seriously wrong. I am very clear on this point: if someone comes to this country, accepts our hospitality and then abuses it by committing a criminal offence that leads to imprisonment, they should be excluded from this country, either at the end of the term of imprisonment or earlier, if the Government so wish.

[Sir Greg Knight]

As I read my hon. Friend’s Bill, the person concerned does not have to have been sent to prison; they just have to have committed an offence that “may” be punishable with imprisonment.

[Mr Bone]

My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. He is referring to clause 1(4):

“‘qualifying offence’ shall mean any offence for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed by a court of law.”

I think the intention is for that to apply to someone who would go to prison, having gone through the judicial system. The Government could at that stage say, “I’m sending you home, rather than you going to prison.” I understand the argument that my right hon. Friend makes—that that may be imposed by a court of law. I sincerely hope he will consider serving on the Bill Committee so that we can look at that in some detail. Now that we have been granted an extra Friday—I am not sure whether everyone in the House realises that we are sitting on 20 March—and as there has been no real explanation of why we are sitting on that day, I assume—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The sitting on 20 March will be for the debate on the Budget, not for private Members’ Bills.

[Mr Bone]

I understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but this is a wonderful place—a mystic place—and sometimes things change. The Opposition might see the Budget as such a great thing that there was nothing they could oppose.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I want to hear a discussion of the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, not of that Friday.

[Mr Bone]

You are right, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am usually misled by—egged on—no, I am not going there. I do not want to take up a lot of time because there is another very important Bill to be reached later.

I am pretty sure that the sentiments represented by the Bill are what the Government would like to do, but the Minister might find that there are obstacles that he thinks derive from the European Communities Act 1972 or other enactments, but the Bill sweeps those away at a stroke. It would allow the Government to do what the British people want—for this place to be sovereign in making the laws of this country.

What annoys people is that someone who has come from abroad, committed a serious offence and been sentenced to a significant number of years in prison can claim, on the basis of his human rights, the right to remain in this country. People think that foreign criminals who do that should be deported and not allowed back in. I know that the Minister will have figures on how many we would like to send back, but that is a very small proportion of the number of foreign prisoners who could be sent home. I want to see all foreign prisoners sent home.

With reference to what my right hon. Friend said, if offenders have been convicted in a court, I am happy to save money by having them deported rather than sent to prison or for them to be deported during their time in prison. We cannot allow them to claim that they have some right to stay here, having come into this country and abused our laws. It is such a simple Bill that I hope there is not much opposition in the House and we can quite quickly give it a Second Reading.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

When people come to Britain, they should abide by the law. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) is right that those who abuse our hospitality and commit serious crimes have no place in this country. Indeed, in my own constituency, if I am approached by someone seeking leave to remain in the country who, for example, has committed a serious crime and in particular has gone to prison, it is my practice to refuse to take the case up with the Home Office. It is true to say, I think, that the whole House wants to see foreign criminals deported.

The Prime Minister said that this would be a priority for his Government, but as with so many promises he has made, he is not keeping to his word. Last year more than 500 fewer foreign criminals were removed than in Labour’s last year in office in 2009. On top of that, the National Audit Office released a scathing report in October 2014 on the Home Office’s management of foreign national offenders. It found that more than a third of failed removals were the result of factors within Home Office control. The factors included poor use of IT, a lack of communication, failure to use the powers available, cumbersome and slow referral processes and inefficiency in processing—the list goes on. A third of failed removals could otherwise have been dealt with quickly and properly.

Worse still, more criminals have absconded under this Government—a 6% increase since 2010. In its very interesting report, the NAO stated that we have worse systems in our country than other European countries for preventing foreign criminals from entering in the first place, due in part to the delay in joining the second-generation Schengen information system, which we finally joined only a month ago. Our joining was delayed because of the Home Secretary’s decision to exercise the opt-out on co-operation with Europe—a fact that put border security at risk and has longer-term consequences for the safety and security of our country.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, therefore, to make the argument that he makes today, and we agree that there need to be more stringent controls on foreign offenders, but we do not agree with the proposals in the Bill, even if we agree with the intentions. It would put Britain in contravention of the European convention on human rights at the very time we are arguing in foreign policy terms that countries such as Russia and Ukraine should respect the European convention, and that countries such as Belarus should sign up to the convention. The Government’s legal advice on the matter has been clear. We agree with that advice and consequently cannot vote for something that is illegal.

A similar proposal was debated in the course of the Immigration Bill. The Home Secretary stated that it was incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and that she was concerned about the practical application of the new clause, arguing that it would

“effectively hinder our ability to deport people for a period of time because there would be considerable legal wrangling about the issue.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 1051.]

We support the principle behind the Bill that more foreign criminals should be deported, especially given how poor the Government’s track record has been, but if the Bill were passed it might well have the unintended consequence of creating legal barriers to deportation as foreign criminals tied up the courts with challenges to their deportation.

