Foreign National Offenders (Removal)

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Andrew Percy

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Some of the higher profile cases in my constituency, particularly in Goole, relate to people who came here under the previous Labour Government’s policy of unlimited immigration from EU accession states. What I and my constituents cannot understand is how any EU national who has a criminal record can get here in the first place, or how they can remain here once they commit an offence. Is it not time that these ridiculous rules on the free movement of labour were torn up so that the system works for British people and my constituents?

[Mrs May]

I will make two points in response to my hon. Friend. First, in relation to dealing with those from the EU who have committed criminal offences, being able to exchange information and know who they are is one of the first steps. That is why the Government have said that we want to rejoin the European criminal records information system and connect to SIS II so that we have that information at the border and can act on it. Secondly, he is absolutely right that the whole issue of free movement, as the Prime Minister said earlier, is one that we feel we need to address. It is something we have been dealing with over the past four and a half years in Europe. We have made some progress in relation to criminal activity, such as sham marriages and so forth, but abuse of free movement is something we need to deal with.

Home Affairs

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Andrew Percy

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there has always been an understanding, but the problem is that, sadly, people do not see enough clarity in legislation to give them the confidence that that is the case. Indeed, they sometimes see reports of cases where the opposite has been the case. It is, therefore, important to give greater clarity in the law and that is what the Bill will do.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I spend a lot of my time as a community first responder with the ambulance service in Yorkshire, and when I turn up at emergencies, I often find that people are unwilling to involve themselves because, although the law may well protect them, they do not feel that it will do so. Therefore, I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill and offer the Home Secretary my experience as an example of why more clarity is needed.

[Mrs May]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has hit the nail on the head. The social action, responsibility and heroism Bill will, I hope, send a very clear message to everyone that they should have the confidence of knowing that they can go to help others and not fear the consequences for themselves.

Although not specifically referenced in the Gracious Speech last week, the Government intend to introduce a draft Bill to modernise the way in which compensation is paid to individuals and businesses that experience loss or damage to property caused by riots. The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 has not been updated since it was introduced. Consequently, it does not properly reflect modern society—for example, it does not cover damage to cars.

The precise detail of the draft Bill will be determined following the public consultation that I launched last week. This will build on the findings of the independent review of the Act, which was published in November 2013 and is part of our substantial work since the riots of August 2011 to ensure that compensation arrangements keep pace with modern life. It is right that we continue to protect vulnerable people and businesses from the financial impact of riots.

This Government can be proud of the reforms and legislation that we have put in place. These Bills will build on that work. They will ensure that we can hunt, prosecute and lock up the criminals behind the appalling crime of modern slavery; that we have a criminal justice system that properly punishes offenders, while being fair to the taxpayer; that we can better disrupt those who support and benefit from all forms of organised crime; and that we continue to encourage good works and good deeds.

On crime and on justice, this Government’s legislative programme is working to ensure a safe and secure Britain in which honest, hard-working people can prosper. I commend it to the House.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Andrew Percy

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman and to others who have raised the issue of the explanatory memorandums that I am sorry that it was not possible to produce them at an earlier date. We have looked at the time available for scrutiny by the Select Committees and the Scrutiny Committee, and for the second vote on the potential measures that we might choose to opt back into. The explanatory memorandums were made available last week, and they are available to the Committees in their consideration of any measures that the Government should opt into or seek to rejoin. That information has now been made available and I hope that it will be able to inform the Committees’ considerations.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on asking us to vote on this opt-out today, but I am a little confused about the question of opting back in. We on this side do not like block votes, so will we be able to vote on each individual measure when we decide whether to opt back into them?

[Mrs May]

The decision on the form that that vote will take has not yet been made, but I am well aware of the views of some Members on that matter.

I said in my statement last week:

“Following our discussions in Europe, another vote will be held on the final list of measures that the UK will formally apply to rejoin.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 177.]

But, to make this commitment absolutely crystal clear, and to reassure hon. Members who were worried about the role of the Committees in scrutinising the Government’s plans to rejoin the selected measures, we have listened to the points that were raised—I was grateful to the Chairmen of the European Scrutiny Committee and the Home Affairs Select Committee for the conversations that I had with them; the Chairman of the Justice Committee was indeed abroad—and we have tabled a new motion for today’s debate. That new motion explicitly invites the European Scrutiny Committee and the Home Affairs and Justice Committees to submit reports before the end of October, in advance of the Government opening formal discussions with the European Commission and other member states. I therefore hope the new motion will receive wide support from hon. Members across the House.

Abu Qatada

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Andrew Percy

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

This country has been trying to deport Abu Qatada since 2001. The Government acted on the first opportunity that they had to take the action necessary to resume the deportation, and we will resume that deportation when the processes in the European Court have been completed. Our view is very clear: we want to deport Abu Qatada.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

The good folk of Brigg and Goole are not xenophobes for believing that judges in this country should decide who is innocent and who is guilty. The Home Secretary mentioned the Brighton conference in her statement. Can she assure me that she and the Lord Chancellor will listen to the people of Brigg and Goole today and not to the comments of Lord McNally, who, apparently, is a Liberal Democrat and a Minister who described the debate on this matter as “unreasonable”?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is always assiduous in bringing the views of his constituents to the House, and comments that I have heard from some other Members suggest that their own constituents share those views.

The Brighton conference is considering reform of the European Court, and I think that that is important. I also think it important to remember that it is this Government who took the action that was necessary to bring about reform of the Court, something that was never done by the Labour party.

European Investigation Order

Debate between Baroness May of Maidenhead and Andrew Percy

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I can indeed assure my hon. Friend that we will look closely at the detail of this. The intention is to make it easier for prosecutors and police—and the defence—to obtain the evidence necessary for trials. She mentions the European arrest warrant, but as I said earlier, the EIO is entirely separate.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

The problem with the argument that this is simply a simplification of existing arrangements is that that argument was put forward by Labour Ministers when they were pursuing the Lisbon treaty. That is why many of us are concerned about this and will continue to believe, as we said in opposition, that it demonstrates a relish for surveillance and a disdain for civil liberties. What impact will this order have on our DNA and fingerprint databases? Will forces from Europe be able to access those databases, and if so, what will happen if the person whose DNA they have accessed proves to be innocent? We would wipe that database after a period of time, but what would be our relationship with our partners in Europe?

[Mrs May]

I can, I hope, reassure my hon. Friend on his second point. Under the data protection arrangements in the European Union, DNA samples could be held by another member state only for the same time as they can be held here in the UK. That opens up another argument about why the Government intend to change the arrangements for the DNA database and do not want to hold the DNA of innocent people for significant periods, as the Labour Government did.