[Mr Bone]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the principle, but he says that we cannot implement it, basically because of the Human Rights Act. I guess he is saying that he would rather foreign prisoners stayed here because of the Human Rights Act than agree with the principle of getting them sent home. Is that the position of the Opposition?

[Jack Dromey]

We are absolutely in favour of a rigorous approach to dealing with a problem that has rightly caused public outrage. There have been some very serious cases of foreign criminals who have come to our country, having committed appalling crimes in their own country, and then committed appalling crimes in this country. On the issue of principle, we are with the hon. Gentleman 101%. The question is what we do about it in practical terms. I gave the examples from the National Audit Office report, which stated that a third or more of the problems that had been identified were a consequence of Home Office practices. So we are in favour of a sensible debate about a much more rigorous approach. We agree with what the Government have said, but our concern is that we should not inadvertently create endless wrangling in the courts; rather, we should try to improve the system to ensure that those who commit serious crimes are sent back to their country of origin.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome the fact that the Opposition now apparently want to ensure that we have the appropriate checks at the border. That was not the experience when they were in government. Once this Government came to power, we were able to have the 100% checks at the border that were not there before. We scrapped the old UK Border Agency and created Border Force, with the focus, the culture and the agenda to have tough and rigorous checks at the border while making sure that that is done efficiently and effectively to allow people to pass through, using technology to advance that process.

The hon. Gentleman referred to Labour’s promise of 1,000 extra border guards. That is virtually the only promise or pledge that we have heard from Labour on the important issue of immigration and tightening and securing our borders. Even so, surprisingly enough, the sums do not add up. The cost is apparently to be met by additional charges for those in electronic visa waiver schemes. On our calculations, that would generate perhaps an extra 20 or 30 border guards. There are also questions about whether the scheme would cost more to administer than it would deliver in revenue. I look forward to hearing some further details from the Opposition as to how their numbers add up and how their proposal would work.

I want to highlight this Government’s record in having removed just under 5,100 foreign national offenders from the UK in the past year. That is against a backdrop of an increase of nearly 30% in litigation by those seeking to game the system to delay their removal from the UK. Partly because of the delays that we inherited due to the legal system that we had, sometimes the courts have allowed people to be discharged from custody in those circumstances. That is why we introduced the Immigration Act 2014 to speed up the process in terms of those rights, whereby if someone’s life is not at risk or in danger, they can make these legal challenges, but do so outside the UK. These important measures, to a large degree, deal with the underlying concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has expressed in his Bill. The fact that we have, as I said, removed just under 5,100 foreign national offenders from the UK in the past five years is due to a great deal of attention and careful joint working among a number of Government Departments—the Home Office and colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

My hon. Friend’s Bill, as I read it, is intended to deal with the issue of exclusion—in other words, ensuring that once someone has been removed, they stay removed. I will explain how the existing regulations and practice, both on EU and non-EU citizens, are intended to operate. There are a number of different aspects. To have a robust and rigorous system, we need a joined-up system.

I will touch on the issue of preventing those who should not be here from coming to this country in the first place and the excellent work the police and others are doing to identify foreign national offenders. Confirming a person’s identity can be challenging. When we want someone to be removed, we need to obtain a passport or other evidence in order to prove their identity; to get travel documents to ensure that they can be deported; and to make sure that the receiving country does not simply return them to our shores. There has been some important and excellent cross-governmental work to deal with those barriers to removal.

A range of measures and powers are used to remove foreign national offenders from the UK. The primary power is automatic deportation for non-European economic area nationals who are convicted in the UK and given a single custodial sentence of 12 months or more for one conviction; or, where automatic deportation cannot be applied, we can seek to deport on conducive grounds, including looking at the cumulative effect of offending and whether it is in the public interest to seek to deport.

Once a person has been deported they are prohibited from entering the UK while the deportation order against them remains in force. A deportation order has no expiry date: it remains in force indefinitely unless a decision is taken to revoke it. That demonstrates the strength and purpose behind our existing deportation system, and it is important to recognise that we have strengthened it further through the Immigration Act. Border Force checks against the warnings index to identify whether anyone coming through our border is subject to those outstanding deportation orders. Perhaps that will reassure my hon. Friend that, under the existing system, we are able to keep out people who have been deported from this country.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the Minister for going into this matter in such depth. I am reassured by what he says, but—he can correct me if I am wrong—I do not think that that system applies to the European Union.

[James Brokenshire]

I was planning to address that specific point. My hon. Friend is right about the distinction between EU and non-EU and how it applies to deportation. However, I hope he will recognise the steps the Government have taken to put in place re-entry bans. The right of free movement is part of a broader and bigger debate than that related to the Bill and I certainly do not want to stray beyond it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend’s intervention referred to our ability to keep out those who have been removed to other European countries. We have the right to impose a re-entry ban, because free movement is not unqualified. Under the existing requirement of free movement, a person has to exercise their right to work, to study or to set up a business. If they do not exercise any of those rights and abuse that power and our hospitality and freedoms by committing a crime, they should be removed and kept out, and our re-entry ban of one year helps us facilitate that. We may well wish to return to the issue in the fullness of time.

The Government’s approach was set out clearly by the Prime Minister in a speech just before Christmas, when he addressed those measures he wants to change in order to ensure that rights of free movement work in the best interests of this country. That is a broader debate than that on the specific issue of foreign national offenders.

Last July, new powers came into force to stop criminals using weak family life arguments to delay their deportation. The Government had already made it clear that article 8 of the European convention on human rights should not be used to place the family and private life rights of criminals above the rights of the British public to be protected from serious criminals.

Section 19 of the 2014 Act put into statute the principle that the law should be on the side of the public and that the starting point is to expect that foreign criminals will be deported. The more serious the offence, the greater the public interest in the criminal’s deportation. Section 19 ensures that the courts can be in no doubt about when the public interest requires the deportation of foreign criminals.

We also changed the law so that when there is no risk of serious irreversible harm, foreign criminals can be deported first and have their appeal heard later. Those who have an appeal right will be able to appeal only once. Last October, the number of grounds on which foreign criminals could appeal against their deportation was cut from 17 to four. It is important to recognise that the system that we inherited allowed appeal after appeal after appeal to delay removal and frustrate the justice system. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough understands the frustration that that built up and has recognised it in the Bill.

We have changed the law and changed the rights of appeal. We have also removed a significant number of foreign national offenders year on year, despite having to deal with the legal system we inherited and despite seeing a near 30% increase in the number of legal challenges. Our changes are not about denying people a right of appeal, but about streamlining an appeals system that offered too many bites of the cherry, took too long to conclude and, inevitably, led to foreign criminals remaining in the UK for longer than should have been the case.

We will always seek to deport serious foreign criminals. When the level of offending does not meet the threshold for deportation, we will take administrative action to remove offenders who have no right to be in the UK. Administrative removal is an effective outcome. Subject to certain exceptions, foreign national offenders who have received a custodial sentence can be administratively removed from the UK and will face a mandatory refusal under the immigration rules on entry clearance or leave to enter the UK.

The other power that is used to keep foreign national offenders out of the UK is exclusion, although I suspect it is not the exclusion envisaged in the title of my hon. Friend’s Bill. To avoid any misunderstanding, exclusion is a decision taken personally by the Secretary of State that is used to prevent a foreign national who is outside the UK from entering the country. Exclusion decisions are taken on the basis that the person’s exclusion from the UK is not conducive to the public good. As with a deportation order, an exclusion decision prohibits the person from entering the UK while it remains in force. It is similarly not time limited.

I think that my hon. Friend will recognise some of the ways in which we have used that power. Aside from cases of foreign criminals, we have used it to keep hate preachers out of the country. This Government have used exclusion to keep about 80 hate preachers out of this country, which is more than under any previous Government. I hope that that gives him some assurance on the firm and rigorous approach that the Government take in seeking to assure the security and safety of the citizens of this country from foreign national offenders and others who would seek to foment tension in our communities and the criminality that may arise from that.

My hon. Friend sought to draw a distinction between EU and non-EU citizens or, to use the technical terms, European economic area citizens and non-EEA citizens. It is important to understand that distinction. The free movement directive, by which all EU member states are bound, provides that EEA nationals and their family members have certain rights to live and work in other EU countries.

The UK has implemented the directive by way of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, which provide the power to deport, exclude or administratively remove EEA nationals and their family members from the UK. EEA nationals can be deported from the UK on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. All EEA nationals who receive a custodial sentence are considered for deportation or administrative removal, including individuals who engage in persistent low-level offending. We take a robust approach when considering and pursuing the deportation of EEA national offenders, working within the terms of the directive.

A decision to deport cannot be made solely on the basis of a person’s previous criminal convictions and we must balance other factors. Therefore if the Bill intends that an EEA national convicted of an offence in the UK should be deported solely on the basis of that conviction, regardless of the nature of the offending and without the assessment of the case’s individual circumstances or the proportionality of deportation action, it would not be consistent with the freedom of movement directive.

My hon. Friend sets out his desire for a general approach, but other issues are at play. This is a complex picture, and I have highlighted one element in the freedom of movement directive. There is also the refugee convention, in which I know he has taken a long-standing interest, and other provisions are contained in that. We must therefore understand when legislating in this House the number of different international obligations, conventions, treaties—not to mention the European convention on human rights, which we can return to later—that we would need to consider. Perhaps the issue is a little wider and more complex than the Bill understands or recognises.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful to the Minister for going into that point as it goes to the heart of the Bill. That is why it states:

“Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972,”

The basis of the Bill is to have a common approach so that someone from outside the EU is not treated one way while those from within the EU are treated differently. I am not sure that the Government are supportive of that view.

[James Brokenshire]

Clearly, a distinction is drawn in existing law between EU and non-EU, or EEA and non-EEA—my hon. Friend understands that—and we must therefore consider our current obligations. He will have a different view about the overarching relationship with the EU, and that is a broader and bigger debate of which this Bill is part. I know the clear views he has expounded and will continue to expound, and I appreciate and recognise that.

Over the past year the Government have focused on increasing the volume and pace of deportation of EU national offenders, in some ways recognising some of my hon. Friend’s points. For example, in July 2014, to coincide with changes introduced through the Immigration Act 2014 for non-EEA nationals, we amended EEA regulations so that for the first time an appeal against a deportation decision no longer automatically suspends the removal of an EEA offender. The Government recognise the distinctions drawn in international obligation and existing law, and we are making changes that respect and recognise that. Yes, those changes are also obligations, but where we have made changes on one side, we have sought to do so on the other side as well, and I would point to that example. As a result of those changes, EEA national offenders can be removed back to their national member state where there is no risk of serious irreversible harm before the conclusion of the appeal process. That concept of being able to remove someone and not have to wait for an appeal has been reflected on the EEA side as well as the non-EEA side.

[Mr Bone]

The Minister is being generous, but why is there a provision to stop someone going back to a European Union or EEA country? Surely all those countries must be regarded as safe places to return people to.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend will know that, from time to time, judgments in our courts in relation to prison conditions or other ancillary issues can be used, and argued in courts, to seek to prevent removal. It is important to restate in our regulations that the measure should have parity, in essence to provide certainty and assurance if legal issues are raised by someone seeking to delay, defer or frustrate their removal on the grounds that, in some way, the conditions on the ground in another EEA member state should prevent them from being removed.

I come back to the issues I touched on at the outset of my contribution on ensuring that we have a system that joins up, so that we have that sense that it deals with all the matters at hand in preventing people who have a criminal record from coming to this country in the first place. I have highlighted the introduction of the second generation Schengen information system, which will give us access to 35,000 alerts for people wanted for crimes within the EU. We will stop and arrest people at the border before they enter the UK and commit further crimes. That is the ability that the new Schengen information system gives us.

I should remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who speaks for the Opposition, of the Government’s commitment and focus. We introduced the second generation Schengen information system. It is not about a delay or deferral on the basis of political aspirations or focus, as he suggested. We have had to invest in and work through significant technical and other system issues with the relevant agencies at EU level. We have shown that focus for many years. We have ensured that investment to ensure that we can join the second generation Schengen information system from April and have the benefits of it. That is why we have focused on seeing that that happens.

Our ability to access information on overseas convictions is also significantly improving. Under this Government, checks on foreign nationals going through the criminal justice system have increased by more than 700%, including more than 72,000 since April 2014 by the Association of Chief Police Officers criminal records office. The figure in January alone was 11,745. With the increasing use of the European criminal records information system, those figures will continue to rise. In the last financial year, checks were made on around 30% of foreign nationals arrested. We aim to double that to 60% by the end of this financial year. From November 2014, the Metropolitan Police Service has mandated 100% checks. By the end of January, the, ACPO criminal records office estimates that it was checking around 67% of foreign nationals arrested nationally.

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise my right hon. Friend’s interest in further business of the House, should this debate allow it to be possible. I hope he understands that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has brought a significant issue before the House. For that reason, it is right that the Government give appropriate scrutiny and consideration on Second Reading, to determine whether the Bill should pass. Because of the complexities and issues at hand—and the steps that the Government have taken and the further steps that I would like us to take as a majority Conservative Government with a focus on dealing further with issues that arise from the European convention on human rights—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough would highlight and identify this point as a relevant issue in terms of the legal challenges that can be brought to try to prevent people from being removed. That is why we specifically dealt with the issue of article 8 in the Immigration Act 2014.

[Mr Bone]

The Minister has convinced me not to proceed with the Bill, so he does not need to continue to speak indefinitely.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for indicating that he supports the Government’s approach to this important issue. I welcome the opportunity that we have had this afternoon to debate the issue. It is an issue of concern to the public and one on which the Government have rightly focused in our work to date. We wish to do more through a British Bill of Rights under a Conservative Government after the general election because we think that is necessary. I welcome the support that my hon. Friend has given the Government and I hope that he understands that, although the Government are unable to support the Bill, we recognise the issues that he highlights and why we have taken the steps that we have. The issue will continue to have the focus that I have outlined this afternoon.

[Mr Bone]

The Minister has given such a great explanation that I wish to withdraw the Bill.

Motion and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

Child Sexual Abuse (Independent Panel Inquiry)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have said to the House before that I took the decision to set up the inquiry in the way I did last July because of the very good experience of the Hillsborough panel inquiry, which had done an excellent job and came forward with a hard-hitting report, leading to further action and now inquests into the events at Hillsborough. It was a good model that those involved felt had allowed all the evidence to be taken and appropriate recommendations to be made. In the light of all the discussions and concerns, however, people have said that the inquiry should have statutory powers, and so I took this decision. I could have stood here and carried on with the previous panel inquiry, but I was willing to say, “No, it was wrong to do it that way. I am willing to start again.” That was the right thing to do. I hope all Members agree.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House. She has shown us the great courtesy of keeping the House regularly informed on this matter. The difference between an average Minister and a great Minister is that when a great Minister gets something wrong, they correct their mistake, and that is what she has done.

What will happen if a witness is compelled to give evidence but tries to use the defence that they cannot disclose the information because it would break the Official Secrets Act? What is the situation then?

[Mrs May]

There are arrangements in place for authorities to enable people to give evidence, notwithstanding that it would break the Official Secrets Act. This issue is regularly raised, however, and I will ensure that the strongest possible arrangements are in place to ensure it can happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

There is no difference between two members of a Cabinet in a Government who believe that the brightest and the best should be able to come to the United Kingdom to work. We listen to business, and when we changed the system for non-EU economic migration we made every effort to do it in a way that business applauded.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Immigration from the EU is the No. 1 issue in my constituency and across north Northamptonshire. The Prime Minister is the only party leader who will make any attempt to reduce immigration from the EU, and he has given a further guarantee that if he fails to do that the British people will have the chance to vote in a referendum by 2017 to get out of the EU. I am looking forward to that referendum; is the Home Secretary, and might she be voting to come out?

[Mrs May]

rose—

Resettlement of Vulnerable Syrian Refugees

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The scheme operates in close conjunction with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. We judged it best to contribute through a complementary scheme, working in partnership with the UNHCR and focusing exclusively on the most vulnerable cases, particularly women and children at risk, those in need of medical assistance, and survivors of torture and violence. As I said, this is the first scheme of its kind in the UK with that direct focus. The UNHCR will make recommendations about those who are appropriate and suitable for the scheme, and through that complementary work we are actively supporting its efforts.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on securing this urgent question, and the Minister on the excellent way he is responding. I disagree with the Opposition, however, because surely the Prime Minister has shown great leadership not only on Syria but on overseas aid. We are the second highest contributor of aid, but I think we have been concentrating too much on the money. Will the Minister say what that money is doing for people on the ground?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point about the way that aid money provides assistance to hundreds of thousands of people. That money means food, water and shelter, and I have already mentioned the books that are being provided and other assistance to ensure that children receive an education despite their displacement from within Syria. The money is providing direct, practical, real-life assistance and we should underline work that has been done to ensure that we meet aid commitments, as well as the leadership being shown. As my hon. Friend said, I think the Prime Minister has shown leadership not only in Syria but on many other things as well.

EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, who makes a valid point that I will come on to address. There is certainly an element of truth in what he describes.

I want to pay tribute to the changes that the Government have made. I recognise that some additional checks have been introduced. However, as Fair Trials International—we should bear in mind that it has handled these cases—and, today, Liberty have made clear, those checks are wholly and woefully inadequate to stop the flow of injustices. The proportionality test is too skewed in favour of extradition; the safeguard to prevent “hit and hope” warrants is too flimsy; there is nothing to deal with mistaken identity; and, perversely, appeal rights were weakened, not strengthened. We never got a chance to scrutinise those measures on the Floor of the House, because they were slipped through in Committee. That is a shame, because I, and colleagues, would have wanted to be able to try to strengthen the safeguards. It should have been debated on the Floor of the House on Report. I twice tried to table amendments, but we were given no time.

It is crystal clear from the rising volume of EAWs that Britain receives that we will have more problems ahead. This year the number of EAWs we received reached almost 8,000—a record number. With this broad net, it is almost inevitable that more and more innocent Britons will face rough justice and be caught within it, and, as a result, be subject to Kafkaesque courts and gruesome prison conditions.

I do not think that the checks are inadequate: I know that they are, because since July, when they came into force, I have been contacted directly by another victim, Keith Hainsworth, a 64-year-old tutor of ancient Greek. In July, with his wife, he visited the Peloponnese region of Greece, where they pottered around ruins and old churches, at the time of a local forest fire. The couple’s hire car was spotted in the vicinity—by a well-known local mischief-maker, as it subsequently turned out when they got to court—and on the strength of that alone, out of the blue, he was arrested in October in France under an EAW on his way back from a weekend away in Paris. He was apprehended by British customs officials who took his passport. He was denied basic rights. He spent a month under house arrest in France. He was surrendered to the Greeks to be held in awful conditions for 30 hours. He was charged for a bottle of water. That is what you get as a Brit abroad in some of these jails. When he finally faced a Greek judge, the court was in almost comic disarray at the farce that had come before it and dropped the case immediately, but not without Keith Hainsworth and his family having been traumatised and subjected to a legal bill of £40,000. Let us ask ourselves how many of our constituents could afford to pay that. If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone, and nothing in the new legislation will stop it.

I want to pick up on a point made by the former Justice Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is no longer in his place. Ministers have been very candid in saying that there has been no renegotiation of the EU framework decision because there is no renegotiation to be had. It is clear that there is no possibility of revising the framework decision. I might take a different view if there were, but that is not on the cards. That tells us that we have a stark choice: either we opt out and negotiate a bespoke extradition treaty with the EU, as one member not 27, that allows streamlined extradition—no one wants to go back to the bureaucracy of the past—but with proper safeguards, or, mark my words, we will continue to hang our constituents and British citizens out to dry. The Home Secretary made it very clear today that there is a legal basis on which to do that; the issue is political will, on our side and on the EU side.

We have heard a string of scare stories about the operational cliff edge that police would face if we opt out, but no one is suggesting that we opt out and do nothing. That is not a serious suggestion by anyone in this House, so we do not need to dwell on it for too long. If someone wants to intervene on me, I would be happy to take a question on that. We cannot have it both ways. It cannot be suggested that Britain would somehow become a safe haven for the worst criminals if we are outside the EAW, when that is precisely why all our EU partners have a strong mutual interest in agreeing a new extradition relationship, as long as we had made our position clear.

This debate is not just about extradition; it is about something far bigger. Everyone wants strong operational co-operation with our EU partners, but we are a global nation and we should be able to do that, as we do with many partners from around the world, without sacrificing democratic control. Why is it only with our EU partners that giving up democratic control, whether to the ECJ or to harmonise laws, is the strict red-line condition on co-operation, when it is not such a condition with the Australians, the Canadians or the Americans?

The long-term direction of travel is very clear, as Viviane Reding set out in a speech for the Commission last year.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. When the three Front Benches agree on a law, is it not normally a bad one?

[Mr Raab]

I take my hon. Friend’s point, but it does not matter how many people agree—or how many law enforcement people stand up and do the bidding of whoever—because our job is to scrutinise the proposals. I must tell him that very few people who support opting in have given me examples of victims to whom they have spoken. When I sat on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I spoke to a range of victims, and others now approach me regularly. What has been lost in this debate is not only their voice, which is why it is so important that we are having the debate, but the systemic nature of the problems.

In the time available, I want briefly to make it clear that the direction of travel is very obvious. The Commission makes no secret of the fact that we are heading towards a pan-European code and an EU public prosecutor, with the ECJ presiding and ultimate accountability being to an EU Justice Minister. We see such stepping stones being paved in the package of measures that we are opting in to. We see it with the new EU public prosecutor, and Jonathan Fisher QC has made it clear that our opt-out from it is in tatters and is already ineffective. If we do not take this opportunity to step back, when will we get a better moment to renegotiate our relationship in this vital area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Michael Ellis]

I will.

[Mr Bone]

Does my hon. Friend share the concern that this is a slippery slope to a pan-European judicial system?

[Michael Ellis]

I consider myself a Eurosceptic and I do not wish to see such a slippery slope. I wish to see criminals brought to justice. Like my hon. Friend, I do not wish to see people being allowed to use this jurisdiction as though it were a safe haven for criminals and people at large.

As a consequence of those issues, I have been satisfied that the European arrest warrant in its current manifestation provides safeguards. They are never going to be perfect. Sadly, we do not have a perfect system. No such system exists where it is operated by human beings because we are not perfect. There will occasionally be miscarriages of justice, but to wipe out the whole process of expedition that now exists, because of the arrangements that have been made, seems illogical, unnecessary and not to be in the wider interests of justice. Therefore, I support the Government and their measures on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

That is an intervention that could be made only by my hon. Friend.

I value the sovereignty of Parliament and the supremacy of the courts, so it may surprise Members that I have come to this conclusion, but in recent weeks I have heard and read many fine words, including contributions to the debates today and last week. I have listened with great interest to learned contributions from lawyers and Select Committee Chairmen and to good constitutional arguments and instinctively I tend to support them, but on this occasion, as with everything, it is a question of balance. One of the roles we perform here in this Chamber is to articulate the concerns of those we represent, and on this matter, although I represent an area that is by a large margin Eurosceptic, I am quite certain I am speaking for my constituents, because—[Interruption.] I am speaking for them because this is an arrangement that allows for speedy extradition, and in the modern world the aim must be to protect my constituents from the threats of terrorism and a whole range of serious criminals.

As has already been said in the debate, this is a law and order issue. My reservations are laid to rest when I note the comments of my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, who said in this House on 7 April:

“We have a sensible package. We have sought to operate in the national interest and to reflect the views of the law enforcement community about what it needs to fight organised crime. I am clear that I do not want, and will not tolerate, the idea of us becoming part of a Europeanised justice system.”—[Official Report, 7 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 93.]

I share those views, but—[Interruption.] I share those views, but I ask whether it is beneficial to make it easier to tackle cross-border crime, and of course the answer is yes, and whether it is beneficial for our law enforcement agencies to make it easier to bring serious international criminals to justice, and of course the answer is yes.

It is unacceptable that attempts at extradition should go on year after year after year. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Martin Vickers]

No, I must continue.

Action has been taken to ensure that an arrest warrant cannot be used for minor offences. An arrest warrant will also be refused if all or part of the alleged crime took place in the UK and it is not a criminal offence in the UK.

The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said that many issues could have been debated today, and I am staggered that an Opposition should use their Opposition time to debate a motion in support of the Government. They have a whole range of issues that they could mention. It is somewhat bizarre that with this motion, when 500 or so of us are going to troop through the Lobby in favour, they choose their time to highlight their own weaknesses. Their weakness is of course that they have no coherent alternative to the current Government’s economic policies.

I reaffirm my opposition to membership of the EU, but I have always taken the view that—[Interruption.] I have always taken the view that while we are a member of that organisation, we should use its structures and powers to benefit this country. [Interruption.] We may as well say we are not going to accept its money if it wants to give us a grant from the social fund or wherever. [Interruption.] My original opposition to the then Common Market and to what has evolved from that has always been one of sovereignty, but I recognise that sovereignty given away by this House can be reclaimed by this House; otherwise there would be no point in discussing a referendum or debating such issues. So on this occasion I support the Government’s decision. [Interruption.] It is a wise one, it is in the best interests of those I represent, it is on a law and order issue, and it is one I fully support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to follow a true Eurosceptic.

In my brief contribution I do not intend to expand on my concerns about the individual measures. In fact, I would welcome a number of the individual measures in this package if we were able to have the final say on them in this House and in our judicial system. But I worry about it happening in one sweep with little debate about the principle of why we are taking away parliamentary and judicial sovereignty in the area of justice and home affairs and allowing the European Court of Justice to have the final say. I am a bit surprised that that did not rate a mention in the shadow Home Secretary’s opening speech, given that it is such a big issue.

To help me to prove my point about the direction of travel that justice and home affairs matters are taking in the European Commission, I should like to quote the former European Commission vice-president, Viviane Reding. She has said:

“In the space of just a few years,”—

since the three pillars were collapsed—

“justice policy has come into the limelight of European Union activity—comparable to the boost given to the single market in the 1990s. We have come a long way, but there is more to do to develop a true European area of Justice”.

We do not talk much about that in the House. The closest we came to having a proper discussion on it was when we were talking about the European public prosecutor’s office in our debates on the European Union Act 2011, in which we discussed referendum locks. I think that all the parties agreed that that was an area of concern and a red line that we would not cross—all the parties bar the Lib Dems, of course. Now, however, the establishment of the policy is part of the EU area of justice. We must not mistake the direction in which we are heading.

Why am I concerned about giving Europe the ability to enact and police legislation in this area? Most of the EU operates under a different system of law from ours, and I do not believe that the European Commission is the body that should be making the UK’s and England’s criminal law. The European Court of Justice should not have the ability to override the primacy of this Parliament or of the English judiciary in these areas. The ECJ has become so prominent because almost everything the European Union does tends to become legally binding and eventually subject to review by EU judges or national courts acting on their behalf. That reflects a European tendency to move difficult political conflicts, such as the eurozone crisis and the EU’s 2013 fiscal compact, away from ministerial gatherings and towards apolitical groups of national experts, the legal realm and the courts.

Member states are discussing plans for a European public prosecutor, which may be created among a core group of countries under the Lisbon treaty. The European Parliament is helping to design jail sentences for rogue traders and people who do wrong in financial institutions, and the European Commission will start taking EU Governments to court over criminal justice standards from December 2014 onwards.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is making a really powerful speech. Will not tonight’s decision also signal to the country the views of MPs in relation to the European Union?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Quite possibly.

The EU now has well over 150 mainly framework decisions in the area of justice and home affairs, many of which involve intergovernmental accords. The Commission cannot yet enforce those accords and EU nationals cannot yet claim rights based on them. However, the Lisbon treaty allows framework decisions to be enforced before the courts in the same manner as single market legislation, but only after December 2014—the same time as our proposed block opt-in. We are not even opting back in to the justice and home affairs system as it operates today; we are opting in to something quite new. None the less, the ECJ has already produced around 50 judgments to do with police and justice co-operation. That is because 19 member states have already voluntarily accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, to enable their own courts be clear as to the exact scope and meaning of each individual EU crime and policing agreement. December 2014, which is just a couple of weeks away, will still represent a watershed. The ECJ will start to create a jurisprudence in an area that really should be a matter for the British courts, the British Parliament and British justice. I am afraid that I shall have to vote against the motion this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I begin by thanking the shadow Home Secretary for bringing forward this debate? In a wonderful spirit of bipartisanship, she has spared the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary their honour. Thanks to the right hon. Lady, the Prime Minister’s promise to have a debate on the European arrest warrant has been met. That shows an admirable, broad-minded, good-spiritedness although we are still some time from Christmas. I will not dwell unduly on the procedures, as those were covered quite thoroughly last week, other than to remind the House of what was said in the other place on Monday. The dissatisfaction is not limited to this Chamber. My noble Friend Lord Boswell, who is not a hard-nosed, hatchet-faced Eurosceptic, said:

“The problem now is a handling issue. The Government—particularly the Home Office—seem to be crippled by fear. Instead of encouraging a frank debate and a clear vote on their decision, they have resorted to undignified and ultimately self-defeating procedural dodges.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 333.]

That is an extraordinary statement to be made in their lordships’ House, which is a much less aggressive, more kindly place than this Chamber sometimes.

I want to move on to the substance of the issue. With seven seconds for each of the 35 articles into which we are opting, I will not try to cover every one of them; I feel obliged to stick to the arrest warrant and answer the point that the arrest warrant is not essential to extradition. It is perfectly possible to have extradition arrangements either with the European Union or with individual nation states, as we do with the United States of America. That is then outside the ambit of the European Court of Justice. It is the Court of Justice of the European Union that is at the heart of the matter. Constitutionally, it is the real problem, because all our safeguards are speculative—the Home Secretary admits that herself. It has not yet been judged by the Court of Justice as to whether those safeguards will be upheld, and there is no appetite within Europe for reforming the basis of the arrest warrant. I am glad to see the Home Secretary returning to her place.

In evidence given to the European Scrutiny Committee, it was made clear that efforts to rewrite the details of the arrest warrant to put in some of the protections did not meet with any support. When a representative of the Commission gave evidence to the Lords’ Extradition Law Committee, she said that there was no willingness to transform the arrest warrant to bring in those safeguards. The European Court of Justice, an ambitious court that has historically extended its powers to cover an increasing number of areas, will be in charge of how extradition from this country takes place from 1 December. That is very dangerous, because it risks some of those things that we in this country hold most dear; it risks people being extradited to countries that do not have habeas corpus.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is making a most powerful speech; he has persuaded me tonight to vote against this measure. As a good Tory, I always vote against Opposition motions anyway. Will he expand a little more on his point?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will speak briefly so that we can get to the wind-ups. I am afraid that his hon. Friend has shaved a minute off his time; he has 47 seconds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bone Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. All anti-Semitic acts are absolutely deplorable. I can assure her that in the last two weeks, the Home Secretary met the Community Security Trust and the Board of British Deputies.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is quite extraordinary that crime has fallen by more than a fifth in Northamptonshire since this Government came to power. Could it be because under this Government, the proportion of police officers out on the streets catching criminals and deterring crime in Northamptonshire has gone up?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Yes.

Foreign National Offenders (Removal)

Peter Bone Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

It is certainly true that a number of cases still in the system predate this Government’s coming to power in 2010, but we continue to work on those cases, as we do on the most recent ones.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My constituents cannot understand why someone who comes to this country and commits an offence that requires imprisonment is not automatically deported. It is true that things were a mess under Labour, but it is not good enough to say that we are tweaking the system; we have to get to grips with the problem. Why not just deport these people and worry about what the European Court says afterwards?

[Mrs May]

One of the changes we have made in the Immigration Act is to give us the power to deport people before they appeal, except in certain circumstances where to do so would lead to serious and irreversible harm, and I think that goes straight to the heart of what my hon. Friend is saying. However, there are cases where it is genuinely difficult to deport somebody because of lack of documentation, difficulties in being absolutely clear about their nationality, or problems with the country to which we wish to deport them actually accepting them.

Points of Order

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me some advice. I have a constituent who applied for a passport eight weeks ago and is travelling on Monday. My office tried to contact the Home Office’s hotline. My staff got through but were told that because of data protection the hotline staff could not discuss the case. I rang back, and they certainly spoke to me, and they then told me that yes, the application is in the Liverpool office and has not been looked at. But this is only a replacement passport, not a new one. My constituents tried to get an appointment to be fast-tracked; they were willing to drive to Liverpool for it. There are no appointments available. My constituents want me to find out what action I can take, Sir, to sort this out.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think the timing of the raising of this point of order is accidental. Sadly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I myself can provide him no salvation, but it may be that help is at hand. Home Secretary.

Police Reform

Peter Bone Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Given some of the instances that we have seen of reporting in the press, I recognise the comment that he makes. We have made a number of moves on this already. Some came out of the Leveson inquiry, but I had already looked at this issue, in particular better accountability within police forces for the relationships that officers have with the media. I am pleased to say that forces have adopted new guidance for their officers on when it is appropriate for them to deal with the media and when it is not.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Most police officers have the highest integrity, but there are a few crooks within the police force. When someone complains about a police force in which they have completely lost faith, and the complaint is taken up by the IPCC, they are surprised that the complaint is referred back to the same force. I welcome the Home Secretary’s review, but it is an important issue that has to be tackled.

[Mrs May]

I recognise that point. Many members of the public, whether they have made a complaint or not, are concerned about the fact that so much is referred back to the force that the complaint has been made against. We have already started the transfer of serious and sensitive cases from a force to the IPCC and have moved resources to the IPCC for that. The first cases will be heard by the IPCC this year. The review of complaints from end to end will also look at other types of complaints to ensure that at every stage the public can genuinely have confidence that a complaint against the police is taken seriously.